My thoughts on this are, "What does it prove?" Most people who knowingly pirated their copy of XP are, of course, going to opt out of this voluntary system check. Therefore, the results are only going to really paint a (rather fuzzy) picture of how many people believe they're legal XP users, yet really aren't, versus. people who really do own legal copies.
Is that what Microsoft might be after? This strikes me as an attempt to get a better idea of how many people are selling end-users new computers preloaded with XP, yet they're really just preloading pirated copies.
IMHO, Microsoft's attempt to control this by requiring the holographic sticker with the key-code to be placed on the back or side of the PC itself has only added confusion for most people. In the past, end-users learned that they should demand an original installation CD with their machine purchase, because otherwise, they very well might be getting a pirated copy of the OS on their system - or at least, risking their legal copy and license key being resold a second time to another buyer.
Now, most people are accepting the concept that you don't really get a full install CD with your machine purchase. You *may* get some type of "system restore" disc, that half the time, they're afraid to use - lest it wipe out important existing documents and data on the hard drive. They're probably much *less* aware that the sticker HAS to be on the computer to prove the OS is legit. So scammers can make their own "restore discs" with pretty inkjet printed labels, and keep installing pirated copies of XP on each new PC that goes out their door.
Well, time will tell.... If enough people think like the parent poster and buy the new Star Wars "Special Edition" - then Lucas will be proven right.
As far as I'm concerned, I loved the original Star Wars trilogy, and I even went to the theaters to see it again with Lucas's additions/edits made to them. But there's nothing about this new edition that makes me want to pay out the $40 or whatever it'll cost to own a copy.
I'll grant you that the Star Wars franchise is Lucas's - not "ours", but I've also never petitioned the guy to make scripting changes or anything else to his movies, either. I do believe I have the right to comment on his work though.
My opinion is, he got extremely LUCKY with his early movies. He used a lot of relatively unknown actors/actresses who turned out to be good picks, and apparently had some "behind the scenes" help editing his storyline too - making it more "exciting" in the theaters. Now, everything he makes strikes me as being like the new camcorder user who is fascinated by the zoom lens and special effects, and overuses them - distracting him/her from what's really important; filming good material.
He seems to think CGI is the key to turning his previous films into much more of what he envisioned in his head - but I don't think the audiences are getting more out of the movies as a result. Maybe Lucas himself is, but only because it satisfies something personal for him.
Again, I say "Fine, but don't expect me to buy it."
I just recently ordered a high-speed cable internet connection, to go along with my existing DSL connection. 6 months ago, I would have said doing something like this was "complete overkill" and "bordering on crazy" - but with recent price-drops on routers and service itself, it's not a bad option!
I'm planning to use a load-balancing router that supports 2 simultaneous incoming connections. The "Hotbrick" unit I went with only costs $189 (with free shipping from a couple vendors such as Eagle Computer, if you look on pricewatch.com for it).
Right now, my local cable company is running a special where installation is only $9.95, and the first 3 months for the fastest package they offer is $29.95 per month. After that, it's about $39.95 per month. You get about 3mbit download and 256K up with this plan.
Meanwhile, I can get about the same rates for $38.95 per month for DSL. Combined, I'm paying about $80 per month (less for the first few months) for all of this bandwidth. Sure, it's not exactly "cheap" by some people's standards -- but I remember paying about $130/mo. for a lousy 128K ISDN circuit years ago, just to do a little better than dial-up modem connections. We've come a long way!
What you're proposing is a complete, revolutionary shift in what music people choose to listen to and purchase.
I don't deny it would be effective, but I think it's a bit utopian to really expect that much change to happen on a nation-wide scale, in a short enough period of time to affect the RIAA in their current state.
I guess what I'm basically asking is, how do you propose to convince the vast majority of people to simply start ignoring some of the best music ever produced and refuse to purchase any of it any more - simply because the RIAA controls rights to it?
Even if you could talk everyone into not buying a single new music CD from any artist that wasn't "independent" - you'd still end up with the RIAA sitting on a vast collection of music that influenced nearly all of the new artists. (Heck, it's arguable that the RIAA effective "owns" rock & roll music. Should we tell people not to ever download or buy any more music from The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Doors, The Who, Led Zeppelin, etc.?)
