I only use the O RLY because this is stupid-obvious and not completely true.
Sure, in a sense, the title of the article sums it up nicely.
But there's a reason your average half-retard doesn't stumble upon great ideas suddenly and without warning. Or your 160IQ professor at a university who goes his whole life without doing anything that changes his field.
I consider this assessment an interpretation, or rationilization of genius, to help commoners better understand how people get their ideas and form creative thought patters.
But come on. Most the people in this article make the guy that wrote it sound like a toddler hell-bent on gettin a fruit roll-up.
"I'm not saying we should let little kids do whatever they want. They may have to be made to work on certain things. But if we make kids work on dull stuff, it might be wise to tell them that tediousness is not the defining quality of work, and indeed that the reason they have to work on dull stuff now is so they can work on more interesting stuff later.
What a stupid comment. This is like Pyschology for Young Robots (subtitle: Integrating Morons Into Society Quickly).
Kids are smart enough to figure this shit out at a young age. This guy is a complete idiot.
"make kids work on dull stuff"
"wise to tell them"
"i'm not saying we should"
It's like a pussy trying to explain how to manipulate children to be worker-bees.
Disgusting.
I sort of find Directx 9.0c (or rather the next version of that) fully implemented for Windows GUI to really open up some cool possibilities.
I guess it must just be hip to make MS-hate comments everytime they try to improve their OSs. God forbid they give you anti-MS-fanboi types something so good that you are forced to shut up and revisit your position because of their innovations.
Anyone mentally coherent that can also dig out Steven Seagal movie quotes on the fly and tie them to a post justifying allowing hypothetical financial analysts to use Excel at any level they desire deserves to be on my friends list, if for no other reason than the randomness of it all.
+1 Chaos Theory
You don't need PCs in living rooms to hit "critical mass" for TV/movie downloads. The market is already there, people are already doing it to a degree that merits considerable anti-piracy activities (if it wasn't a problem, eating into market share, they wouldn't spend resources to fight it, would they?).
Even beyond that, it's a sensible assumption that sundries of devices will come out in the next 1-3 years for playing/reading files that can easily be traded over internet, wireless or otherwise. Probably even TVs themselves which will start integrating tivo-like devices, possibly with wireless internet capability. Reading data and displaying it onto a TV-screen is not going to be a stumbling block, and it won't require "pcs in the living the room". If anything the concept of a modern PC in the living room is anathema to mass-adoption.
Obviously, the ultimate goal would reduce the "viewer's" responsibility to that of a person weilding a TV remote.
The point is, if any 2-bit ass-clown on/. has theories about this, they should be well aware of it and ARTICLES shouldn't be coming out mentioning how they are suddenly concerned. That makes no sense. That'd be like being a farmer and suddenly getting concerned about the last decade's rampant use and development of food replicators.
As an side, you made my shitlist. You were at my threshold of patience after your first reply, now you're under my other threshold permanently so I don't see your posts anymore.
Changing the physical medium from 8-track to tape to dvd is entirely different. That required new players, recording devices, new standards, mass adoption, etc. Whereas digital distribution has been possible for over a decade.
Setting aside your idiotic implications, you obviously miss the point that this has been possible for 10 years already. The only thing that has changed is the speed with which transfers can take place.
Were you using computers when wav files were traded, prior to the use of mp3 compression? Anyone who missed the boat on audio transfer between computers (which got faster, and faster, and faster, with every coming month) is a moron. The subsequent realization that.avi files could easily be encoded from a number of sources isn't any more of a stretch.
And with broadband having been available and in use at most of those companies before consumer broadband, they could have easily seen it coming.
You sir, are a jackass.
What they need to do is take the efficient delivery system that's already in place, and mobilize it with a small fee and "on the fly" encoding in any format desirable. Having access to the master is a flat-fee, and each time you want a new encode, it's another fee.
I would pay the price of a movie ticket to download movies I want in high quality. If you won't give money to the companies that make movies happen, and indirectly, the artists and actors behind them, eventually, the shit coming out now will even be worse.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I put text in my project, then select the text object and click the "font selector" box. Up and down arrows thus can scroll through all my fonts, allowing me to see the different looks with all my settings, effects, and layers, etc.
Well... it's not quite that easy. It's one thing to make one 90mhz chip. It's a different story to create a system around 8 of them==with hardware and software==to run in parallel.
Maybe there is a reason Intel never made an 8x90mhz setup?
Not sure if we're using the same Google here... "to be or not be" has to have the phrase, that's the point of the quotes... did you bother looking at the results?
I think right now what is needed is a strong branding for Firefox that will create a reputation among the "tech-oriented" masses that get their information from magazines and cursory reading of pop-tech articles. How else will they truly gain ground against what many people perceive as the ONLY way to get online?
I think it's important to realize some people synonymize "The Internet" with Internet Explorer, because of IE auto-dialing, and auto connecting, as well as broad-band connections always being on and using it as default browser with windows.
Anything you do mainstream (particularly in the US) is already being done branding first and content second. Just take a look at TV.
