ok, as an american i just have to respond "seriously, nobody here has a clue about israel".
we don't know about it, we think that there's just people fussing over something and muslims arguing over israeli land, but have no idea of the real situation.
it's amazing how efficient the information blackout is, and the complete ignorance of people in america about what's actually happening in the middle east. going to europe i talked to people who actually understood that it was a complex and nuanced situation with no easy solution, talking to people here they look at you like you're some kind of communist.
f*cking amazing.
not affiliated with either side, but in an age of such complete media saturation the utter lack of unbiased information about this is shocking.
also, i've noticed the more hd space i have the more i just have to keep it filled with movies, programs, crap i have stuff i downloaded, failed to sort and never got back to taking up hundreds of gigs at this point.
my main server has 2tb online right now, the download barrier for me is very low. if i see something online and had any interest in it at some point, click, boop, its queued. unlimited bandwith coupled with near unlimited storage capacity (like 5 dvd burners around) mean you get everything, and if the impulse comes by someday to check it out, meh. its a packrat mentality, but when the cost of acquisition and storage get that low expect everyone to have a few tb media library. the old paradigm of "buy what you really like cause you can't keep that much" is breaking down all over, and we should be happy. seriously, besides a few outmoded economic concerns what's to stop everyone from having either a copy or easy access to every movie made in the last 5 years, or every tv show. on demand is working on this, but it's terribly clunky as an interface, and has too small of a selection.
seriously, tv distribution is a model that evolved from the limitations of video broadcast. those kinda don't exist anymore, at least not the same "1 vhf channel per show per timeslot" kind of way. media is still profiting off the artificial scarcity, but that won't last forever. the first company that says "hey we sponsor tv shows for online download subscription" once broadband becomes really ubiquitous is going to be huge.
video killed the radio star, and then the net fired back.
should be fun to watch.
the revolution will not be televised... it will be a distributed torrent-cast.
Re:Piracy for the Sake of Piracy. A.K.A. hoarding
on
Internet Movies Before DVD
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
put me on that list.
max out 2 8mb connections and spend tons of time burning the images to dvd, but really i just like keeping track of these things.
how many good or even decent movies, or songs from 25 years ago just disappeared? how much culture is lost? looking back sure you can get a megahit album from the beatles or bob dylan, but most of the mediocre stuff that just fills the airwaves is lost. Most people would say "good riddance" but we are defined by the crap as well as the art. It will be sad if people 50 years on look back and don't realize along with the decent music we had our britney spears and nsync, because i think that horrible crap actually defines us as a real, breathing culture more than any timeless classics we produce. how much would you know about the victorian age if all you ever heard about was the works of shakespeare and such.
this seems like such a pessimistic argument, but in school when you heard all those folk songs in music class didn't they convey a greater understanding of the people vs a symphony or the national anthem. losing culture is a crime, less so for the crap, but hey, one persons ricky martin is another persons bach.
a: i was lazy and not trying to give a clear and cogent argument as much as paint a colorful picture
2: my kde keyboard settings went weird with intl keymaps, so parenthesis and apostrophes dont code properly, and/. ignores them, sorry. should be ok after a reboot now.
Large corporations usually dont lose nights of sleep when the `pro` segment of their customers, the ones who know well enough to ask for better, decide to switch to solutions that require more effort and/or knowledge.
Large corporations sell to people who know no better, and cant be bothered too. Smaller, more boutiqued, and/or specialized firms or user groups tend to cater to the everyday Joe Slob who just wants the simple music downloads and fastest pr0n access box for cheap, especially when if anything goes wrong they have other people to call up and yell at.
