MS is a huge force behind things in this regard, considering the volume of companies who use their software to drive their content. So it's only logical that they eventually came into the game. The flip-side is that MS has the post-bill interest, in that if this goes through, they can capitalize on solutions to help people comply. To be honest, though, having MS get into this is pretty much only a step forward. You're already doing the work on the MS platform. Why not have it protect your work for you, too? People are worried about Google, but they're browsing Google on a MS platform. You worry about the source, not the minion playing on it.
If I'm going to actually own the movie after download, then I'd accept paying close to what I pay off the shelf for. (About $12-15) If it's for rent, like netflix, where you don't actually own the film and eventually have to give it back, then something along the lines of current rentals would be fine ($2-5).
To be honest, $5-10 for a movie, is perfectly fine. It's a movie, not just a 3 minute song. Complaining about $10 is pathetic. If the industry decides to go forward with this, and they charge $10 a movie, I'll be happy. The only thing I can see them doing wrong is charging more than the physical store copy.
I was refering to the overall situation, not just this particular law.
We are getting more and more restrictions, censorships and rating laws, when it is the lack of parenting that is the root of the whole problem.
I'm tired of having to put up with all that crap because people can't parent their kids. Instead of blanketing the market with laws and ratings and all that stuff, they need to be focussing on the parents who aren't being proper parents.
And taking the games away doesn't do jack to solve the problem. If anything it makes the problem worse.
Um...gaming isn't the only reason to push technology, dude. Perhaps all you've done with your machine is game, so that's why you've missed out on the need for more processing power.
A new study concludes that parents should parent their ****ing kids!
If you have kids, they're your responsibility, parent them. If you don't want to do that, don't have kids. It's not society's fault if your kid is a mindless twit who's never been brought up correctly.
Stop punishing the rest of us for the faults of dumbasses who can't teach their kids right from wrong. Decent society does not come from rules and restrictions. It comes from doing yer damn job as a parent.
Come on, give me a break. First off, this guy is a moron. Second, does anyone in here (or in that press meeting for that matter) actually have any clue about the inner workings of NASA or space research?
For starters, the claimed 250-billion was not entirely spent on 1 thing that failed. If they spent 250-billion to make a bolt, there might be a point to this hashing, but they didn't. Of that 250, how much was lost due to setbacks, and how much was used simply because that is what it costs to do the work? Huh?
Even if the end result (the ISS and the Shuttle) could be considered failures (which I think is too blunt a comment), the technology, research, experiences, and developments that came out of this whole ordeal are not to be played-down as worthless. So you think the ISS is a failure, but what about all the parts and work that went into it? It's a literal gold-mine of new technolog and knowledge.
In short, the 250-billion was not a total waste. I'd even venture enough to say that 80-percent of that 250-billion was well spent.
People need to realize that it is not the idea of space exploration that is the problem. The high costs can be attributed (most often) to blunders and idiocies caused by the people managing the projects. What people should really be arguing about is "why things went wrong" not "space is stupid." Anyone who thinks there is no benifit from space exploration, really doesn't know what they're talking about.
The money for the NASA budget does not come from the same place as money for the schools. It comes from a governmentaly allocated fund for the nation's research and development efforts. This is totally seperate from grade-school funding.
Well, first off, broadband is becoming (or rather, is) the standard. Second, distribution by hard-copy (CD's) will still exist for those who want it (just like today). If your connection is sub-standard, you can request any download on CD from Microsoft, and all you have to pay is the shipping. If that small price is too much, upgrade and join the rest of the world.
Your results don't really mean anything, though. No one knows your traffic history. I run IE and the SP2 firewall...I get 2 malware hits from Ad-Aware a week.
"Mozilla's ability to react, find a solution and put it into the user's hands is better than Microsoft."
This from the folks who wanted us all to "run to FireFox" because it was safer than IE. Well guess what, it doesn't matter how fast you fix'em. If you have a vulnerability, you are at risk. Whether it takes a week or three months, yer still vulnerable and attacks are still happening.
What for? Because I don't think GM is trying to turn us all into slaves with On-Star?
Sounds like you could use a reality check.
But honestly, if the CIA shows up at my house because they found out I drove 16 miles to an Exxon station to buy 13 gallons of gas at 2.98 a gallon, and then halfway down the road my left headlight went out...I'll be sure to give you a call and apologize.
If you're worried about On-Star stealing your credit card number or anything like that, get a clue. More than On-Star already has it. You got the same risk there as you do with anything else.
As for suing them, if someone says "You went here, here, and here," you get to say "Prove it." And when they pull up the supposed logs from On-Star (or wherever) you now have a case.
