You know, my domain name doesn't seem nearly as cool anymore now that Linux nerds are using "dapper" in distro names... wait a minute, I am a Linux nerd. Crap, I guess I was never cool in the first place.
Alex Trebek: It's actually not "Swords".. these are words that begin with "S". The answer is: "Popeye is this sort of man". [ Reynolds buzzes in ] Burt Reynolds.
Burt Reynolds: What is.. Popeye?
Alex Trebek: [ sighs ] No. [ Connery buzzes in ] Sean Connery. And, remember, these are words that begin with the letter "S", not "Swords".
Bah, that's all fine and dandy, but in a land with little to no infrastructure rebuilt as yet (*ahem* telcos?) - and donated equipment the telcos really don't have a choice besides acceptance, or going to court complaining that there is unfair competition between a local gov't providing access to people that THE TELCOS CURRENTLY CAN'T SUPPORT. There is strictly no motivation here besides money on the part of the telcos. It's unfortunate and sad to see this happening.
I see what you're saying, but "optimisim" and "New Orleans" aren't really being used in the same sentence anymore. It's a good idea though, here's to hoping.
This makes me wonder how upset the Telcos & Cable providers were when Libraries (St. Louis, specifically) first brought high-speed Internet to everyone living in the city / county? To me at least, it really seems like the same thing: local government providing a service with tax money for everyone. I know why they're pissed about it: they think they're going to lose exactly one shitload of money because people can use the free Internet vs. cable / dsl at home and businesses. I for one don't really feel sorry for these companies missing out on getting some bucks from the locals. Offer a competitive service at a competitive price and people will go back to personal broadband solutions for their home.
The hardcore foil-hatters, gamers, file-sharing, and business communities will pay for their connection just because they don't want to touch the gov't tainted systems, want faster ping times, or a bigger pipe to push their data out. I mean, it's only 512 kbps and they're talking about dropping it to 128 kbps. I highly doubt (say, I'm 99% sure) using "free Wi-Fi" is a serious solution for most businesses and a lot of home users in the long run.
So in short, suck it up you penny-pinching bastards. There's no "free Wi-Fi" where I live, so you're still getting my check. Sheesh.
Hotmail was a successful webmail operation years before Microsoft bought it.
Yep. I still have my hotmail account from pre-microsoft. It's now so overloaded with spam that I only check it once a month or so to sift through the garbage...
Not really. It seems more and more Google is taking things that have already been done, and just putting their own branded spin on them, often with much better functionality. I mean, MS already did webmail, yahoo already did finance, maps, etc.
I know what you mean though. Some times it's beneficial to be a chameleon and suit yourself based on what you perceive the customer wants to see. An ISP that I worked for had "dress up day" for us phone support nerds when investors came in. What some people perceive as "business casual" is really rather interesting. But I guess I was thinking more about the political / government clients that would be looking for something from the Open Source community.
I mean, I see what he's talking about. What's the image that pops into your head when you think, "Open Source Community"? I'm pretty sure it's not something along the lines of the status quo for business, again, not that it's a bad thing.
I really see this problem as being more self-correcting, anyway. As Open Source becomes more accepted, businesses / government will become more accustomed to the ah, more eclectic, people that are providing them with the software solutions that they are / will be using. Breaking the traditional business model for software development was hard enough, continuing along that same vein with perceived professionalism based on appearance will surely have to follow. There will be some give and take on both sides but it'll balance out.
Open source has an unprofessional appearance, and the community needs to be more business-savvy in order to start to make inroads in areas traditionally dominated by commercial software vendors. (Having) a face on a project or agenda makes it attractive for politicians (to consider open source).
That is so true it's scary. Right or wrong, confidence in a product is instilled by the person presenting the product - but probably even more so in the software business. What the community as a whole seems to miss sometimes is that the people that are making the major software decisions are at best technically inept, and at worst blissfully clueless.
Given a choice between a guy in a suit with a mediocre piece of software, and the guy in jeans that hasn't shaved for two days and smells of pizza with an amazing array of programs - they're going to take the suit. The marketdroids want to see success oozing from the vendor, not an air of dishevelment.
All in all, it's sad to see decisions based on quality of presentation as opposed to quality of product, but with few exceptions, that's the way it's always been - and probably always will be.
Shower. Shave. Buy some button up shirts and a pair of slacks. From my experience, this makes all the difference in the world. Like it or not - it's the way the game is played.
The series on Total War on the History Channel, where they use game engines to recreate epic battles. This seems to be a similar idea, except they're turning the mock ups into actual development scenes (before shooting them, redigitizing, and adding super special effects.) and not really using the engine for any sort of finished project.
I hope ideas like that start becoming more commonplace. I like the idea of using 3-D digital storyboarding in realtime, it sounds pretty awesome. It'll be exciting to see if this turns into more of a production tool that ends up getting used in movie and not just in the development process.
Not really... for one, they aren't *stopping* anyone in the private sector from doing it. Remember, private sector participation is driven only by profit - if it doesn't look profitable and doable, nobody will invest.