Seriously, nobody ever researched all the possible pros and cons of different architectures, and decided `hey, you know what? Im gonna design my mission-critical, or high-performance application on the one operating system rated to have the most extensive vulnerabilities, which cause billions of dollars of loss a year, cause well im feeling kinda lucky today.`
Know some admins I wouldnt piss on if their servers were on fire who use linux... badly, but most of the good admins i know who use windows do so because they have no choice. Seriously, EVERY pro app in engineering, accounting, and most of the other things people use in real life has an up-to-date version on windows, not so much for linux or even apple, and MSs beautiful `bundling? what bundling, its innovation` crap means any of those apps that needs a network framework needs a complete active directory or even windows PDC to work properly. Its hard to keep kids off crack when the schools serve it with lunch.
My greater fear is that over the last few years, linux has been getting better and better at being completely invisible. You can set up a linux openldap and samba system well enough that no one can tell the difference. Half the transparent gateways nowadays run some brand of linux, along with those new insta-nas boxes. Its not a bad thing for linux, but its kinda bad for linux on the desktop, because it makes the desktop part of linux the least neccessary. Windows demands a MS framework to run, linux is so nice you could slave it to a crazy, naked popcorn machine and it would work happily without a squeak.
Its not that linux has a disadvantage, MS just plays their (unfair, and greedy)advantage a lot harder on everybody else, and in the OS wars homecourt advantage is everything, ask OS/2. Bundling does hurt, just not the way youd think.
This does not need an article, the answer is simple: Lack of simple, shared application models.
If all a person needs is web-browsing, almost any os will do, but the point of a general-purpose computer is that its general purpose, and you can use it however you like. Simple app models become more specialized, and the network access anything anywhere model becomes the use linux for io or server app x, windows for gui app y, and maybe a mac for design/pub app z, cause those are the platforms specialized for each.
These are generalizations by the way, so the 50 people lining up to flame me can chill a sec. I have one of each machine running right now, and though I can do nearly everything on each of them, when it comes down to it sometimes I just need to switch over to one to get the job done. Try burning dvds the way you want (verified and with different formats) well without mac toast(or PIM stuff), or playing quickly with files on a network share without a set of linux terminals (never found a good term on a mac, and I hate winSMB, bleh), or watching funny(wmv/bad mp4) video encodes/playing games without windows.
Yes, I could probably use 1 system for all these things, but if I ever wanted to play games or prog VC++, Id need windows with a linux server, and well that just sucks, esp with 2 screens.
Its really the application holes that define OSs more than the functionality. A lack of MS Word(tm) is more likely to hold back Joe User from linux more than its incredible bounty of emacs plugins. On the other hand I gave my wife a mac mini, and never seen her so happy with a computer before.
Indeed, the 4th movement, and the 3rd are still among my all-time fave tracks, but try to get a good performance, I have a 120MB rip of the 4th movement by Bernstein, which is incredible. Cheap dime cuts are pathetic compared to a good performance (this one is the weiner phil), and just not worth it.
Been a while since I've been in a chill enough mood to sit down and enjoy them though, damn 5 second atten-hehe, i googled "boobs", hehe
god, this always brought me back, new maps, good servers, onslaught nights.
thing is, and I think this happens with all games, the older a game is, the less appealing it gets just because something "newer and improved" should be out by now, especially considering ALL the freaking graphics hype.
blame nvidia and 3dfx, for making us buy $600 cards to play new $50 games that weren't nearly as good or replayable as old games, but seem cooler and shinier.
umm, yeah, but no. Oil is amazing shit, long chain hydrocarbons, can be easily refined to other products. The idea of taking something that is insanely hard to create (the energy required to create a barrel of oil is 1000x more than you get burning it considering pressure and starting biomass), and incredibly useful and setting on fire to push your car. Plastics are a great use for oil, and moderately recyclable. Also, we cannot handle and process oil properly yet, so taking it out of the ground means spilling half of it (chemical processing, vapor loss, toxic spills) before we use it. This is less of a technical matter and more of a cost/lazyness/stupidity issue, not all kids clean their room till their mother yells at them.