We're dealing here with the WWW, possibly the most impressive achievement to date in terms of communication and information sharing. It's going to take some power to muddle through the masses, and you're not going to do it by sticking exclusively to principles at the expense of reaching the clueless.
The infrastructure, particularly the end-user "filter" of that information, is of critical importance. Idealism about open-source initiatives has to play tug-of-war with practical ways to get a broad following.
I hate to see something like Hubble just fall to Earth. There are EXPLORERS willing to risk their lives, and people will to risk their equipment. From what I understand NASA astronauts are WELL AWARE of the risks presented by doing such missions.
What is sad to me is that we use spin-off and related knowledge and technologies from things like the Hubble launch, but that the actual results of it seem to just be icing. It's the process of doing it that seems more important than the "End Result".
Strangely, you would think in-orbit manned repairs would really take priority (considering the amount of pricey objects up there: in life and in money). But I guess if you don't once, why would you bother to do it again?
Outer space and inner space are two of the most important human agendas. To see them back-seated to political and financial concern are reflective of our state as a people.
I'd be more interested in seeing something that would let you shoot a specific bit of information wirelessly at specific people near you. Seems like it'd be a funny way (now and then) to get to know people, by sending weird little one-liners to them from across a room. Among other possible "silent-communication" possibilities.
"I find that nerds are always using phrases such as: "Yes, that's quite intuitive to me." Don't they know that these phrases convey no useful information and only serve the purpose of making the nerd seem even more self-centered and arrogant? Sure, you can impress us and show us how smart you are, but please don't do it by telling us "golly, i'm so smart."
I felt saying it was "intuitive" conveyed useful information: the fact that I don't any real understand of the mechnics involved, but that it "feels right".
Isn't it a bit ironic for you to read into my comment and berate me for being arrogant in an inflamatory and aggressively ignorant post?
I believe the way the Lagrange points work (from what I read) is that the object "in it" orbits the lagrange point by being tugged back and forth... it's not just "sitting there at some fixed distance relative to the 2 bodies.
I hadn't ever really thought about Lagrange points before I read that article. They are both interesting and intuitive to me. That there is a spot between two gravitational bodies that creates a "dead" spot, around which an object can orbit in a tug of war.
Neat stuff. I find that more interesting than what names they have chosen for the moons.
Slashdot Mirror
I only use the O RLY because this is stupid-obvious and not completely true. Sure, in a sense, the title of the article sums it up nicely. But there's a reason your average half-retard doesn't stumble upon great ideas suddenly and without warning. Or your 160IQ professor at a university who goes his whole life without doing anything that changes his field. I consider this assessment an interpretation, or rationilization of genius, to help commoners better understand how people get their ideas and form creative thought patters. But come on. Most the people in this article make the guy that wrote it sound like a toddler hell-bent on gettin a fruit roll-up.
"I'm not saying we should let little kids do whatever they want. They may have to be made to work on certain things. But if we make kids work on dull stuff, it might be wise to tell them that tediousness is not the defining quality of work, and indeed that the reason they have to work on dull stuff now is so they can work on more interesting stuff later. What a stupid comment. This is like Pyschology for Young Robots (subtitle: Integrating Morons Into Society Quickly). Kids are smart enough to figure this shit out at a young age. This guy is a complete idiot. "make kids work on dull stuff" "wise to tell them" "i'm not saying we should" It's like a pussy trying to explain how to manipulate children to be worker-bees. Disgusting.
"Also, remember any publicity is good publicity." Well, yeah, but would you send your kids to Neverland Ranch to stay with MJ?
all that needs to be done for tv shows is to put varying bandwidth rips WITH commercials on network sites (nbc, etc) and offer super-seed bandwidth.
I sort of find Directx 9.0c (or rather the next version of that) fully implemented for Windows GUI to really open up some cool possibilities.
I guess it must just be hip to make MS-hate comments everytime they try to improve their OSs. God forbid they give you anti-MS-fanboi types something so good that you are forced to shut up and revisit your position because of their innovations.
Anyone mentally coherent that can also dig out Steven Seagal movie quotes on the fly and tie them to a post justifying allowing hypothetical financial analysts to use Excel at any level they desire deserves to be on my friends list, if for no other reason than the randomness of it all. +1 Chaos Theory
I appreciate Jon Stewart too.
What, did you read that in PC Magazine?
/. has theories about this, they should be well aware of it and ARTICLES shouldn't be coming out mentioning how they are suddenly concerned. That makes no sense. That'd be like being a farmer and suddenly getting concerned about the last decade's rampant use and development of food replicators.
You don't need PCs in living rooms to hit "critical mass" for TV/movie downloads. The market is already there, people are already doing it to a degree that merits considerable anti-piracy activities (if it wasn't a problem, eating into market share, they wouldn't spend resources to fight it, would they?).
Even beyond that, it's a sensible assumption that sundries of devices will come out in the next 1-3 years for playing/reading files that can easily be traded over internet, wireless or otherwise. Probably even TVs themselves which will start integrating tivo-like devices, possibly with wireless internet capability. Reading data and displaying it onto a TV-screen is not going to be a stumbling block, and it won't require "pcs in the living the room". If anything the concept of a modern PC in the living room is anathema to mass-adoption.