"AT&T Directory Assistance and an intelligence agency! This agency was using the chips in parallel to listen and monitor all of the international phone conversations for key words and recording them. This was over 15 years ago and was described in Patriot games in great detail. Wake up.
"
You wake up. The NRO has been doing this for years, and is STILL doing this. It's nothing new.
Because the development of On-Star is seperate from the development of vehicles. A push for further functionality for the On-Star service is completely seperate from anything else.
First, having read the contracts/licenses/agreements/etc before signing (as I'm sure you did, smart person that you are) you would know what you're getting yourself into. Second, if they DID do something shady with confidential information, you could sue them.
Lastly, and most importantly, if you think there is a person actually physically watching everthing you do in regards to this (or anything) yer bonkers enough to be put away. These kinds of things are 99-percent handled by computers with the data never seeing the light of day.
"I have to ask why there is this fascination with having people walk around on Mars as well."
Spend some time researching the things they're looking at doing, and you'll quickly find that the benifits to science are great. It may seem palid to the average joe, but since when does the average joe have a high-end degree in astrophysics/geology?
"I admit that a human is more versatile than most robot landers but $100 billion spent on robotics research is going to come up with enough advances that many of the limitations of current landers will be forgotten."
The government already spends that much and more on developing weapons. I'm in no way dissing the defense department on that, but if the government wants to throw 100-billion towards science instead of war machines, I'd rather they spend it on science.
"The difference is robotics research has some obvious and easily exploited benefits where as the benefits of knowing how to build a moon base are somewhat harder to exploit."
One of the key points about developing a Moon/Mars base, is that there are a lot of manufacturing and development related tasks that can be done more easily and better out there, then on Earth. Not to mention that in the development of a structure that could survive on the Moon/Mars, we benifit Earth-based construction. What if developing Martian-sandstorm-proof habitats led to houses that could better withstand tornadoes? Space is the fronteer of engineering. It benifits not only our expansion into space, but our lives on Earth as well.
"I'm not saying that we shouldn't ever go just that there isn't much point in going now."
I disagree. Have you looked at the people around you lately? I want the fk out!:)
"For a start most explorers were doing it money not science. At the end of the day the quest for more money (wealth) is what drives science not a desire for a deeper understanding."
Actually, I'd say they're one in the same. Scientists do thrive on explanation and study, but like any other person, they like money, too. And hey, Velcro is cool stuff. I hope that if I ever invent something that I get disgustingly-rich off of it, too.
"Explorers of old didn't require massive portions of a nations wealth. Often it was a few ships which while not cheap probably didn't cost proportionally as much. There was also a good chance they would bring something back that would make the mission pay for itself."
Yeah, but back then if you notice, the people being sent off to explore, weren't usually that valuable (or highly regarded). The possiblity of them finding new land (and/or wealth) justifies the minor cost of the exploration, but there was little care for the safety (and/or return) of the person(s) leading the expedition. Today, unlike then, we care a lot more about the safety and success of our explorations. This translates into much more money.
"What are we going to bring back from Mars?"
Hopefully nothing!:)
But more importantly, we bring back not only incredible amounts of practical scientific knowledge and data, but the ability to expand from our planet, AND the manufacturing beinifits as well.
There's nothing wrong with NASA scientists. The wrong is in the politics and management above them. The scientists are astounding and talented people. Please don't shoot them down for faults caused by those above them.
1. The "NASA engineers" are doing an incredible job. Perhaps the shuttle sector is having problems, but if that's all you think NASA does, you need to look around. The development of unmanned spacecraft, satellites and probes, has been phenomenally successful (albiet with a few unfortunately bad events). And the fact that the shuttle engineers have kept the shuttle running is an engineering feat in of itself!
2. We already buy rockets from the Russians. All our commercial satellites are put up with their engines in our rockets. As for big rockets, though, the Russians can barely afford to opperate and launch their Soyuz rockets, let alone anything else. And they hardly have the time and money to develop the next generation moon exploration rockets.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't this guy know that this is EXACTLY like what happened when Walkmans came out? Seriously, this guy needs a bleeding life.
Possibly an indication that they're taking their time for once and solving the problems more properly?
MS is a huge force behind things in this regard, considering the volume of companies who use their software to drive their content. So it's only logical that they eventually came into the game. The flip-side is that MS has the post-bill interest, in that if this goes through, they can capitalize on solutions to help people comply. To be honest, though, having MS get into this is pretty much only a step forward. You're already doing the work on the MS platform. Why not have it protect your work for you, too? People are worried about Google, but they're browsing Google on a MS platform. You worry about the source, not the minion playing on it.