Not saying force the change now, but if you keep saying "It's ok, we'll change when it's affordable" It will never be affordable till you've either run out or screwed up enough of the environment. Oh, did I mention oil tends to be a politically destabilizing influence?
very good read by the way, i recommend it to anyone, and his "Pleasure of finding things out" book which has some too. Awful smart guy for a advanced theoretical quantium physicist.
you are correct, it is also what distinguishes a system of government based on citizen apathy towards political goals, and the acceptance of the futility of trying to effect change in any way versus the ideal system of government conceived by our fore-fathers which says that the will of the people is more important than the personal will of our representatives, and the concept that all government is acheived via a mandate from the people.
Saying "yes but government is always like that", while true, is also self-fulfilling, and not deterministically valid (i hope thats a phrase).
You are also right in that you go to war with the army you have, and we did, but the army that started WW1 & WW2 had little in common with the army that ended it. In the course of 6 years modern warfare was changed, new strategies made and broken, lessons learned and applied. Germany lost because they grew less than the rest of the world which started out far behind but progressed at a far faster rate. So if you keep fighting a battle for 30 years, don't be surprised if your once shiny soldiers in matching battle armor end up being raggedy and outclassed near the end. Evolution is part of survival, and the shuttle is a 2 headed cow if there ever was one.
Is it sad that I miss skylab 30 years on? For all its limitations it's one of the few space projects that truly met its objectives in a meaningful way, and likely acted as the model for the ISS before that went crazy. Looking at NASA's run the only successes it's had have come from missions based on clear, fixed objectives that were not later edited to fit the immediate political needs of the party in office. The moonshot was simple, Skylab had a clear plan, even the mars rovers were not just crazy "Dude! We got to mars!" kinda things, where costs inevitably get out of control as objectives steadily grow over time. It's hard to change http://www.johnshepler.com/articles/kennedy.htmlke nnedy's speech saying clearly we should go to the moon to "yeah lets build a launch vehicle, oh use lockheed rockets, raytheon guidance, boeing hull, and make it also a USAF weapons platform, with anti-terrorist surveilance capabilities, and built in such a way that it encourages both evangelical christianity and supports unions".
I agree with you completely, but I still think you're wrong.
How bout congress has the hands-off approach to it's oversight of nasa. stop senators from deciding which projects to support based on the contractors coming from their state. stop forcing them to support a plan like the iss when they only have part of the launch capability available and even that is specced to be retired before completion (yes i know the russians were supposed to help, but just putting it all on nasa when they(RKA) have problems isn't a solution either).
The oversight commitees for nasa don't give a shit about space or research or astronauts lives, why do you think our new objective is suddenly "hey! lets go to mars!". poor nasa, losing the cold war hurt them most of all, the army only lost an enemy, nasa lost it's entire purpose.
i guess we need terrorists in space... ooh, or oil!!!
Who's blaming nasa? If you told the army they had to use rifle X even though it jammed every 5 shots and couldn't penetrate light body armor you couldn't blame them if they couldn't complete their mission objectives. Maybe congressional oversight of nasa should be limited so nasa can make their own calls, but I suspect their funding would suddenly and suspiciously disappear if that happened.
Ironically I'm finishing more and more of my posts with "congress is the problem" lately, bad sign.
Bringing up some theoretical ship that doesn't exist is interesting, but not relevant to the discussion right now.
we have soyuz, last i checked they had the launch capability to handle 20+ launches a year if we kept the lines running, and a loss-less record for the 15 -odd years they've been in service, even nasa considers them the most reliable human launch vehicle available. Oh, excuse me, you wanted the one with the "made in the usa" label displayed prominently.
amending comment, the second loss was caused by a failure in the shuttle's heat shielding mechanism which was caused by the foam tank, so that sentence was inaccurate.