No... I think the truth is, the RIAA is *scared* that people ARE downloading very acceptably good and usable music and bypassing them completely. They see the "writing on the wall" that music distribution methods are changing, but it's a cheaper and easier solution for them to try to "plug the leaks" with stronger copyright legislation than to address the core issue. (People think they're not getting enough value for their dollar when they purchase new music.)
Ironically, if the RIAA really succeeds in some of their recent goals (such as making copy-protected music CDs that really work, preventing people from ripping songs on them to MP3 files, etc.) - they're sealing their own fate. People who would otherwise buy their music on principle will stop doing so if they feel they're getting something less than they were getting before. (A somewhat dysfunctional CD, rather than a fully functional one.)
I have to say I strongly disagree with the presumption that people enjoy stories with "clearly deliniated good and evil" because it gives us some kind of "break" from reality.
Not too long ago, Slashdot was discussing classic sci-fi movies, with Bladerunner being near the top of the list -- and people commented that it was a favorite precisely BECAUSE it didn't go into the cliche "good guy/bad guy" thing. Rather, you were forced to confront the fact that it's much more convoluted than that.
That being said, there's nothing WRONG with telling a good story about "good versus evil" - but the key is, it has to be a well told story with interesting, well-developed characters!
I've noticed that in general, people seem to like stories that are either based on real-life events, or believable enough that one can imagine they *could* eventually happen in real life to someone - where in the end, someone stands out as a "hero". This really has nothing to do with making things a simplistic "good/bad" -- but rather, gives us a "warm fuzzy feeling" inside that humanity really can triumph over difficult odds - and reminds us to believe in ourselves.
In good sci-fi, I think the same basics apply. Sure, it's a make-believe "future world" - but good sci-fi will let the viewer accept that the scenario really *could* take place someday. And again, interesting characters you're compelled to *care about*, plus a story involving these characters overcoming difficult obstacles makes it a good story almost automatically.
The idea of the sci-fi genre introducing us to new ideas about technology we hadn't had before is really just "icing on the cake". If an author has a unique vision and wants to roll that into the storyline - then great! It's one more thing of interest. Otherwise, so what? That's no requirement for staging a story in a fictional futuristic world!
I think that's a fair overall statement. But for what it's worth, I don't see the RIAA actually "getting the message" either way.
The fact is, they already control rights to so much music perceived by the masses as "good", nobody is going to convince them that their I.P. is suddenly "no longer of any real value" - simply because they're downloading songs from new artists that aren't under the RIAA's control.
Unlawful distribution of material they DO have legal rights to isn't so much "convincing the RIAA that they have a valuable product" (they knew this all along!) as it is providing a convenient reason to complain about "financial losses" and attempt to get more laws passed in their favor for the future.
Ultimately, I think organizations like the RIAA would simply like to see legislation guarantee them a profitable "status quo" way of doing business, rather than them having to change with the times and actually compete vigorously with others to retain viability.
The most damage one can do to the RIAA right now is educating folks about their ways and true motives behind what they do. As long as they fail to get new laws enacted that further protect their business model (at the expense of that pesky "fair use" clause, if need-be) - they'll slowly fade into obscurity - p2p file sharing or not.
The *real* liberating factor is technology itself. Artists are (slowly) learning they don't NEED the big recording company contracts to be a success anymore. Granted, we're not 100% there yet - because commercial success pretty much = marketing/advertising/promotion, much more than it = artistic talent. But a basement musician can produce a fully digital, pristine recording and have it mass produced on CDs without anyone else's help. It's a far cry from the "4 track recorder" days!
I think you're overly paranoid, actually. The younger generation seems to be watching much less TV than my own generation did!
The Internet absolutely *is* competing directly with TV watching time. Furthermore, gaming consoles take even more away. Instead of watching canned programming with commercials, people are *interactively* playing games on their TVs with a PS2 or X-Box.
Also, I know that when *I* sit down to watch TV (fairly rare), I'm usually pretty exhausted and just looking for a *passive* form of entertainment. Maybe I'm not quite ready to go to sleep, but just want to relax and be "spoon fed" something mindly entertaining for a little while.
If they studied my brainwave patterns in that state, they probably would find it similar to a hypnotized state - but that doesn't mean commercials are brainwashing me, making me buy those products. Familiarity with a brand name doesn't equate with a desire to purchase it. Advertising has made me aware of quite a few products out there which I have little to no interest in ever buying. Other times, it might make me at least look twice at the box (say, for a particular brand of laundry soap), but the price is still going to determine the sale in the end.