Ok, so it's not profitable or doable for the private sector. Fine. Why should we do it then? I understand there are scientific reasons such as using the moon base as a stepping stone to send a manned mission to Mars, but there's already the ISS chewing up money with the same justification. The part that irks me is that because NASA is a bureaucratic government (read tax) funded space agency, they're not exactly "chomping at the bit" to get any help from the private sector. Or any help internationally. That would only take some of the heat off of them, and do nothing to justify the pretty expansive budget they already have.
Second, in a case like this I'm happy it's NASA doing it - private ownership of a lunar base would only lead to milking it for profit and the other woes of capitalism, rather than scientific research for the greater good.
I am instantly skeptical of anything done "for the greater good". I find it much easier to believe in doing something for money, fame, or prestige than "for the people". Maybe I've just been burned by ideologists a few too many times, but that phrase is usually pretty suspect to me.
I'm damn proud of what NASA has accomplished in the past. Just pointing out that this is a pretty big project that someone has to pay for. Maybe there's another way to do this. You know, without my taxes.
Re:How about we explore something closer to home?
on
US Plans Lunar Motel
·
· Score: 1
Whatever their motives, it's the implementation of the games on the PSP that really interests me. I honestly cannot see Sony giving up any games for free, or making an inexpensive adapter to transfer games from PSOne to PSP. All signs point to reselling the games and downloading software emulation onto your PSP to play the games you just bought... again.
Anything short of making the games available for download to the PSP seems like a terribly bad move, especially with third party solutions either already in the works, or new ones sparked by the idea of PSOne emulation for the PSP. This should be a fun one to watch fizzle.
"emulator that would allow gamers to play PS titles on the PSP."
To me, this means:
1. The games are downloaded and stored on you PSP. (Yay!)
2. The games are repackaged and sold as PSP games. (Boo!)
3. I'm completely missing the point of why this matters. (Likely)
Considering all the titles available for the PSP and the ability to play PSOne games on your PS2 (acronym central) already, this seems kind of like a scare tactic towards Nintendo for offering free games on Revolution. The "Look! Look guys! We can do it too!" mentality, I guess.
Speaking of that, I'd love to see some folks in the special effects industry play around with these biometrics systems to see how easy it is to spoof someones face, or invalidate their entry in the database with make-up or whatever magic they use these days. Why are there never any MythBusters around when I need them?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess this is the "funny names" thread. In that case:
Pervy Penguin gets my vote for the first porn-centric distro.
You know, my domain name doesn't seem nearly as cool anymore now that Linux nerds are using "dapper" in distro names... wait a minute, I am a Linux nerd. Crap, I guess I was never cool in the first place.
Sean Connery: Uh.. I'll take "Swords" for $400.
Alex Trebek: It's actually not "Swords".. these are words that begin with "S". The answer is: "Popeye is this sort of man". [ Reynolds buzzes in ] Burt Reynolds.
Burt Reynolds: What is.. Popeye?
Alex Trebek: [ sighs ] No. [ Connery buzzes in ] Sean Connery. And, remember, these are words that begin with the letter "S", not "Swords".
Sean Connery: [ bangs podium, thinking ] Saber!
Bah, that's all fine and dandy, but in a land with little to no infrastructure rebuilt as yet (*ahem* telcos?) - and donated equipment the telcos really don't have a choice besides acceptance, or going to court complaining that there is unfair competition between a local gov't providing access to people that THE TELCOS CURRENTLY CAN'T SUPPORT. There is strictly no motivation here besides money on the part of the telcos. It's unfortunate and sad to see this happening.
I see what you're saying, but "optimisim" and "New Orleans" aren't really being used in the same sentence anymore. It's a good idea though, here's to hoping.
What happens when the next hurricane comes through and all the hardware "mounted on streetlights" gets blown away?
This makes me wonder how upset the Telcos & Cable providers were when Libraries (St. Louis, specifically) first brought high-speed Internet to everyone living in the city / county? To me at least, it really seems like the same thing: local government providing a service with tax money for everyone. I know why they're pissed about it: they think they're going to lose exactly one shitload of money because people can use the free Internet vs. cable / dsl at home and businesses. I for one don't really feel sorry for these companies missing out on getting some bucks from the locals. Offer a competitive service at a competitive price and people will go back to personal broadband solutions for their home.
The hardcore foil-hatters, gamers, file-sharing, and business communities will pay for their connection just because they don't want to touch the gov't tainted systems, want faster ping times, or a bigger pipe to push their data out. I mean, it's only 512 kbps and they're talking about dropping it to 128 kbps. I highly doubt (say, I'm 99% sure) using "free Wi-Fi" is a serious solution for most businesses and a lot of home users in the long run.
So in short, suck it up you penny-pinching bastards. There's no "free Wi-Fi" where I live, so you're still getting my check. Sheesh.
Lucky ducky me. POP3 for free, who knew? Thanks for the info.
Not really. It seems more and more Google is taking things that have already been done, and just putting their own branded spin on them, often with much better functionality. I mean, MS already did webmail, yahoo already did finance, maps, etc.
