How about the US government ?
Seems -they- are the one promoting it...
Please, please, PLEASE everyone: STOP making the distinction between "they" as the government and "we" as the people! In the United States, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!
The worrisome part here is the seemingly growing number of people in our society that think that discrimination is okay, so long as they're not the ones discriminated against. Even if you're not currently affected by this type of legislation because you're not gay, if you enjoy freedom, please remember this quote:
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak out because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a member of the unions. Then they came for me and, by then, there was no one left to speak out for me." (German protestant minister and World War II activist Martin Niemoller)
Let's not let the U.S. start riding down the slippery slope that leads to facism. Have we forgotten the lessons from Nazi Germany THAT quickly?!?
If signed into law, as expected, the bill would significantly lower the bar for online copyright prosecutions. Current law sanctions criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for "the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more."
Isn't it enough for the xxAA to be able to use an argument similar to "it caused us more than $2,500 in damages" in order to levy the heavier penalties on people they want to prosecute? I wouldn't think that $2,500 in damages would be all that hard to prove for a leaked pre-release film or CD...
It seems to me that all this bill does is lower the bar on what is considered a felony for distribution (which was formerly 10 copies or $2,500 in worth).
So this just makes it WAY easier for the xxAA industries to go after people, as their burden of proof is just about nonexistant. All they have to prove to prosecute someone successfully now is that the media in question was in fact "pre-release". They don't even have to prove that is was actually ever downloaded...
Its hard to escape that conclusion. The problem with the alegory is that Anakin isn't Jesus but a person who has a hard life, becomes corrupted into a force of Evil and 25-30 years later finds partial redemption and perhaps does bring balance to the Force by getting rid of the Sith Master.
I've always had a hard time with this part of the storyline specifically - what exactly does "balance to the force" mean in the SW Universe? If one was going to compare it to, say, D&D, then "balance" would mean a balance of good and evil (neutral). Back in TPM and AOTC, there were a *lot* of Jedi, and not too many Sith. So does that imply that Anakin brought "balance to the force" not necessarily by redeeming himself, but by becoming a Sith and exterminating the Jedi (thus "balancing" the ration of Jedi to Sith)? Or does "balance" in the SW Universe really just mean "more Jedi, more peace, less Sith"?
and you basically have an invisible, un-fragmentable swap file that is invincible to user stupidity (I share my computer with my wife, so that last point is important. She does not have Administrator privileges on my box).
This seems unfair since I'm assuming you have admin privs on her box
If she reads that last comment, I'm thinking those rights are gonna get revoked...:)
You know, the Beatles stopped touring in their careers so they could put out a lot of classic albums. In that mindset, they wouldn't have been able to make a living recording that music.
That assumes that they didn't have any money at that point in their careers. At that point in their careers, they could live of the gobs of money they had already made. They could also sell an album just because they were the Beatles (people would buy them based on the fact that they knew it was good just because the Beatles wrote it). Plus, they were in a time where the distribution model was such that you had to tour to promote your album. That's not necessarily the case anymore.
ProTools = no more requirement for RIAA to supply you with a "professional" recording studio
Hardly! There's more to recording a good album than just having Pro Tools...jesus, that's part of the problem of why so many albums sound like crap.
Pardon my french, but no shit sherlock. There's a lot more to writing a good program than having C++ on your computer too, but if C++ cost millions of dollars to buy, and there were no alternatives, there would be a whole lot fewer C++ programmers. The proliferation of ProTools and cheap(but quality) recording hardware means that anyone can create a truly professional sounding studio out of their house without having to have millions of dollars worth of mixing software and hardware to do it.
Albums sound crappy for multiple reasons, and bad recordings is just one of them. Bad music is also one. The RIAA is a corporation where money is the bottom line, so they don't care about promoting any artist they don't think will be hugely popular. That makes for a pretty small circle of artists for a consumer to choose from.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that artists ought to attempt to distribute/promote their music on iTunes and places like that as well, but if they want to distribute their creations on a free P2P network, that's their decision, and in a free country, you should respect their right to make that decision, even if you don't agree with it.
Consider this from an artist's point of view: If someone likes the song you wrote, most likely they will want their friends listen to it. And if their friends like it, and the friends of those friends like it, and so on, you suddenly have a fan base. And when you come to their town to put on a show, they just might show up and be willing to pay for a ticket.
The eviromentalists need to realize something: people like driving big gas guzzeling cars.
I'm not the classic definition of an "environmentalist", but I'm also not someone who says "oh well if I can't convince the majority of something then I'll just give up" either. I agree with you that a lot of environmentalists don't "get it" per se, as they tend to argue the finer points of their position with people who just don't care, but a lot of environmentalist-type people DO "get it". The problem isn't that they are approaching the argument all wrong (and they are a lot of times, so I'm not excusing anyone); the problem is that the desire of the majority of US people to consume, consume, consume for happiness is so driven into our collective minds that it's going to take more than a minority of people to change that philosophy on a national (and even global) level. I completely agree with you that we are a nation of people who (at least in terms of the masses) are "trained" to believe that more stuff=more happiness, but I disagree that we should just throw in the towel trying to convince people otherwise just because it isn't currently a popular idea.