While I hadn't really stopped to count all of the wars the U.S. was involved in since WWII, the number 24 sounds believable to me.
Is that supposed to imply anything negative about the U.S. though?
One reason we have a lot of foreign policy "issues" today is because of times in the past where we chose *not* to defend our properties/assets in other countries when those properties were taken over in changes of leadership in those nations.
For one example, look at Cuba. U.S. businesses invested money there, putting properties there in partnerships with their government. Then, along comes Communist rule and we lost control of all of it. I think it's the JOB of our country to defend the properties of our people in sitatuons like this. Because we've fallen down on the job, though, people are attempting to bully the U.S. around a little bit more today....
The same thing seems to go for the oil felds in Iraq. At one time, those were constructed in partnerships with the U.S. If we didn't just let them seize control of the whole thing after helping them build it and make it all work - we wouldn't have these billionaire princes running around making political decisions today.
Quite well said... but how do you come up with the "in excess of 40 times the medial salary" figure as the "triggering point" of "theft" by a C.E.O.?
I realize another poster already responded to you, commenting that he wasn't going to "quibble about the numbers", but unfortunately - I think you have to. That's really the sticking point in all of this. Lots of people feel C.E.O.'s are overcompensated - but how do you determine which of those people's complaints are just "sour grapes" because they're employed by the guy and they think they should make more money?
Asking government to step in and artificially restrict how much money a person can take home is a pretty serious thing to do. In fact, it's about as "uncapitalistic" as you can get. So before I'd ever accept it as a viable option, I'd need to see some really good proof of a compensation figure that's determined to automatically be detrimental to the business and its continued viability. Is "40x the median salary" the "magic number"? Who knows.... but you'd have to do some good studies before passing a law declaring it "corporate theft".
Still.... if it's your wife, I bet it's not going to be illegal to track her with a GPS on a vehicle both of you own.
Morally questionable, perhaps -- but not illegal.
In fact, I'd bet even more money that if the reverse was true (wife tracked the husband while he was driving), nothing would be done. The courts are generally biased against men in these things....
I'm tempted to just label you a worthless troll and move on, except I understand you're not really aware of 99% of my marriage/divorce situation.
So that in mind, I'll try to explain this to you a bit further.... Even before the divorce, my wife got several credit cards on her own (which I was never a co-signer on or ever used myself), and she ran all of them up to the limit and refused to pay on them. Guess what? Before long, the credit agencies were coming after ME for the money. I tried the whole "I'm not an authorized user or co-signer, so I'm not legally responsible!" angle - and it got me NOWHERE. The credit card agencies and the collection agencies they often sell their debts off to don't care in the least about what's "legally correct". They simply want to get their money. They argue right back that "You're not divorced, so her debt is your debt.", and claim that even signatures made on receipts don't "mean anything". (I pointed out that I'd be happy to pay the debt off in full if they could produce even ONE receipt with my name signed on it.)
Due to this, my credit was already destroyed. (You know what they started doing when they couldn't get repaid in a timely manner? They changed the records in their computer to show the card was applied for with MY social security number and name! Illegal? Oh sure, but try proving that one in court!)
By the time I filed for divorce, I was screwed over much worse. She took practically everything of value in the house while I was at work, and took and resold 2 of my cars. At this point, "fear of bad credit" is the least of my concerns. Bankruptcy is inevitable....
Actually, no, the problem is - when you're married and a divorce in pending/in process (not "finalized"), your wife can do all sorts of otherwise "illegal" things and law enforcement won't touch it!
Why? Simple... They consider everything to be "marital property" until the divorce judge divides the assets and splits up the debts. Until that happens, everything is just a "civil case", not "criminal", to them. (Among other things, my wife illegally forged my signature on the title to my sports car and sold it without my knowledge. It was never titled in her name. I contacted the police department and my attorney about this, but neither will do much of anything about it. The police say this has happened before, and they now have a policy in place of not even opening a fraud investigation until *after* the divorce is over, and then, only if the divorce judge feels a criminal investigation is warranted.)