Just another dingus in the line of GoogleDingus®.
I know what you mean though. Some times it's beneficial to be a chameleon and suit yourself based on what you perceive the customer wants to see. An ISP that I worked for had "dress up day" for us phone support nerds when investors came in. What some people perceive as "business casual" is really rather interesting. But I guess I was thinking more about the political / government clients that would be looking for something from the Open Source community.
I mean, I see what he's talking about. What's the image that pops into your head when you think, "Open Source Community"? I'm pretty sure it's not something along the lines of the status quo for business, again, not that it's a bad thing.
I really see this problem as being more self-correcting, anyway. As Open Source becomes more accepted, businesses / government will become more accustomed to the ah, more eclectic, people that are providing them with the software solutions that they are / will be using. Breaking the traditional business model for software development was hard enough, continuing along that same vein with perceived professionalism based on appearance will surely have to follow. There will be some give and take on both sides but it'll balance out.
You sir, are the wind beneath my wings.
Thanks man!
Given a choice between a guy in a suit with a mediocre piece of software, and the guy in jeans that hasn't shaved for two days and smells of pizza with an amazing array of programs - they're going to take the suit. The marketdroids want to see success oozing from the vendor, not an air of dishevelment.
All in all, it's sad to see decisions based on quality of presentation as opposed to quality of product, but with few exceptions, that's the way it's always been - and probably always will be.
Shower. Shave. Buy some button up shirts and a pair of slacks. From my experience, this makes all the difference in the world. Like it or not - it's the way the game is played.
Funny, funny. I'm blocked by Websense from downloading this extension - or any Firefox extension from addons.mozilla.org here in the bowels of Iraq.
/. Someone has some incredibly skewed priorities.
But obviously I can still post to
The series on Total War on the History Channel, where they use game engines to recreate epic battles. This seems to be a similar idea, except they're turning the mock ups into actual development scenes (before shooting them, redigitizing, and adding super special effects.) and not really using the engine for any sort of finished project.
I hope ideas like that start becoming more commonplace. I like the idea of using 3-D digital storyboarding in realtime, it sounds pretty awesome. It'll be exciting to see if this turns into more of a production tool that ends up getting used in movie and not just in the development process.
Sure, I noticed that #757 next to your name. I just forgot my tags.
Pitfalls of the internet, I guess.
Dude, you totally must be new here.
Not really... for one, they aren't *stopping* anyone in the private sector from doing it. Remember, private sector participation is driven only by profit - if it doesn't look profitable and doable, nobody will invest.
Ok, so it's not profitable or doable for the private sector. Fine. Why should we do it then? I understand there are scientific reasons such as using the moon base as a stepping stone to send a manned mission to Mars, but there's already the ISS chewing up money with the same justification. The part that irks me is that because NASA is a bureaucratic government (read tax) funded space agency, they're not exactly "chomping at the bit" to get any help from the private sector. Or any help internationally. That would only take some of the heat off of them, and do nothing to justify the pretty expansive budget they already have.
Second, in a case like this I'm happy it's NASA doing it - private ownership of a lunar base would only lead to milking it for profit and the other woes of capitalism, rather than scientific research for the greater good.
I am instantly skeptical of anything done "for the greater good". I find it much easier to believe in doing something for money, fame, or prestige than "for the people". Maybe I've just been burned by ideologists a few too many times, but that phrase is usually pretty suspect to me.
"...outspoken NASA-hating trolls..." Yikes.
I'm damn proud of what NASA has accomplished in the past. Just pointing out that this is a pretty big project that someone has to pay for. Maybe there's another way to do this. You know, without my taxes.
What, did you forget about Sealab 2021?
Mailbox head.
TANSTAAFL
Is anyone else bothered that there is no mention of private funding or participation only, "NASA, NASA, NASA"?
Whatever their motives, it's the implementation of the games on the PSP that really interests me. I honestly cannot see Sony giving up any games for free, or making an inexpensive adapter to transfer games from PSOne to PSP. All signs point to reselling the games and downloading software emulation onto your PSP to play the games you just bought... again.
Anything short of making the games available for download to the PSP seems like a terribly bad move, especially with third party solutions either already in the works, or new ones sparked by the idea of PSOne emulation for the PSP. This should be a fun one to watch fizzle.
"emulator that would allow gamers to play PS titles on the PSP."
To me, this means:
1. The games are downloaded and stored on you PSP. (Yay!)
2. The games are repackaged and sold as PSP games. (Boo!)
3. I'm completely missing the point of why this matters. (Likely)
Considering all the titles available for the PSP and the ability to play PSOne games on your PS2 (acronym central) already, this seems kind of like a scare tactic towards Nintendo for offering free games on Revolution. The "Look! Look guys! We can do it too!" mentality, I guess.
Speaking of that, I'd love to see some folks in the special effects industry play around with these biometrics systems to see how easy it is to spoof someones face, or invalidate their entry in the database with make-up or whatever magic they use these days. Why are there never any MythBusters around when I need them?
No, that's where the Department of Homland Security Body Cavity Search (TM) comes into play.