Yeah, what happens when we run out of space to explore within the Antarctic telescope's viewable area?
Seriously, how much freedom of movement does an orbiting telescope have? Unless the laws of gravity have changed since I took high school physics, an orbiting object cannot just stand up and walk over to whatever area it wants to be in.
" Considering that we have been accepting of CG for so long..."
No they havn't. Remember those "Star Wars" prequels that have come out recently? Remember Jar-Jar Binks? Remember the crappy reviews they got? While some CGI is needed to create the desired effects, most audiences prefer it only when neccessary. If it is obvious they are looking at a computer generated image, it just isn't as entertaining.
"Also, Movie making is horribly expensive of which Movie sets account for a good chunk of that."
And I'm sure the expensive technology and special effects teams needed for CGI play no part in that cost.
"I am tired of the idiots that run around inisiting on huge checks, yet act like total babies."
Would whiny CGI nerds be any better?
If you really hate watching overpaid people act, watch an indie.
No actually the usage of the term "Aryan race" to refer to white Germans was origionally referring to Indians as well. Its use in white supremist literature is based on a misunderstanding of the word, as Nazi are (as a general rule) not that smart.
"If you are convicted of selling drugs, the government can seize basically anything of yours whether they can prove you bought it with drug money or used it to facilitate the sale of drugs; vehicles, land, other property, bank accounts, et cetera"
Because judges have been convinced that dealing drugs makes such punishments appropriate. I have trouble seeing those judges being convinced that advertising for penis enlargers is sufficient to justify such actions.
Three branches of the government, maybe you have heard of the seperation of the powers. Congress cannot arbitrarily declare that spammers should automatically forfeit all their assets.
"Yeah, and I'm sure that their first priority was protecting their organization and making sure they continue to get funding. In other words, the report doesn't necessarily tell what's good for America - it tells what's good for the FTC. If there's overlap, it's mere coincidence."
Ok, I'll bite. How does finding that the only way a bounty system could be supported would be to have taxpayers pay the bounties keeping the FTC in business? I really want to hear this one.
Well for starters the government cannot just make up arbitrary large fines for any crime. We still have rights in the country.
You have questions about the specifics, ask the FTC. They are the ones who wrote the feasibility report. They found the only way for a bounty system to work would require taxpayer financing. I'm sure they spent more than the 5 minutes it took you to think up that post on their report.
When would you start the clock for MS? When someone in Redmond figures out something is wrong? That doesn't seem like a very good starting time. The critical part in a bug's life is between the time it is made public and everyone (good and bad) knows about it and when it is finally patched by the user. Thus when MS acknowledges the bug seems like a very appropriate time to start the clock. The only other decent time I can think of is when the bug was first coded and no one knew about it, in which case the Linux bugs go back some time as well.
I do hope you asked the same from the origional post that I was replying to. He claimed that it took longer for Windows bugs to be fixed than Linux bugs with no data backing it up. I on the other hand merely claimed that I had heard data conflicting with that and was asking for proof of his claim. Surely you wouldn't apply such a double standard to the burden of proof. I know you are better than that.
That being said, I'll look for it later this weekend and post it if I can find it.
Secure products generally make money than insecure products.
BTW, just because someone doesn't believe that OSS is the perfect solution to every problem in the world does not mean they were paid off by some corporation. Not everyone subscribes to/. groupthink.
Do you have data supporting that claim? I've seen an independent study that patches for MS security flaws actually come faster than patches for Linux security flaws (though that could be in part because MS has more practice doing so as they have many more security flaws). And don't claim that study was really just financed by MS because their eventual conclusion was that the infrequency of Linux security flaws made up for the longer response time.
Perhaps if they were actually advocating such as system as the summary claims they are. Of course in reality they are not, they just performed a feasibility report. Considering the cost they came up with, it is doubtful that you can consider this report in support of a bounty system.
Oh yes it is. It is a pyramid scheme that only works by capitalizing on the gullibility of its users. Or would you like for me to do the math and show you why such a scam would never work?