Ultimately, the family court judge has ultimate authority over the outcome of your divorce. If he/she wanted to, he/she could theoretically force you to sign over a car or truck to your spouse, making it his/hers - even if it never was to begin with. Therefore, the cops don't want to waste time and effort pursusing this type of thing when it might be rendered a "moot point" in the end, anyway.
Same goes with the credit card debts.... It was illegal for my wife to sign her name to cash advance checks on a card that was never hers, but she did it - and they cashed them. Think Discover really cares about my plight? Heck no! It's easier for them to just chase after whoever is most likely to have money to pay it back (me, since my wife hasn't worked a day since I filed for our divorce).
Actually, I thought I read someplace that the G5 processors don't generate quite as much heat as some of the latest AMD and Intel offerings.... The main reasons Apple has that huge water-cooled radiator gizmo are because (A) it's very quiet, and (B) for all intentions and purposes, they're really running what's basically a 2.0Ghz CPU with IBM sanctioned and properly engineered "overclocking" applied to it.
That being said though, they certainly *do* generate lots of heat, and don't seem appropriate for use in a laptop at all. (Of course, neither did the non-mobile versions of Intel's P4 CPU, yet some vendors shoehorned them into laptops anyway.) As others have said, surely Apple is just waiting on IBM to redesign the G5 so they have a version with lower power consumption and heat generation, suitable for mobile use. As with practically all CPUs, the desktop version comes first - followed by "mobile" versions much further down the road.
I think it's probably *possible* to build a laptop with an existing G5 CPU in it. You'd have to make the laptop fairly thick and heavy though, which would never fly as a Powerbook upgrade. People buy them largely because they're lightweight and thin. You'd also end up with some kind of cooling contraption like peltier junctions transferring heat over to a large plate with multiple cooling fans blowing on it. It surely wouldn't be a "quiet" laptop.... (But neither are Sager's "gaming/performance laptops" - and some people still buy those.)
Frankly, I think bill collectors already do MUCH more calling than is necessary to "get the money that is owed to them". The problem is not that they can't make initial communications, or remind people they still have an outstanding balance.
That's already accomplished much more effectively with the "past due" notices and "collection activity is being taken" notices they mail out on a regular basis.
Bill collectors really just use phone calls as a means of harassment, to wear down someone - hopefully to the point where they'll just pay the bill rather than being interrupted constantly by the ringing phone.
As just one example, my ex-wife ran up a bunch of bills on my Discover card right before she moved out. Even though I had the card itself in my possession the whole time )and her name was never on it as a co-signer), she used some old "cash advance checks" to get thousands of dollars for herself.
I alerted them as soon as I realized what happened, but they still claim I'm responsible for the charges. I tore up my card and refuse to pay (largely because there's no way I CAN pay!). They called both my home and my workplace about 6 times per day, on average - and on weekends, call several times, starting at about 8AM, again around 10AM and again around lunchtime. I finally just changed my home number to an unpublished number, but they still call my work as regularly as ever.
Lucky for me, my boss is pretty understanding about the situation... but any fool should know that if you're trying to collect money, you don't take steps that could get the person fired from their job as part of your efforts!
Exactly what I was thinking.... Slashdot owners didn't "call this one" at all. The overall vibe I got here was generally "this SP2 is going to be great - even though it'll inconvenience some people for a while and break some stuff, because it makes changes that were sorely needed, instead of just doing superficial patches after the fact for specific vulnerabilities".
But now that it's released and some complaints come forth, Slashdotters want to claim they "told you so"? Nah.... not really.
One of my customers runs XP at home on the family PC, and I've been out there at least 4 times now to clean up viruses and spyware. Despite my best efforts at preventing things from getting in (AVG anti-virus set to auto update every 3 days and Spybot 1.3 set up to immunize the browser, etc.) - nothing has really worked. Basically, they have a household full of teenager girls who know just enough about computers to download all sorts of free offers that sound good on the web, use music sharing programs, and exchange lots of email and instant messages.
This last time out, I cleaned up the system the best I could, and it seemed to be running well again.... but I found evidence of some strange item still attaching itself to the TCP/IP stack. I figured "Oh well - I'll look that one up later." and applied SP2. It installed fine, and upon reboot - generated a couple error messages related to the exact item I was worried about. On the next reboot, those errors didn't come back - and the malware seemed to be completely gone! I think in this case, the malware was trying to use some method of attaching to the stack that was changed or eliminated in SP2, so my problem was solved for me. I'd say SP2 is definitely not all bad - and seems more secure than what we had before.