If I'm going to actually own the movie after download, then I'd accept paying close to what I pay off the shelf for. (About $12-15) If it's for rent, like netflix, where you don't actually own the film and eventually have to give it back, then something along the lines of current rentals would be fine ($2-5).
To be honest, $5-10 for a movie, is perfectly fine. It's a movie, not just a 3 minute song. Complaining about $10 is pathetic. If the industry decides to go forward with this, and they charge $10 a movie, I'll be happy. The only thing I can see them doing wrong is charging more than the physical store copy.
I was refering to the overall situation, not just this particular law.
We are getting more and more restrictions, censorships and rating laws, when it is the lack of parenting that is the root of the whole problem.
I'm tired of having to put up with all that crap because people can't parent their kids. Instead of blanketing the market with laws and ratings and all that stuff, they need to be focussing on the parents who aren't being proper parents.
And taking the games away doesn't do jack to solve the problem. If anything it makes the problem worse.
Um...gaming isn't the only reason to push technology, dude. Perhaps all you've done with your machine is game, so that's why you've missed out on the need for more processing power.
One day, I was talking to a friend on the phone and said the F-word. Later that day I was talking to my mother and said the word "Nuns".
During a private conversation, the speakers above my cubicle spouted out "F**K NUNS"...
My privacy has never been more complete!
A new study concludes that parents should parent their ****ing kids!
If you have kids, they're your responsibility, parent them. If you don't want to do that, don't have kids. It's not society's fault if your kid is a mindless twit who's never been brought up correctly.
Stop punishing the rest of us for the faults of dumbasses who can't teach their kids right from wrong. Decent society does not come from rules and restrictions. It comes from doing yer damn job as a parent.
Wait, 1-TENTH of 1-PERCENT of all the Nano's sold, has this problem.
*looks around*
Are people just freaking bored out of their minds, or have totally minor inconsistencies in manufacturing become front-page news?
Next up, a Slashdot-wide crisis concerning the flaw in one out of fifty billion CCD's. Stay tuned, we might need to panic!
Come on, give me a break. First off, this guy is a moron. Second, does anyone in here (or in that press meeting for that matter) actually have any clue about the inner workings of NASA or space research?
For starters, the claimed 250-billion was not entirely spent on 1 thing that failed. If they spent 250-billion to make a bolt, there might be a point to this hashing, but they didn't. Of that 250, how much was lost due to setbacks, and how much was used simply because that is what it costs to do the work? Huh?
Even if the end result (the ISS and the Shuttle) could be considered failures (which I think is too blunt a comment), the technology, research, experiences, and developments that came out of this whole ordeal are not to be played-down as worthless. So you think the ISS is a failure, but what about all the parts and work that went into it? It's a literal gold-mine of new technolog and knowledge.
In short, the 250-billion was not a total waste. I'd even venture enough to say that 80-percent of that 250-billion was well spent.
People need to realize that it is not the idea of space exploration that is the problem. The high costs can be attributed (most often) to blunders and idiocies caused by the people managing the projects. What people should really be arguing about is "why things went wrong" not "space is stupid." Anyone who thinks there is no benifit from space exploration, really doesn't know what they're talking about.
The money for the NASA budget does not come from the same place as money for the schools. It comes from a governmentaly allocated fund for the nation's research and development efforts. This is totally seperate from grade-school funding.
Well, first off, broadband is becoming (or rather, is) the standard. Second, distribution by hard-copy (CD's) will still exist for those who want it (just like today). If your connection is sub-standard, you can request any download on CD from Microsoft, and all you have to pay is the shipping. If that small price is too much, upgrade and join the rest of the world.
Your results don't really mean anything, though. No one knows your traffic history. I run IE and the SP2 firewall...I get 2 malware hits from Ad-Aware a week.
"8 yrs and flying"..."life can be extended for another 5 -10 years."
To all the morons who blanket NASA engineers as being worthless...
Yet another success. Shut up.
I always said they should make laptops out of metal instead of so much plastic. A nice solid titanium or aluminium laptop would be awsome.
"Mozilla's ability to react, find a solution and put it into the user's hands is better than Microsoft."
This from the folks who wanted us all to "run to FireFox" because it was safer than IE. Well guess what, it doesn't matter how fast you fix'em. If you have a vulnerability, you are at risk. Whether it takes a week or three months, yer still vulnerable and attacks are still happening.
Joint the rat-race, FireFox.
What for? Because I don't think GM is trying to turn us all into slaves with On-Star?
Sounds like you could use a reality check.
But honestly, if the CIA shows up at my house because they found out I drove 16 miles to an Exxon station to buy 13 gallons of gas at 2.98 a gallon, and then halfway down the road my left headlight went out...I'll be sure to give you a call and apologize.