Should such legislation be enacted, the FTC (or whoever collects such tips) will have their inboxes flooded with bogus reports of spammers from people just wanting to make a few easy bucks.
BTW, editors, why don't you guys RTFA once in a while. The FTC is not recommending anything. All they did was figure out what type of reward would be needed should such a system be implemented. From the article itself:
The FTC, in a report requested by Congress, did not take a position on whether such a system was a good idea.
So because it doesn't block every attack it is no safer? Driving sober won't stop every automobile accident, that doesn't mean we should all just go out, get wasted, and get behind the wheel. Even if the browser doesn't guarentee complete security, clearly it can still be a better alternative than IE.
BTW, shame on whoever modded the parent troll. We can have an intelligent debate here over the relative merits of using Firefox instead of IE. Disagreeing with popular opinion on/. does not make one a troll.
On slashdot someone will complain that this charitable act is just an attempt to push his company's products on college students and the mods will make it +5 insightful.
Where the hell are you buying? At the local grocery store in Virginia I can buy a 12 pack of Coors or Bud Light for $7 or $8. And cheaper beer goes for maybe $4 or $5 for a 12 pack. Six packs $3-$5. I know the cost probably varies a lot from state to state, but either that must be some high quality beer or you are getting ripped off.
Ok, that works to keep up with differences between daytime usage and nighttime usage (with a relatively short 24 hour cycle). But will that scale when the problem is that we have to prepare for when we may go for long periods of time with little wind?
Thats the verb form of the word, we are clearly talking about the noun form. Yes, the frequent use of certain nouns often cause us to use them in a verb form related to the origional noun (such as "I'm googling for information on spam") and even in situations where the origional noun wouldn't make sense, but that does not change the definition of the noun "Spam".
Besides, even if you expand the definition to fit any unsolicitated advertisement, the first spam still wasn't 100 years ago. It was much older when merchants would yell out advertisements for their product.
And spamming Google still doesn't make any sense, Google is not a mailing list, individual, or newsgroup.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, how much freedom of movement does an orbiting telescope have? Unless the laws of gravity have changed since I took high school physics, an orbiting object cannot just stand up and walk over to whatever area it wants to be in.
Yeah, NASA should sue him for infringing on their patent.
I get it. That was supposed to be a joke. You may want to make that clearer next time, a number of people took your post seriously.
No they havn't. Remember those "Star Wars" prequels that have come out recently? Remember Jar-Jar Binks? Remember the crappy reviews they got? While some CGI is needed to create the desired effects, most audiences prefer it only when neccessary. If it is obvious they are looking at a computer generated image, it just isn't as entertaining.
"Also, Movie making is horribly expensive of which Movie sets account for a good chunk of that."
And I'm sure the expensive technology and special effects teams needed for CGI play no part in that cost.
"I am tired of the idiots that run around inisiting on huge checks, yet act like total babies."
Would whiny CGI nerds be any better?
If you really hate watching overpaid people act, watch an indie.
You are not just an annoying troll, but an annoying neo-Nazi troll.
Oh well, sorry if that last post hurt your feelings. Wait..., no I'm not sorry. Truth hurts, deal with it.
No actually the usage of the term "Aryan race" to refer to white Germans was origionally referring to Indians as well. Its use in white supremist literature is based on a misunderstanding of the word, as Nazi are (as a general rule) not that smart.
Because judges have been convinced that dealing drugs makes such punishments appropriate. I have trouble seeing those judges being convinced that advertising for penis enlargers is sufficient to justify such actions.
Three branches of the government, maybe you have heard of the seperation of the powers. Congress cannot arbitrarily declare that spammers should automatically forfeit all their assets.
"Yeah, and I'm sure that their first priority was protecting their organization and making sure they continue to get funding. In other words, the report doesn't necessarily tell what's good for America - it tells what's good for the FTC. If there's overlap, it's mere coincidence."