RE: power consumption
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 2, Informative
As a matter of fact, I already *do* make liberal use of comapct flourescent replacements for regular lightbulbs - but they're not always viable. The biggest problem I have with them is they don't seem to be designed to stand up to the levels of heat they put out. They're not recommended for use in enclosed fixtures. (I tried it once anyway, in a couple ceiling lights in my kitchen. After only a few weeks, one of the flourescent bulbs started turning itself on and off every 30 seconds or so. I took it out and found its white plastic case had turned brownish - and it was obviously failing from the heat. A second one started exhibiting the same symptoms shortly afterwards, so I went back to regular 60 watt bulbs.)
The "100 watt + vs. 30 watt LCD monitor" suggestion isn't that sensible either, really. If you have a good CRT (like my Sony Trinitron 21"), where's the sense in disposing of it to save some watts of power? You're creating a big waste disposal issue from the lead in the glass and paying a big price premium for LCD technology that will take longer to recoup in energy savings than the panel is likely to last.
Honestly, attempts to guilt computer users into putting up with slower CPU speeds or twisting their arms to purchase specific technologies are not going to solve our country's power problems.
Most modern systems have all sorts of power savings/management features built into them already - including "sleep" and "suspend" modes, processors that step down to slower CPU speeds whenever they're idle, and so on.
The thing I find interesting is that most of us buy car insurance primarily with concerns about them covering damage to the vehicles - yet really, the insurance companies are much more concerned about medical expenses due to injuries in accidents.
As a U.S. citizen myself, I wish my auto insurance would give me the choice to pay a much lower rate in return for more limited medical coverage in case of an accident. When any of us get behind the wheel of a car, we should be well aware that a certain amount of risk is involved, and we should be willing to accept that risk. If something does go horribly wrong, I'd want some basic coverage in place to pay for serious injuries... BUT, I'm not expecting millions in compensation for a lost limb or what-have-you. I just want the immediate medical expenses paid for, and I'll accept the long-term consequences.
The way it is now, I'm sure I'm paying MUCH more than would otherwise be necessary, simply because I'm helping cover the losses from people suing and winning huge settlements over medical problems. Not only that, but it's almost become "standard practice" to go see a chiropractor and run up $1000+ in medical bills after any accident where you sprained or twisted anything. Car insurance seems to gladly pay for that, despite these people not even being REAL DOCTORS!
The way I see it, my odds are much greater that my car will eventually get messed up and need some repair done to it from an accident than *I* will get messed up and need "repair work". I bet I've been in at least 5 or 6 accidents over the years - and so far, only one even required any medical attention. (And that time, all they really did was take a bunch of expensive x-rays and determine nothing was broken after all.)
RE: what about the desert or arctic regions?
on
China Goes Nuclear
·
· Score: 1
It occurs to me that the most sensible place to consider disposal of something dangerous is a place where civilization is unlikely to go. I mean, why even think of Yucca mountain when people lived less than a mile away from it? Why not a remote part of the desert, or someplace around the polar ice caps? Surely we can make better use of the areas people find "unusable" for many traditional things?
IMHO, that's neither "strange" nor is it uncommon in the film industry, overall.
One of the big reasons the second round of Star Wars films sucked so bad compared to the original 3 is the huge budgets they were allowed to spend on them. Lucas dumped it all into computer graphics and effects, expecting that would be enough to "Wow!" everyone -- and in reality, fans just wanted a good, well acted-out story. (Consider the sets in the original Star Wars movie, compared to the extravagant worlds depicted in the second trilogy. Tatooine was a plain old desert.... a bunch of sand and a few simple structures. Very believable and effective without needing much of anything in the way of "special effects".)
I also agree that Clerks and Chasing Amy were probably Smith's best 2 films, and furthermore, I've really enjoyed a few other obviously low budget films I've run across, such as "The Cube".
Kevin Smith movies are all centered around the same basic theme.... the struggles, behaviors, and desires of youth. By its very nature, this isn't something that should require a huge budget to put together. (I mean, his characters aren't sons and daughers of millionaires, right? So he doesn't need extravagant sets and settings.)