Consider this: for the past 50+ years, society has taught people that more of everything is a good thing. That McDonalds isn't the problem; it's fat people that eat at McDonalds that are the problem (and the whole "it will never happen to me" attitude). Over that time, using the logic of society, we have become the most obese nation on earth. Now, however, we are starting to realize that unhealthy lifestyles are REALLY bad for US. Not bad for "other people" but bad for OURSELVES. That's why there's the newfound interest in the "low carb" diets (low card diets are nothing new BTW), fitness shows, and other things that are rewarding healthy lifestyles and making them more popular than unhealthy ones. Check back with America in 20 years - I'll bet we're not at the top of the obesity list anymore.
This same kind of realization and transformation needs to happen with regards to the cars we drive and the resources we use (not only gasoline, but energy as a whole). Environmentalists (and then everyone else) need to start promoting the "coolness" of conservation, not necessarily from the "we're gonna die if we don't" perspective, but rather from more of a "look - everyone's conserving because it's COOL" perspective. Of course, that's the real trick, but we can't give up because it's not currently popular. At one time it wasn't popular to be a geek either...:)
This is where they are choosing to premier this trailer? Oh man, all hope is lost. Seriously though, why? What is the demographic that they are appealing to for this film? Are Anakin and Padme going to develop into some soap opera? This is soooo disappointing. Perhaps I will see the trailer once it hits the Internet, but given the fact that I have not yet seen the last Star Wars film, I don't have much hope.
Seriously, is this really a surprise to anyone? Lucas (and the rest of Hollywood for that matter) KNOWS that geeks (more specifically, 20-30 something MALE geeks) are salivating to get any glimpse of the new trailer and will sit through this chick-flick show just to see it early. This show's appeal is mosly to women, so they are attempting to (at least temporarily) expand their viewing audience to include the 20-30 something males that normally wouldn't think twice about flipping past it...
I'm glad I have a Tivo though - that fast forward button will come in REAL handy tonight...:)
Actually I got it, but thought I'd post a comment that sounded completely unreasonable and untelligible strictly for the humor factor. I was trying to poke fun at the posters that were saying things like "that means that EVERY internet transaction could be taxed, because they all include DOWNLOADS!!!"
I agree that it's a silly, unimplementable and more importantly, unenforceable idea which will get squashed before it even gains a lot of steam, but it was mildly entertaining to try and poke fun at and the people that were taking it way too seriously.
I obviously need to find a new source of entertainment. Maybe I'll run for Congress, where I can think of stupid ideas like this one and get paid for them. Yeah, that's the ticket...:)
Step 1: Read latest slashdot article - $.50. Step 2: Post comments about how lame article is - $.50. Step 3: Refresh to see comment posted - $.50. Step 4: Post another comment flaming whoever modded you down - $.50. Step 5: Refresh to see flame posted - $.50. Step 6: Realize that you just spent $2.50 to make your opinion heard - $0. Step 7: Whine aloud about free speech implications. - $0. Step 8: Move to another state. Priceless.
This reminds me of the old saying: There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
- The study tracked "video game users over an 8 year period". Meaning people who play video games. So how can the conclusion include a statistic that says anything like "x% of the non-gamers did"? According to what this post says the study included, there were no "non-gamers" involved. If they were making the distinction between gamers of violent and non-violent games, that would make a little more sense, but that should be stated along with the results.
- "The study found that among those who played games...(bold mine)". Again, how can you have "non-gamers" in a study that takes its samples from "those who played games"?!?
- "went on to have some form of violence conviction". That statement is simply too subjective to be taken at face value...what about the ones that were simply brough up on violent charges but released? What about the others who were never caught and therefore never brought up on charges at all?
BTW - A google search for "Tulane Medical video games study" produces nothing related to such a study. Where was this study published?
The point is that the results of this study, as they are presented in this post, prove absolutely nothing.
Their marketing departments will laugh at this idea wondering why they should develop a new product for a market segment of about 2000 people world wide.
Why would they have to develop a new product? All they would be doing is providing units with a kernel that does not automatically check the/var/.. directories for unknown content and delete it upon startup. I'd be willing to bet they already have those types of Tivos in their QC offices for product development and testing. There wouldn't be much marketing involved, perhaps a quiet announcement that they have an "unlocked" unit available for purchase as well...
I'd also be willing to bet that there are a lot more than 2000 people with interest in this kind of thing, and those numbers could possibly grow when other people find out about the availability of such a product.