Obviously, the ultimate goal would reduce the "viewer's" responsibility to that of a person weilding a TV remote.
The point is, if any 2-bit ass-clown on
As an side, you made my shitlist. You were at my threshold of patience after your first reply, now you're under my other threshold permanently so I don't see your posts anymore.
Changing the physical medium from 8-track to tape to dvd is entirely different. That required new players, recording devices, new standards, mass adoption, etc. Whereas digital distribution has been possible for over a decade. Setting aside your idiotic implications, you obviously miss the point that this has been possible for 10 years already. The only thing that has changed is the speed with which transfers can take place. Were you using computers when wav files were traded, prior to the use of mp3 compression? Anyone who missed the boat on audio transfer between computers (which got faster, and faster, and faster, with every coming month) is a moron. The subsequent realization that .avi files could easily be encoded from a number of sources isn't any more of a stretch.
And with broadband having been available and in use at most of those companies before consumer broadband, they could have easily seen it coming.
You sir, are a jackass.
I don't understand how media companies can be so far behind on figuring out digital distribution over the internet...
I guess there must be some neocons with mod points to burn. :)
Isn't this sort of like... amateur, mostly irrelevant and re-spun news? Like Fox?
I'm certainly pumped.
===========
You are currently using 0 MB (0%) of your 1433 MB.
===========
What they need to do is take the efficient delivery system that's already in place, and mobilize it with a small fee and "on the fly" encoding in any format desirable. Having access to the master is a flat-fee, and each time you want a new encode, it's another fee. I would pay the price of a movie ticket to download movies I want in high quality. If you won't give money to the companies that make movies happen, and indirectly, the artists and actors behind them, eventually, the shit coming out now will even be worse.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I put text in my project, then select the text object and click the "font selector" box. Up and down arrows thus can scroll through all my fonts, allowing me to see the different looks with all my settings, effects, and layers, etc.
Well... it's not quite that easy. It's one thing to make one 90mhz chip. It's a different story to create a system around 8 of them==with hardware and software==to run in parallel. Maybe there is a reason Intel never made an 8x90mhz setup?
Not sure if we're using the same Google here... "to be or not be" has to have the phrase, that's the point of the quotes... did you bother looking at the results?
Seed please.
I think right now what is needed is a strong branding for Firefox that will create a reputation among the "tech-oriented" masses that get their information from magazines and cursory reading of pop-tech articles. How else will they truly gain ground against what many people perceive as the ONLY way to get online?
I think it's important to realize some people synonymize "The Internet" with Internet Explorer, because of IE auto-dialing, and auto connecting, as well as broad-band connections always being on and using it as default browser with windows.
Anything you do mainstream (particularly in the US) is already being done branding first and content second. Just take a look at TV.
We're dealing here with the WWW, possibly the most impressive achievement to date in terms of communication and information sharing. It's going to take some power to muddle through the masses, and you're not going to do it by sticking exclusively to principles at the expense of reaching the clueless.
The infrastructure, particularly the end-user "filter" of that information, is of critical importance. Idealism about open-source initiatives has to play tug-of-war with practical ways to get a broad following.
I meant to say "But I guess if you DO IT once" not "don't once" will=willing (SHOULD HAVE PREVIEWED.. hehe)
I hate to see something like Hubble just fall to Earth. There are EXPLORERS willing to risk their lives, and people will to risk their equipment. From what I understand NASA astronauts are WELL AWARE of the risks presented by doing such missions. What is sad to me is that we use spin-off and related knowledge and technologies from things like the Hubble launch, but that the actual results of it seem to just be icing. It's the process of doing it that seems more important than the "End Result". Strangely, you would think in-orbit manned repairs would really take priority (considering the amount of pricey objects up there: in life and in money). But I guess if you don't once, why would you bother to do it again? Outer space and inner space are two of the most important human agendas. To see them back-seated to political and financial concern are reflective of our state as a people.
I'd be more interested in seeing something that would let you shoot a specific bit of information wirelessly at specific people near you. Seems like it'd be a funny way (now and then) to get to know people, by sending weird little one-liners to them from across a room. Among other possible "silent-communication" possibilities.
"I find that nerds are always using phrases such as: "Yes, that's quite intuitive to me."
Don't they know that these phrases convey no useful information and only serve the purpose of making the nerd seem even more self-centered and arrogant? Sure, you can impress us and show us how smart you are, but please don't do it by telling us "golly, i'm so smart."
I felt saying it was "intuitive" conveyed useful information: the fact that I don't any real understand of the mechnics involved, but that it "feels right".
Isn't it a bit ironic for you to read into my comment and berate me for being arrogant in an inflamatory and aggressively ignorant post?
I believe the way the Lagrange points work (from what I read) is that the object "in it" orbits the lagrange point by being tugged back and forth... it's not just "sitting there at some fixed distance relative to the 2 bodies.
I hadn't ever really thought about Lagrange points before I read that article. They are both interesting and intuitive to me. That there is a spot between two gravitational bodies that creates a "dead" spot, around which an object can orbit in a tug of war. Neat stuff. I find that more interesting than what names they have chosen for the moons.