If you can get 2 people in a 1-person camping sleepingbag, you can get 2 people in a sleep sack on the shuttle.
If you're worried about On-Star stealing your credit card number or anything like that, get a clue. More than On-Star already has it. You got the same risk there as you do with anything else.
As for suing them, if someone says "You went here, here, and here," you get to say "Prove it." And when they pull up the supposed logs from On-Star (or wherever) you now have a case.
"AT&T Directory Assistance and an intelligence agency! This agency was using the chips in parallel to listen and monitor all of the international phone conversations for key words and recording them. This was over 15 years ago and was described in Patriot games in great detail. Wake up. "
You wake up. The NRO has been doing this for years, and is STILL doing this. It's nothing new.
Because the development of On-Star is seperate from the development of vehicles. A push for further functionality for the On-Star service is completely seperate from anything else.
I think you need to put away the tin-foil.
First, having read the contracts/licenses/agreements/etc before signing (as I'm sure you did, smart person that you are) you would know what you're getting yourself into. Second, if they DID do something shady with confidential information, you could sue them.
Lastly, and most importantly, if you think there is a person actually physically watching everthing you do in regards to this (or anything) yer bonkers enough to be put away. These kinds of things are 99-percent handled by computers with the data never seeing the light of day.
"I have to ask why there is this fascination with having people walk around on Mars as well."
:)
:)
Spend some time researching the things they're looking at doing, and you'll quickly find that the benifits to science are great. It may seem palid to the average joe, but since when does the average joe have a high-end degree in astrophysics/geology?
"I admit that a human is more versatile than most robot landers but $100 billion spent on robotics research is going to come up with enough advances that many of the limitations of current landers will be forgotten."
The government already spends that much and more on developing weapons. I'm in no way dissing the defense department on that, but if the government wants to throw 100-billion towards science instead of war machines, I'd rather they spend it on science.
"The difference is robotics research has some obvious and easily exploited benefits where as the benefits of knowing how to build a moon base are somewhat harder to exploit."
One of the key points about developing a Moon/Mars base, is that there are a lot of manufacturing and development related tasks that can be done more easily and better out there, then on Earth. Not to mention that in the development of a structure that could survive on the Moon/Mars, we benifit Earth-based construction. What if developing Martian-sandstorm-proof habitats led to houses that could better withstand tornadoes? Space is the fronteer of engineering. It benifits not only our expansion into space, but our lives on Earth as well.
"I'm not saying that we shouldn't ever go just that there isn't much point in going now."
I disagree. Have you looked at the people around you lately? I want the fk out!
"For a start most explorers were doing it money not science. At the end of the day the quest for more money (wealth) is what drives science not a desire for a deeper understanding."
Actually, I'd say they're one in the same. Scientists do thrive on explanation and study, but like any other person, they like money, too. And hey, Velcro is cool stuff. I hope that if I ever invent something that I get disgustingly-rich off of it, too.
"Explorers of old didn't require massive portions of a nations wealth. Often it was a few ships which while not cheap probably didn't cost proportionally as much. There was also a good chance they would bring something back that would make the mission pay for itself."
Yeah, but back then if you notice, the people being sent off to explore, weren't usually that valuable (or highly regarded). The possiblity of them finding new land (and/or wealth) justifies the minor cost of the exploration, but there was little care for the safety (and/or return) of the person(s) leading the expedition. Today, unlike then, we care a lot more about the safety and success of our explorations. This translates into much more money.
"What are we going to bring back from Mars?"
Hopefully nothing!
But more importantly, we bring back not only incredible amounts of practical scientific knowledge and data, but the ability to expand from our planet, AND the manufacturing beinifits as well.
You can go remove your brain, maybe, but not me. Forget that bullcrap. And that wouldn't solve anything.
You'd still be stuck with both limitations in robotics, and the inability for machinical devices to adapt to unknown issues.
LOL...try asking an astronaut if he/she would rather have his/her brain removed and shipped to the moon, than go themselves. LOL
There's nothing wrong with NASA scientists. The wrong is in the politics and management above them. The scientists are astounding and talented people. Please don't shoot them down for faults caused by those above them.
1. The "NASA engineers" are doing an incredible job. Perhaps the shuttle sector is having problems, but if that's all you think NASA does, you need to look around. The development of unmanned spacecraft, satellites and probes, has been phenomenally successful (albiet with a few unfortunately bad events). And the fact that the shuttle engineers have kept the shuttle running is an engineering feat in of itself!
2. We already buy rockets from the Russians. All our commercial satellites are put up with their engines in our rockets. As for big rockets, though, the Russians can barely afford to opperate and launch their Soyuz rockets, let alone anything else. And they hardly have the time and money to develop the next generation moon exploration rockets.