I have 180Gb of diskspace at my disposal, the ability to skip, timeshift, record, picture-in-picture, channel scan etc that most TiVo users gloat about, with the performance being limited only by my CPU/Graphics/RAM, all of which I'd rather update than buy a new TiVo/DVR device.
While I agree that having the powerful computer do the DVR functions allows for more flexibility when it comes to upgrades, I also have a computer with tuner cards and all of the related software to do exactly what you're doing (timeshifting, commercial skip, channel scan, etc), but there's a few big problems with its functionality in practice:
1) (the main one) I can't get DirecTV on my computer, only off-the-air broadcasts. That kind of (okay REALLY) limits its functionality.
2) Even though my computer is more powerful that my Tivo (by a factor of like 50), the Tivo is still much, *MUCH* easier to use. There's no way my wife would consider "learning" how to use the computer's DVR abilities, but the Tivo functionality came pretty naturally to her. The Tivo software kicks ass.
3) I spent a WHOLE lot more on my computer than I did for my Tivo. The computer was around $1500 when I bought it and the Tivo was $99.
I honestly believe that if Tivo wants to win they should allow shell access to the box and release development APIs so people can write their own Tivo applications.
I couldn't agree more. To add to that idea, one of the main reasons that I "hacked" my DirecTivo was because I needed to implement features in it that weren't at all available in the OOTB unit (specifically the network interface and a webserver).
Here's a pretty specific example of why it was good for me to be able to modify this device: I have an entertainment center with doors on it that are completely opaque (meaning that if the doors are closed I can't get IR to the components behind them). So, instead of modifying the layout of my media center, I wrote a script that will allow me to change the channel on the Tivo (and actually do just about everything the remote can do) using a web interface on my computer (which has its IR receiver extended into the outside of the entertainment center). The computer's remote and accompanying software can then translate its commands into web scripts that are then in turn fed directly to my hacked Tivo via its webserver. There is no way I could have done any of this on an OOTB unit.
I suppose I could have done this with a third-party IR repeater, but this was more fun, and more importantly, FREE.
I suggest that Tivo, MS, and other DVR manufacturers could still market their "closed" versions for the masses of people who are willing to sacrifice feature sets for simplicity, but they should also offer more powerful units to those that want to purchase them, maybe provided that the "power" units have less of a support expectation...
I finally got my Tivo2Go system upgrade about two weeks ago (it took quite a while to come down to my unit) and I tried it out. I was absolutely dumbfounded at how slow the video file transferred over.
I don't know about Tivo2Go, but the app that I use to transfer files to my PC from my "hacked" DirecTivo (MFSFTP) isn't multi-threaded, so it basically locks up the Tivo while it's transferring the video. It sounds like the Tivo2Go application you're using might be trying to keep the resources of the Tivo available to you while it's transferring the file, which probably results in a really slow transfer. I would venture a guess that the Save to VCR function might be different because it's just another video stream and not a digitization of the video...
FTA: "For one thing, GPS can never be 100 percent reliable -- extreme weather conditions like hail or snowfall or even solar winds are known to disrupt service."
I'm just wondering - couldn't those same factors affect a captain's visibility to a lighthouse?
"With all of the advances made in electronic navigation over the last half century, the use of lighthouses as aids to navigation has certainly waned. The Global Positioning System (GPS), in particular, has transformed the art of navigation to electronic methods. Lighthouses are still used by ships as a back up to their satellite navigation aids, however, and they are used by small boats that aren't equipped with the necessary navigational electronics. Some lighthouses, which are used as range lights are still as important today as they ever were."
The Staten Island Lighthouse, for example, is the rear range light for the Ambrose Channel Range, the primary deep-draft channel into New York Harbor, and remains of vital importance to New York marine traffic."
What a way to inspire thoughtful and enlightened discussion...
"...I ran a small office's network (3-13 employees)..." "...Now, while I can understand a large company's situation is definately a bit different..."
Normally I wouldn't have even responded to this, but your points are ironic, because they actually help make my case. First, a business of 3-13 employees doesn't need standardization like a large organization does - it needs dependable, easy to use, somewhat powerful PCs for competitive prices. "Business optimized" PCs don't make much sense to really small organizations.
When you get into the larger support realm however, power and individual PC price don't weigh as much in the overall support equation, but STANDARDS do. When you are deploying a new piece of software/OS/etc to 1000+ workstations, it is of TREMENDOUS benefit to the support staff to not have to worry about every one of those thousand plus workstations having different hardware configurations. So, like I said before, "business optimized" PCs are by definition:
- not supposed to be top of the line - not necessarily the cheapest option - usually leased and not bought (so they are replaced every so often) - static in terms of their component configuration and - more easily supportable because of their static nature.