Ok, I'll bite. How does finding that the only way a bounty system could be supported would be to have taxpayers pay the bounties keeping the FTC in business? I really want to hear this one.
You have questions about the specifics, ask the FTC. They are the ones who wrote the feasibility report. They found the only way for a bounty system to work would require taxpayer financing. I'm sure they spent more than the 5 minutes it took you to think up that post on their report.
When would you start the clock for MS? When someone in Redmond figures out something is wrong? That doesn't seem like a very good starting time. The critical part in a bug's life is between the time it is made public and everyone (good and bad) knows about it and when it is finally patched by the user. Thus when MS acknowledges the bug seems like a very appropriate time to start the clock. The only other decent time I can think of is when the bug was first coded and no one knew about it, in which case the Linux bugs go back some time as well.
That being said, I'll look for it later this weekend and post it if I can find it.
BTW, just because someone doesn't believe that OSS is the perfect solution to every problem in the world does not mean they were paid off by some corporation. Not everyone subscribes to /. groupthink.
Do you have data supporting that claim? I've seen an independent study that patches for MS security flaws actually come faster than patches for Linux security flaws (though that could be in part because MS has more practice doing so as they have many more security flaws). And don't claim that study was really just financed by MS because their eventual conclusion was that the infrequency of Linux security flaws made up for the longer response time.
Perhaps if they were actually advocating such as system as the summary claims they are. Of course in reality they are not, they just performed a feasibility report. Considering the cost they came up with, it is doubtful that you can consider this report in support of a bounty system.
Oh yes it is. It is a pyramid scheme that only works by capitalizing on the gullibility of its users. Or would you like for me to do the math and show you why such a scam would never work?
RTFA. The finding of the report was that penalizing the spammers would not provide enough to finance a bounty system.
BTW, editors, why don't you guys RTFA once in a while. The FTC is not recommending anything. All they did was figure out what type of reward would be needed should such a system be implemented. From the article itself:
Way to completely miss the point of the article.BTW, shame on whoever modded the parent troll. We can have an intelligent debate here over the relative merits of using Firefox instead of IE. Disagreeing with popular opinion on /. does not make one a troll.
So if I use the phrase "John Kerry" to refer to a douche, does that mean the phrase now means "douche"? No. Thats why we have dictionaries.
"Also, spam the verb correlates directly to spam the noun."
Its related, yes. But not the same. Spam the noun is clearly defined in the definition above it.
"And while we're nitpicking, capitalizing Spam makes it meat."
Unless it is the first word in the sentence or in one of the various other situations where basic grammar rules require capitalization.
And they actually prefer using the entire phrase "Spam luncheon meat".
"vt.,vi.,n. [from "Monty Python's Flying Circus"] 1. To crash a program by overrunning a fixed-size buffer with excessively large input data....."
Well that definition doesn't fit this usage either. And it is clearly not the use of the word that is usually used.
I'm suggesting they are high enough quality for the portion of the population we are talking about.
So what, no one mods up posts like this, this, this, this, this, and, well you get the picture.
On slashdot someone will complain that this charitable act is just an attempt to push his company's products on college students and the mods will make it +5 insightful.
Where the hell are you buying? At the local grocery store in Virginia I can buy a 12 pack of Coors or Bud Light for $7 or $8. And cheaper beer goes for maybe $4 or $5 for a 12 pack. Six packs $3-$5. I know the cost probably varies a lot from state to state, but either that must be some high quality beer or you are getting ripped off.
Ok, that works to keep up with differences between daytime usage and nighttime usage (with a relatively short 24 hour cycle). But will that scale when the problem is that we have to prepare for when we may go for long periods of time with little wind?
Besides, even if you expand the definition to fit any unsolicitated advertisement, the first spam still wasn't 100 years ago. It was much older when merchants would yell out advertisements for their product.
And spamming Google still doesn't make any sense, Google is not a mailing list, individual, or newsgroup.
Actually it was. Spam is defined as unsolicited e-mail (or a type of meat). What you are thinking about is just normal junk advertising.