Slashdot Mirror
ok, as an american i just have to respond "seriously, nobody here has a clue about israel".
we don't know about it, we think that there's just people fussing over something and muslims arguing over israeli land, but have no idea of the real situation.
it's amazing how efficient the information blackout is, and the complete ignorance of people in america about what's actually happening in the middle east. going to europe i talked to people who actually understood that it was a complex and nuanced situation with no easy solution, talking to people here they look at you like you're some kind of communist.
f*cking amazing.
not affiliated with either side, but in an age of such complete media saturation the utter lack of unbiased information about this is shocking.
elizabethan, victorian, both are chicks who didn't bathe cept once a year.
also, i've noticed the more hd space i have the more i just have to keep it filled with movies, programs, crap i have stuff i downloaded, failed to sort and never got back to taking up hundreds of gigs at this point.
my main server has 2tb online right now, the download barrier for me is very low. if i see something online and had any interest in it at some point, click, boop, its queued. unlimited bandwith coupled with near unlimited storage capacity (like 5 dvd burners around) mean you get everything, and if the impulse comes by someday to check it out, meh. its a packrat mentality, but when the cost of acquisition and storage get that low expect everyone to have a few tb media library. the old paradigm of "buy what you really like cause you can't keep that much" is breaking down all over, and we should be happy. seriously, besides a few outmoded economic concerns what's to stop everyone from having either a copy or easy access to every movie made in the last 5 years, or every tv show. on demand is working on this, but it's terribly clunky as an interface, and has too small of a selection.
seriously, tv distribution is a model that evolved from the limitations of video broadcast. those kinda don't exist anymore, at least not the same "1 vhf channel per show per timeslot" kind of way. media is still profiting off the artificial scarcity, but that won't last forever. the first company that says "hey we sponsor tv shows for online download subscription" once broadband becomes really ubiquitous is going to be huge.
video killed the radio star, and then the net fired back.
should be fun to watch.
the revolution will not be televised... it will be a distributed torrent-cast.
cause hey i'll hack something for that.
put me on that list.
max out 2 8mb connections and spend tons of time burning the images to dvd, but really i just like keeping track of these things.
how many good or even decent movies, or songs from 25 years ago just disappeared? how much culture is lost? looking back sure you can get a megahit album from the beatles or bob dylan, but most of the mediocre stuff that just fills the airwaves is lost. Most people would say "good riddance" but we are defined by the crap as well as the art. It will be sad if people 50 years on look back and don't realize along with the decent music we had our britney spears and nsync, because i think that horrible crap actually defines us as a real, breathing culture more than any timeless classics we produce. how much would you know about the victorian age if all you ever heard about was the works of shakespeare and such.
this seems like such a pessimistic argument, but in school when you heard all those folk songs in music class didn't they convey a greater understanding of the people vs a symphony or the national anthem. losing culture is a crime, less so for the crap, but hey, one persons ricky martin is another persons bach.
a: i was lazy and not trying to give a clear and cogent argument as much as paint a colorful picture
/. ignores them, sorry. should be ok after a reboot now.
2: my kde keyboard settings went weird with intl keymaps, so parenthesis and apostrophes dont code properly, and
ahem...
Large corporations usually dont lose nights of sleep when the `pro` segment of their customers, the ones who know well enough to ask for better, decide to switch to solutions that require more effort and/or knowledge.
Large corporations sell to people who know no better, and cant be bothered too. Smaller, more boutiqued, and/or specialized firms or user groups tend to cater to the everyday Joe Slob who just wants the simple music downloads and fastest pr0n access box for cheap, especially when if anything goes wrong they have other people to call up and yell at.
Seriously, nobody ever researched all the possible pros and cons of different architectures, and decided `hey, you know what? Im gonna design my mission-critical, or high-performance application on the one operating system rated to have the most extensive vulnerabilities, which cause billions of dollars of loss a year, cause well im feeling kinda lucky today.`
Know some admins I wouldnt piss on if their servers were on fire who use linux... badly, but most of the good admins i know who use windows do so because they have no choice. Seriously, EVERY pro app in engineering, accounting, and most of the other things people use in real life has an up-to-date version on windows, not so much for linux or even apple, and MSs beautiful `bundling? what bundling, its innovation` crap means any of those apps that needs a network framework needs a complete active directory or even windows PDC to work properly. Its hard to keep kids off crack when the schools serve it with lunch.