The system I picked was the Dimension, with the latest tech. But the salesman wanted me to buy the 'business optimized' OptiPlex. I pointed out that each unit was MUCH more expensive for the same power, he tried to sell me that new technology was not good for business - I should use 'proven' hardware (i.e. 1 year old chips at top prices).
First, let me say that I'm not a Dell rep and I couldn't care less where people buy their computers.
However, there is such a thing as a "business optimized" PC, and I can see the value in a business paying a premium for them. Speaking as as a person who has been charge of those who support the hardware on these things, a "business optimized" PC means a PC line whose hardware components don't change very often. I wouldn't necessarily buy into the argument that I need "proven" hardware, but having a line of PCs that don't change their overall component structure can be a very good thing in terms of supportability.
Creepy stuff. Not that the logs are all the useful -- considering just how many people and IPs will be in them. That's like getting a list of 5 million people... you can't send them all to jail and/or fine them. Or... can they?
In order for that data to do the xxIA any good, they'd still have to get the ISPs for the names of the people that had those IPs at that given moment in time (when the logs were collected). Otherwise it would be like having a list of 5 million license plates with no database to cross-reference their owners.
The more they dump into R&D, the more they can justify selling the damn things for. I'm not going to hold my breath until one of these finds its way into my living room.
But if the new LCoS units are really expensive and thus become the "must have" for wealthy techno-geeks, then the sales of televsions from the current technologies should suffer as a result, which in turn should lower their prices.
Be glad nobody's applied these concepts to an internet worm. We'd be fucked.
Well, sort of. Anyone that gets a virus like you speak about that does actual damage to the computer (and therefore prompts a reinstall/reboot/etc), will be screwed. But that same worm that destroys and/or damages the host computer won't make it far because it will be destroying its sole distribution mechanism in the process...
In this particular instance, I agree with what they're doing - you paid a certain price to watch a movie for a certain period of time. If you want to record it, go buy a copy and record a backup for your own personal use (TM).
I agree that "Pay-per-view" movie fans shouldn't be too surprised that they're not supposed to be able to keep the content indefinately. It's in the name, for pete's sake!
However, there are further reaching impacts of decisions like this. For example: I record lots of stuff off of PBS for viewing later (they air lots of stuff at hours when I'm asleep), and that stuff isn't available for purchase (at least not in the formats I need). Nova, for example, has a great collection of some really good shows, but because of their lack of budget they don't sell DVDs of the shows. I don't own a VCR, so the only way for me to be able to VIEW their content (let alone archive it) is for me to be able to record it. If I didn't have the option for recording these shows and watching them whenever I feel like it, I'd be missing a lot of good stuff simply because of the difference in my schedule with thier broadcast schedule (and the fact that I don't own a VCR).
FTA:Keeping the cache as one single unit theoretically allows each processor core to access more data in a rapid fashion. Dividing the cache, however, also cuts down on some design work.
In case it's not obvious to those who didn't read the article all the way through, it's a better thing when the memory is shared (single cache) rather than separate (dual cache).
Yes, it's better to have a single cache for performance reasons (cache "hit" rates would theoretically be higher with a single larger cache). But it's also better for other reasons too - more L1 and L2 cache (which is made using SRAM, not DRAM) is really expensive. Two cache modules mean more pricey chip$.
"Given the fact that no financial records or systems were compromised, no safety or loss of life was threatened, and no critical system corrupted, we need to balance legitimate security needs with the legitimate needs of our scientists at the Pole," the memo reads.
...Other documents show that less than two months earlier the NSF's security team was plunged into a similar fire drill when a computer intruder named "PoizonB0x" penetrated the primary and backup data acquisition servers for a radio telescope at the station called the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI), which measures properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation -- the afterglow of the Big Bang. The intruder, rated a prolific website defacer by tracking site Zone-H, used his moment of cosmic access to erect a webpage on the servers proclaiming, "I love my angel Laura."
Now, I'm not one for people snooping around in my stuff when they're not invited or anything, but consider this: The first hack modified a web page on a system that collects monitoring data (but most likely does not contain other meaningful data, like formulas), and the second intruder accessed no financial data, did not threaten safety, and did not corrupt any critical systems.
Isn't it possible that the systems that were compromised were actually left insecure, not necessarily "on purpose", but because they felt that there wasn't much of a need to secure them in the first place? They probably calculated the possible risks and decided that, if both systems did in fact only contain informational webpages or data collected from their equipment, that there wasn't much point in worrying a lot about securing them (after all, who would really care about the data besides them?).
Slashdot Mirror
How about the US government ? Seems -they- are the one promoting it...
Please, please, PLEASE everyone: STOP making the distinction between "they" as the government and "we" as the people! In the United States, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!