I think in some ways, making movies is like software development. There's a time and place for big, powerful systems and code that requires them to run. But there's also a certain elegance only found when you work within tight restrictions, such as coding for a PDA with limited RAM and video capabilities, or the classic games seen on old consoles like the Atari 2600. Most of us expect Kevin Smith movies to be more comparable to the latter....
I agree, but the only "logic" I can see to this in the first place is that the police didn't necessarily know in advance that the guy was using/still using water-soluable chalk that would wash off quickly.
They have to make arrests based on what they observe, and they were probably thinking of such things as vandals causing damage with paint.
When you think of *chalk* on streets or sidewalks, what comes to mind? I bet 99% of you thought of small children playing. That's precisely the point. You assume little kids are marking with harmless chalk, BUT it's not as easily to extend that assumption to someone writing political protest messages with a contraption built onto a bike.
As soon as this guy gets a court date and they find out more about what he was doing, then yes - he should absolutely be let go. He has done nothing illegal.
Yeah.... could be. But "Brave New World" was such an excellent and thought-provoking book, it's definitely one I'd think long and hard about fighting to keep in the classroom....
Of all the dystopian fiction books out there, that one may hit the closest to home, as far as depicting scenarios you don't have to make huge mental leaps to picture as the result of decisions being made here and now.
Any school that bans that book sounds to me like they're really trying to ban something much larger.... a ban on encouraging individualism at the expense of globalization and "New World Order" politics.
That's a fair comment, but at the same time, I can't help but think that most public school teachers took up their career choice with concerns other than just a paycheck in mind.
If you're teaching and you're too scared to stand up for what you believe is the right thing to teach your students, then why continue at all? You'll probably be able to earn more money changing careers anyway....
To be perfectly honest, I'm not quite sure I totally agree with your premise that "prejudice almost always comes from ignorance", when it comes to the workplace and hiring decisions.
Sure, it *can* be the reason. But often-times, I think people are just playing a "statistics game", trying to make choices that minimize their risk of making a poor hiring decision.
For example, we currently live in a society where it's a simple, statistical fact that a greater proportion of the population of blacks have been convicted of serious crimes (and imprisoned!) than whites. (Discussing the reasons for this and possible solutions is really outside the scope of the point I'm making here. Remember, we're talking about percentages and relative risks - plain and simple, here.)
Does this make things unduly difficult for the honest, black man or woman who wants a job and is truly the "best qualified" for it? Absolutely! Is that extremely unfortunate? Absolutely! Yet, I can't necessarily write it off as simple "ignorance" when an employer is rushed to decide on a candidate, and opts to pass on the black man or woman. In some ways, it's not much different than employers picking the 4 year college educated graduate over the "self-taught" candidate, even though both seem to be equally well qualified.
Virtual Boyfriend, for the ladies....
on
Virtual Girlfriend
·
· Score: 2, Informative
They'd get further creating a Virtual Boyfriend on cellphones for the women. At least that way, the cellphone itself can double as a self-pleasuring device.....
The whole thing is stupid. Sounds like someone just rehashed the whole Tamagotchi thing, with a human face instead of some other creature to take care of.
Slashdot Mirror
My thoughts on this are, "What does it prove?" Most people who knowingly pirated their copy of XP are, of course, going to opt out of this voluntary system check. Therefore, the results are only going to really paint a (rather fuzzy) picture of how many people believe they're legal XP users, yet really aren't, versus. people who really do own legal copies.
Is that what Microsoft might be after? This strikes me as an attempt to get a better idea of how many people are selling end-users new computers preloaded with XP, yet they're really just preloading pirated copies.
IMHO, Microsoft's attempt to control this by requiring the holographic sticker with the key-code to be placed on the back or side of the PC itself has only added confusion for most people. In the past, end-users learned that they should demand an original installation CD with their machine purchase, because otherwise, they very well might be getting a pirated copy of the OS on their system - or at least, risking their legal copy and license key being resold a second time to another buyer.
Now, most people are accepting the concept that you don't really get a full install CD with your machine purchase. You *may* get some type of "system restore" disc, that half the time, they're afraid to use - lest it wipe out important existing documents and data on the hard drive. They're probably much *less* aware that the sticker HAS to be on the computer to prove the OS is legit. So scammers can make their own "restore discs" with pretty inkjet printed labels, and keep installing pirated copies of XP on each new PC that goes out their door.
Well, time will tell.... If enough people think like the parent poster and buy the new Star Wars "Special Edition" - then Lucas will be proven right.