My greater fear is that over the last few years, linux has been getting better and better at being completely invisible. You can set up a linux openldap and samba system well enough that no one can tell the difference. Half the transparent gateways nowadays run some brand of linux, along with those new insta-nas boxes. Its not a bad thing for linux, but its kinda bad for linux on the desktop, because it makes the desktop part of linux the least neccessary. Windows demands a MS framework to run, linux is so nice you could slave it to a crazy, naked popcorn machine and it would work happily without a squeak.
Its not that linux has a disadvantage, MS just plays their (unfair, and greedy)advantage a lot harder on everybody else, and in the OS wars homecourt advantage is everything, ask OS/2. Bundling does hurt, just not the way youd think.
ya thinkin a venice there sir?
This does not need an article, the answer is simple:
Lack of simple, shared application models.
If all a person needs is web-browsing, almost any os will do, but the point of a general-purpose computer is that its general purpose, and you can use it however you like. Simple app models become more specialized, and the network access anything anywhere model becomes the use linux for io or server app x, windows for gui app y, and maybe a mac for design/pub app z, cause those are the platforms specialized for each.
These are generalizations by the way, so the 50 people lining up to flame me can chill a sec. I have one of each machine running right now, and though I can do nearly everything on each of them, when it comes down to it sometimes I just need to switch over to one to get the job done. Try burning dvds the way you want (verified and with different formats) well without mac toast(or PIM stuff), or playing quickly with files on a network share without a set of linux terminals (never found a good term on a mac, and I hate winSMB, bleh), or watching funny(wmv/bad mp4) video encodes/playing games without windows.
Yes, I could probably use 1 system for all these things, but if I ever wanted to play games or prog VC++, Id need windows with a linux server, and well that just sucks, esp with 2 screens.
Its really the application holes that define OSs more than the functionality. A lack of MS Word(tm) is more likely to hold back Joe User from linux more than its incredible bounty of emacs plugins. On the other hand I gave my wife a mac mini, and never seen her so happy with a computer before.
holy shit youre right, cong tfa.
would've assumed the moons would be out of the plane of the rings somehow. also forgot how big earths moon is compared to its primary.
man, i suddenly feel bad for all those astronomers who have to find and count the damn things.
Indeed, the 4th movement, and the 3rd are still among my all-time fave tracks, but try to get a good performance, I have a 120MB rip of the 4th movement by Bernstein, which is incredible. Cheap dime cuts are pathetic compared to a good performance (this one is the weiner phil), and just not worth it.
Been a while since I've been in a chill enough mood to sit down and enjoy them though, damn 5 second atten-hehe, i googled "boobs", hehe
... DUDE!!!
no seriously,
DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/07/01/AR2005070100611_2.html
tripmaster made the washington post (online)
Beautiful pic, never saw this one before, You can even see some of the larger asteroids in the rings.
god, this always brought me back, new maps, good servers, onslaught nights.
thing is, and I think this happens with all games, the older a game is, the less appealing it gets just because something "newer and improved" should be out by now, especially considering ALL the freaking graphics hype.
blame nvidia and 3dfx, for making us buy $600 cards to play new $50 games that weren't nearly as good or replayable as old games, but seem cooler and shinier.
No, thats silly, Darth Rove is happy behind the scenes, in the shadows. You underestimate the power of the dark side.
that gollum cackle before he tries to fry sam jackson is hilarious though.
umm, yeah, but no. Oil is amazing shit, long chain hydrocarbons, can be easily refined to other products. The idea of taking something that is insanely hard to create (the energy required to create a barrel of oil is 1000x more than you get burning it considering pressure and starting biomass), and incredibly useful and setting on fire to push your car. Plastics are a great use for oil, and moderately recyclable. Also, we cannot handle and process oil properly yet, so taking it out of the ground means spilling half of it (chemical processing, vapor loss, toxic spills) before we use it. This is less of a technical matter and more of a cost/lazyness/stupidity issue, not all kids clean their room till their mother yells at them.