The worrisome part here is the seemingly growing number of people in our society that think that discrimination is okay, so long as they're not the ones discriminated against. Even if you're not currently affected by this type of legislation because you're not gay, if you enjoy freedom, please remember this quote:
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak out because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a member of the unions. Then they came for me and, by then, there was no one left to speak out for me." (German protestant minister and World War II activist Martin Niemoller)
Let's not let the U.S. start riding down the slippery slope that leads to facism. Have we forgotten the lessons from Nazi Germany THAT quickly?!?
From the article:
If signed into law, as expected, the bill would significantly lower the bar for online copyright prosecutions. Current law sanctions criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for "the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more."
Isn't it enough for the xxAA to be able to use an argument similar to "it caused us more than $2,500 in damages" in order to levy the heavier penalties on people they want to prosecute? I wouldn't think that $2,500 in damages would be all that hard to prove for a leaked pre-release film or CD...
It seems to me that all this bill does is lower the bar on what is considered a felony for distribution (which was formerly 10 copies or $2,500 in worth).
So this just makes it WAY easier for the xxAA industries to go after people, as their burden of proof is just about nonexistant. All they have to prove to prosecute someone successfully now is that the media in question was in fact "pre-release". They don't even have to prove that is was actually ever downloaded...
Its hard to escape that conclusion. The problem with the alegory is that Anakin isn't Jesus but a person who has a hard life, becomes corrupted into a force of Evil and 25-30 years later finds partial redemption and perhaps does bring balance to the Force by getting rid of the Sith Master.
I've always had a hard time with this part of the storyline specifically - what exactly does "balance to the force" mean in the SW Universe? If one was going to compare it to, say, D&D, then "balance" would mean a balance of good and evil (neutral). Back in TPM and AOTC, there were a *lot* of Jedi, and not too many Sith. So does that imply that Anakin brought "balance to the force" not necessarily by redeeming himself, but by becoming a Sith and exterminating the Jedi (thus "balancing" the ration of Jedi to Sith)? Or does "balance" in the SW Universe really just mean "more Jedi, more peace, less Sith"?
and you basically have an invisible, un-fragmentable swap file that is invincible to user stupidity (I share my computer with my wife, so that last point is important. She does not have Administrator privileges on my box).
This seems unfair since I'm assuming you have admin privs on her box
If she reads that last comment, I'm thinking those rights are gonna get revoked...:)
You know, the Beatles stopped touring in their careers so they could put out a lot of classic albums. In that mindset, they wouldn't have been able to make a living recording that music.
That assumes that they didn't have any money at that point in their careers. At that point in their careers, they could live of the gobs of money they had already made. They could also sell an album just because they were the Beatles (people would buy them based on the fact that they knew it was good just because the Beatles wrote it). Plus, they were in a time where the distribution model was such that you had to tour to promote your album. That's not necessarily the case anymore.
ProTools = no more requirement for RIAA to supply you with a "professional" recording studio
Hardly! There's more to recording a good album than just having Pro Tools...jesus, that's part of the problem of why so many albums sound like crap.
Pardon my french, but no shit sherlock. There's a lot more to writing a good program than having C++ on your computer too, but if C++ cost millions of dollars to buy, and there were no alternatives, there would be a whole lot fewer C++ programmers. The proliferation of ProTools and cheap(but quality) recording hardware means that anyone can create a truly professional sounding studio out of their house without having to have millions of dollars worth of mixing software and hardware to do it.
Albums sound crappy for multiple reasons, and bad recordings is just one of them. Bad music is also one. The RIAA is a corporation where money is the bottom line, so they don't care about promoting any artist they don't think will be hugely popular. That makes for a pretty small circle of artists for a consumer to choose from.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that artists ought to attempt to distribute/promote their music on iTunes and places like that as well, but if they want to distribute their creations on a free P2P network, that's their decision, and in a free country, you should respect their right to make that decision, even if you don't agree with it.
Consider this from an artist's point of view: If someone likes the song you wrote, most likely they will want their friends listen to it. And if their friends like it, and the friends of those friends like it, and so on, you suddenly have a fan base. And when you come to their town to put on a show, they just might show up and be willing to pay for a ticket.
This from the perspective of an "indie" musician:
P2P distribution + web advertising = no more requirement for RIAA to promote and sell your album for you.
ProTools = no more requirement for RIAA to supply you with a "professional" recording studio
ProTools + P2P distribution + web advertising = no more RIAA requirement PERIOD.
The eviromentalists need to realize something: people like driving big gas guzzeling cars.
I'm not the classic definition of an "environmentalist", but I'm also not someone who says "oh well if I can't convince the majority of something then I'll just give up" either. I agree with you that a lot of environmentalists don't "get it" per se, as they tend to argue the finer points of their position with people who just don't care, but a lot of environmentalist-type people DO "get it". The problem isn't that they are approaching the argument all wrong (and they are a lot of times, so I'm not excusing anyone); the problem is that the desire of the majority of US people to consume, consume, consume for happiness is so driven into our collective minds that it's going to take more than a minority of people to change that philosophy on a national (and even global) level. I completely agree with you that we are a nation of people who (at least in terms of the masses) are "trained" to believe that more stuff=more happiness, but I disagree that we should just throw in the towel trying to convince people otherwise just because it isn't currently a popular idea.
Consider this: for the past 50+ years, society has taught people that more of everything is a good thing. That McDonalds isn't the problem; it's fat people that eat at McDonalds that are the problem (and the whole "it will never happen to me" attitude). Over that time, using the logic of society, we have become the most obese nation on earth. Now, however, we are starting to realize that unhealthy lifestyles are REALLY bad for US. Not bad for "other people" but bad for OURSELVES. That's why there's the newfound interest in the "low carb" diets (low card diets are nothing new BTW), fitness shows, and other things that are rewarding healthy lifestyles and making them more popular than unhealthy ones. Check back with America in 20 years - I'll bet we're not at the top of the obesity list anymore.
This same kind of realization and transformation needs to happen with regards to the cars we drive and the resources we use (not only gasoline, but energy as a whole). Environmentalists (and then everyone else) need to start promoting the "coolness" of conservation, not necessarily from the "we're gonna die if we don't" perspective, but rather from more of a "look - everyone's conserving because it's COOL" perspective. Of course, that's the real trick, but we can't give up because it's not currently popular. At one time it wasn't popular to be a geek either...:)
This is where they are choosing to premier this trailer? Oh man, all hope is lost. Seriously though, why? What is the demographic that they are appealing to for this film? Are Anakin and Padme going to develop into some soap opera? This is soooo disappointing. Perhaps I will see the trailer once it hits the Internet, but given the fact that I have not yet seen the last Star Wars film, I don't have much hope.
Seriously, is this really a surprise to anyone? Lucas (and the rest of Hollywood for that matter) KNOWS that geeks (more specifically, 20-30 something MALE geeks) are salivating to get any glimpse of the new trailer and will sit through this chick-flick show just to see it early. This show's appeal is mosly to women, so they are attempting to (at least temporarily) expand their viewing audience to include the 20-30 something males that normally wouldn't think twice about flipping past it...
I'm glad I have a Tivo though - that fast forward button will come in REAL handy tonight...:)
Actually I got it, but thought I'd post a comment that sounded completely unreasonable and untelligible strictly for the humor factor. I was trying to poke fun at the posters that were saying things like "that means that EVERY internet transaction could be taxed, because they all include DOWNLOADS!!!"
I agree that it's a silly, unimplementable and more importantly, unenforceable idea which will get squashed before it even gains a lot of steam, but it was mildly entertaining to try and poke fun at and the people that were taking it way too seriously.
I obviously need to find a new source of entertainment. Maybe I'll run for Congress, where I can think of stupid ideas like this one and get paid for them. Yeah, that's the ticket...:)
Step 1: Read latest slashdot article - $.50.
Step 2: Post comments about how lame article is - $.50.
Step 3: Refresh to see comment posted - $.50.
Step 4: Post another comment flaming whoever modded you down - $.50.
Step 5: Refresh to see flame posted - $.50.
Step 6: Realize that you just spent $2.50 to make your opinion heard - $0.
Step 7: Whine aloud about free speech implications. - $0.
Step 8: Move to another state. Priceless.
This reminds me of the old saying: There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
...(bold mine)". Again, how can you have "non-gamers" in a study that takes its samples from "those who played games"?!?
- The study tracked "video game users over an 8 year period". Meaning people who play video games. So how can the conclusion include a statistic that says anything like "x% of the non-gamers did"? According to what this post says the study included, there were no "non-gamers" involved. If they were making the distinction between gamers of violent and non-violent games, that would make a little more sense, but that should be stated along with the results.
- "The study found that among those who played games
- "went on to have some form of violence conviction". That statement is simply too subjective to be taken at face value...what about the ones that were simply brough up on violent charges but released? What about the others who were never caught and therefore never brought up on charges at all?
BTW - A google search for "Tulane Medical video games study" produces nothing related to such a study. Where was this study published?
The point is that the results of this study, as they are presented in this post, prove absolutely nothing.
Their marketing departments will laugh at this idea wondering why they should develop a new product for a market segment of about 2000 people world wide.
/var/.. directories for unknown content and delete it upon startup. I'd be willing to bet they already have those types of Tivos in their QC offices for product development and testing. There wouldn't be much marketing involved, perhaps a quiet announcement that they have an "unlocked" unit available for purchase as well...
Why would they have to develop a new product? All they would be doing is providing units with a kernel that does not automatically check the
I'd also be willing to bet that there are a lot more than 2000 people with interest in this kind of thing, and those numbers could possibly grow when other people find out about the availability of such a product.