Not saying force the change now, but if you keep saying "It's ok, we'll change when it's affordable" It will never be affordable till you've either run out or screwed up enough of the environment. Oh, did I mention oil tends to be a politically destabilizing influence?
very good read by the way, i recommend it to anyone, and his "Pleasure of finding things out" book which has some too. Awful smart guy for a advanced theoretical quantium physicist.
you are correct, it is also what distinguishes a system of government based on citizen apathy towards political goals, and the acceptance of the futility of trying to effect change in any way versus the ideal system of government conceived by our fore-fathers which says that the will of the people is more important than the personal will of our representatives, and the concept that all government is acheived via a mandate from the people.
e nnedy's speech saying clearly we should go to the moon to "yeah lets build a launch vehicle, oh use lockheed rockets, raytheon guidance, boeing hull, and make it also a USAF weapons platform, with anti-terrorist surveilance capabilities, and built in such a way that it encourages both evangelical christianity and supports unions".
Saying "yes but government is always like that", while true, is also self-fulfilling, and not deterministically valid (i hope thats a phrase).
You are also right in that you go to war with the army you have, and we did, but the army that started WW1 & WW2 had little in common with the army that ended it. In the course of 6 years modern warfare was changed, new strategies made and broken, lessons learned and applied. Germany lost because they grew less than the rest of the world which started out far behind but progressed at a far faster rate. So if you keep fighting a battle for 30 years, don't be surprised if your once shiny soldiers in matching battle armor end up being raggedy and outclassed near the end. Evolution is part of survival, and the shuttle is a 2 headed cow if there ever was one.
Is it sad that I miss skylab 30 years on? For all its limitations it's one of the few space projects that truly met its objectives in a meaningful way, and likely acted as the model for the ISS before that went crazy. Looking at NASA's run the only successes it's had have come from missions based on clear, fixed objectives that were not later edited to fit the immediate political needs of the party in office. The moonshot was simple, Skylab had a clear plan, even the mars rovers were not just crazy "Dude! We got to mars!" kinda things, where costs inevitably get out of control as objectives steadily grow over time. It's hard to change http://www.johnshepler.com/articles/kennedy.htmlk
I agree with you completely, but I still think you're wrong.
congressmen... pride... apathy towards real science and research... sad
How bout congress has the hands-off approach to it's oversight of nasa. stop senators from deciding which projects to support based on the contractors coming from their state. stop forcing them to support a plan like the iss when they only have part of the launch capability available and even that is specced to be retired before completion (yes i know the russians were supposed to help, but just putting it all on nasa when they(RKA) have problems isn't a solution either).
The oversight commitees for nasa don't give a shit about space or research or astronauts lives, why do you think our new objective is suddenly "hey! lets go to mars!". poor nasa, losing the cold war hurt them most of all, the army only lost an enemy, nasa lost it's entire purpose.
i guess we need terrorists in space... ooh, or oil!!!
Who's blaming nasa? If you told the army they had to use rifle X even though it jammed every 5 shots and couldn't penetrate light body armor you couldn't blame them if they couldn't complete their mission objectives. Maybe congressional oversight of nasa should be limited so nasa can make their own calls, but I suspect their funding would suddenly and suspiciously disappear if that happened.
Ironically I'm finishing more and more of my posts with "congress is the problem" lately, bad sign.
erhm, ok I did not know that. wouldn't that cover something the size of the shuttle then, i mean it's kinda big, and a rocket.
we have soyuz, last i checked they had the launch capability to handle 20+ launches a year if we kept the lines running, and a loss-less record for the 15 -odd years they've been in service, even nasa considers them the most reliable human launch vehicle available. Oh, excuse me, you wanted the one with the "made in the usa" label displayed prominently.
amending comment, the second loss was caused by a failure in the shuttle's heat shielding mechanism which was caused by the foam tank, so that sentence was inaccurate.