I have 180Gb of diskspace at my disposal, the ability to skip, timeshift, record, picture-in-picture, channel scan etc that most TiVo users gloat about, with the performance being limited only by my CPU/Graphics/RAM, all of which I'd rather update than buy a new TiVo/DVR device.
While I agree that having the powerful computer do the DVR functions allows for more flexibility when it comes to upgrades, I also have a computer with tuner cards and all of the related software to do exactly what you're doing (timeshifting, commercial skip, channel scan, etc), but there's a few big problems with its functionality in practice:
1) (the main one) I can't get DirecTV on my computer, only off-the-air broadcasts. That kind of (okay REALLY) limits its functionality.
2) Even though my computer is more powerful that my Tivo (by a factor of like 50), the Tivo is still much, *MUCH* easier to use. There's no way my wife would consider "learning" how to use the computer's DVR abilities, but the Tivo functionality came pretty naturally to her. The Tivo software kicks ass.
3) I spent a WHOLE lot more on my computer than I did for my Tivo. The computer was around $1500 when I bought it and the Tivo was $99.
I honestly believe that if Tivo wants to win they should allow shell access to the box and release development APIs so people can write their own Tivo applications.
I couldn't agree more. To add to that idea, one of the main reasons that I "hacked" my DirecTivo was because I needed to implement features in it that weren't at all available in the OOTB unit (specifically the network interface and a webserver).
Here's a pretty specific example of why it was good for me to be able to modify this device: I have an entertainment center with doors on it that are completely opaque (meaning that if the doors are closed I can't get IR to the components behind them). So, instead of modifying the layout of my media center, I wrote a script that will allow me to change the channel on the Tivo (and actually do just about everything the remote can do) using a web interface on my computer (which has its IR receiver extended into the outside of the entertainment center). The computer's remote and accompanying software can then translate its commands into web scripts that are then in turn fed directly to my hacked Tivo via its webserver. There is no way I could have done any of this on an OOTB unit.
I suppose I could have done this with a third-party IR repeater, but this was more fun, and more importantly, FREE.
I suggest that Tivo, MS, and other DVR manufacturers could still market their "closed" versions for the masses of people who are willing to sacrifice feature sets for simplicity, but they should also offer more powerful units to those that want to purchase them, maybe provided that the "power" units have less of a support expectation...
I finally got my Tivo2Go system upgrade about two weeks ago (it took quite a while to come down to my unit) and I tried it out. I was absolutely dumbfounded at how slow the video file transferred over.
I don't know about Tivo2Go, but the app that I use to transfer files to my PC from my "hacked" DirecTivo (MFSFTP) isn't multi-threaded, so it basically locks up the Tivo while it's transferring the video. It sounds like the Tivo2Go application you're using might be trying to keep the resources of the Tivo available to you while it's transferring the file, which probably results in a really slow transfer. I would venture a guess that the Save to VCR function might be different because it's just another video stream and not a digitization of the video...
FTA: "For one thing, GPS can never be 100 percent reliable -- extreme weather conditions like hail or snowfall or even solar winds are known to disrupt service."
I'm just wondering - couldn't those same factors affect a captain's visibility to a lighthouse?
I don't think that all lighthouses are in immediate danger of closure. This from the The National Lighthouse museum:
"With all of the advances made in electronic navigation over the last half century, the use of lighthouses as aids to navigation has certainly waned. The Global Positioning System (GPS), in particular, has transformed the art of navigation to electronic methods. Lighthouses are still used by ships as a back up to their satellite navigation aids, however, and they are used by small boats that aren't equipped with the necessary navigational electronics. Some lighthouses, which are used as range lights are still as important today as they ever were."
The Staten Island Lighthouse, for example, is the rear range light for the Ambrose Channel Range, the primary deep-draft channel into New York Harbor, and remains of vital importance to New York marine traffic."
Here's an ironic twist too: Using a GPS to find a lighthouse.
And: The GPS coordinates of many lighthouses.
"Complete and utter bullshit."
What a way to inspire thoughtful and enlightened discussion...
"...I ran a small office's network (3-13 employees)..."
"...Now, while I can understand a large company's situation is definately a bit different..."
Normally I wouldn't have even responded to this, but your points are ironic, because they actually help make my case. First, a business of 3-13 employees doesn't need standardization like a large organization does - it needs dependable, easy to use, somewhat powerful PCs for competitive prices. "Business optimized" PCs don't make much sense to really small organizations.
When you get into the larger support realm however, power and individual PC price don't weigh as much in the overall support equation, but STANDARDS do. When you are deploying a new piece of software/OS/etc to 1000+ workstations, it is of TREMENDOUS benefit to the support staff to not have to worry about every one of those thousand plus workstations having different hardware configurations. So, like I said before, "business optimized" PCs are by definition:
- not supposed to be top of the line
- not necessarily the cheapest option
- usually leased and not bought (so they are replaced every so often)
- static in terms of their component configuration
and
- more easily supportable because of their static nature.
The system I picked was the Dimension, with the latest tech. But the salesman wanted me to buy the 'business optimized' OptiPlex. I pointed out that each unit was MUCH more expensive for the same power, he tried to sell me that new technology was not good for business - I should use 'proven' hardware (i.e. 1 year old chips at top prices).
First, let me say that I'm not a Dell rep and I couldn't care less where people buy their computers.
However, there is such a thing as a "business optimized" PC, and I can see the value in a business paying a premium for them. Speaking as as a person who has been charge of those who support the hardware on these things, a "business optimized" PC means a PC line whose hardware components don't change very often. I wouldn't necessarily buy into the argument that I need "proven" hardware, but having a line of PCs that don't change their overall component structure can be a very good thing in terms of supportability.
"No word on pricing, yet."
Is that kind of like saying "if you have to ask, you can't afford it"?
P4 EE - $989
Gotta go; I have to sell a kidney or three to afford this thing...
Creepy stuff. Not that the logs are all the useful -- considering just how many people and IPs will be in them. That's like getting a list of 5 million people... you can't send them all to jail and/or fine them. Or... can they?
In order for that data to do the xxIA any good, they'd still have to get the ISPs for the names of the people that had those IPs at that given moment in time (when the logs were collected). Otherwise it would be like having a list of 5 million license plates with no database to cross-reference their owners.
The more they dump into R&D, the more they can justify selling the damn things for. I'm not going to hold my breath until one of these finds its way into my living room.
But if the new LCoS units are really expensive and thus become the "must have" for wealthy techno-geeks, then the sales of televsions from the current technologies should suffer as a result, which in turn should lower their prices.
Or so the theory goes...:)
Be glad nobody's applied these concepts to an internet worm. We'd be fucked.
Well, sort of. Anyone that gets a virus like you speak about that does actual damage to the computer (and therefore prompts a reinstall/reboot/etc), will be screwed. But that same worm that destroys and/or damages the host computer won't make it far because it will be destroying its sole distribution mechanism in the process...
In this particular instance, I agree with what they're doing - you paid a certain price to watch a movie for a certain period of time. If you want to record it, go buy a copy and record a backup for your own personal use (TM).
I agree that "Pay-per-view" movie fans shouldn't be too surprised that they're not supposed to be able to keep the content indefinately. It's in the name, for pete's sake!
However, there are further reaching impacts of decisions like this. For example: I record lots of stuff off of PBS for viewing later (they air lots of stuff at hours when I'm asleep), and that stuff isn't available for purchase (at least not in the formats I need). Nova, for example, has a great collection of some really good shows, but because of their lack of budget they don't sell DVDs of the shows. I don't own a VCR, so the only way for me to be able to VIEW their content (let alone archive it) is for me to be able to record it. If I didn't have the option for recording these shows and watching them whenever I feel like it, I'd be missing a lot of good stuff simply because of the difference in my schedule with thier broadcast schedule (and the fact that I don't own a VCR).
FTA: Keeping the cache as one single unit theoretically allows each processor core to access more data in a rapid fashion. Dividing the cache, however, also cuts down on some design work.
In case it's not obvious to those who didn't read the article all the way through, it's a better thing when the memory is shared (single cache) rather than separate (dual cache).
Yes, it's better to have a single cache for performance reasons (cache "hit" rates would theoretically be higher with a single larger cache). But it's also better for other reasons too - more L1 and L2 cache (which is made using SRAM, not DRAM) is really expensive. Two cache modules mean more pricey chip$.
FTA:
"Given the fact that no financial records or systems were compromised, no safety or loss of life was threatened, and no critical system corrupted, we need to balance legitimate security needs with the legitimate needs of our scientists at the Pole," the memo reads.
...Other documents show that less than two months earlier the NSF's security team was plunged into a similar fire drill when a computer intruder named "PoizonB0x" penetrated the primary and backup data acquisition servers for a radio telescope at the station called the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI), which measures properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation -- the afterglow of the Big Bang. The intruder, rated a prolific website defacer by tracking site Zone-H, used his moment of cosmic access to erect a webpage on the servers proclaiming, "I love my angel Laura."
Now, I'm not one for people snooping around in my stuff when they're not invited or anything, but consider this: The first hack modified a web page on a system that collects monitoring data (but most likely does not contain other meaningful data, like formulas), and the second intruder accessed no financial data, did not threaten safety, and did not corrupt any critical systems.
Isn't it possible that the systems that were compromised were actually left insecure, not necessarily "on purpose", but because they felt that there wasn't much of a need to secure them in the first place? They probably calculated the possible risks and decided that, if both systems did in fact only contain informational webpages or data collected from their equipment, that there wasn't much point in worrying a lot about securing them (after all, who would really care about the data besides them?).