As far as I'm concerned, I loved the original Star Wars trilogy, and I even went to the theaters to see it again with Lucas's additions/edits made to them. But there's nothing about this new edition that makes me want to pay out the $40 or whatever it'll cost to own a copy.
I'll grant you that the Star Wars franchise is Lucas's - not "ours", but I've also never petitioned the guy to make scripting changes or anything else to his movies, either. I do believe I have the right to comment on his work though.
My opinion is, he got extremely LUCKY with his early movies. He used a lot of relatively unknown actors/actresses who turned out to be good picks, and apparently had some "behind the scenes" help editing his storyline too - making it more "exciting" in the theaters. Now, everything he makes strikes me as being like the new camcorder user who is fascinated by the zoom lens and special effects, and overuses them - distracting him/her from what's really important; filming good material.
He seems to think CGI is the key to turning his previous films into much more of what he envisioned in his head - but I don't think the audiences are getting more out of the movies as a result. Maybe Lucas himself is, but only because it satisfies something personal for him.
Again, I say "Fine, but don't expect me to buy it."
I just recently ordered a high-speed cable internet connection, to go along with my existing DSL connection. 6 months ago, I would have said doing something like this was "complete overkill" and "bordering on crazy" - but with recent price-drops on routers and service itself, it's not a bad option!
I'm planning to use a load-balancing router that supports 2 simultaneous incoming connections. The "Hotbrick" unit I went with only costs $189 (with free shipping from a couple vendors such as Eagle Computer, if you look on pricewatch.com for it).
Right now, my local cable company is running a special where installation is only $9.95, and the first 3 months for the fastest package they offer is $29.95 per month. After that, it's about $39.95 per month. You get about 3mbit download and 256K up with this plan.
Meanwhile, I can get about the same rates for $38.95 per month for DSL. Combined, I'm paying about $80 per month (less for the first few months) for all of this bandwidth. Sure, it's not exactly "cheap" by some people's standards -- but I remember paying about $130/mo. for a lousy 128K ISDN circuit years ago, just to do a little better than dial-up modem connections. We've come a long way!
What you're proposing is a complete, revolutionary shift in what music people choose to listen to and purchase.
I don't deny it would be effective, but I think it's a bit utopian to really expect that much change to happen on a nation-wide scale, in a short enough period of time to affect the RIAA in their current state.
I guess what I'm basically asking is, how do you propose to convince the vast majority of people to simply start ignoring some of the best music ever produced and refuse to purchase any of it any more - simply because the RIAA controls rights to it?
Even if you could talk everyone into not buying a single new music CD from any artist that wasn't "independent" - you'd still end up with the RIAA sitting on a vast collection of music that influenced nearly all of the new artists. (Heck, it's arguable that the RIAA effective "owns" rock & roll music. Should we tell people not to ever download or buy any more music from The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Doors, The Who, Led Zeppelin, etc.?)
No... I think the truth is, the RIAA is *scared* that people ARE downloading very acceptably good and usable music and bypassing them completely. They see the "writing on the wall" that music distribution methods are changing, but it's a cheaper and easier solution for them to try to "plug the leaks" with stronger copyright legislation than to address the core issue. (People think they're not getting enough value for their dollar when they purchase new music.)
Ironically, if the RIAA really succeeds in some of their recent goals (such as making copy-protected music CDs that really work, preventing people from ripping songs on them to MP3 files, etc.) - they're sealing their own fate. People who would otherwise buy their music on principle will stop doing so if they feel they're getting something less than they were getting before. (A somewhat dysfunctional CD, rather than a fully functional one.)
I have to say I strongly disagree with the presumption that people enjoy stories with "clearly deliniated good and evil" because it gives us some kind of "break" from reality.
Not too long ago, Slashdot was discussing classic sci-fi movies, with Bladerunner being near the top of the list -- and people commented that it was a favorite precisely BECAUSE it didn't go into the cliche "good guy/bad guy" thing. Rather, you were forced to confront the fact that it's much more convoluted than that.
That being said, there's nothing WRONG with telling a good story about "good versus evil" - but the key is, it has to be a well told story with interesting, well-developed characters!
I've noticed that in general, people seem to like stories that are either based on real-life events, or believable enough that one can imagine they *could* eventually happen in real life to someone - where in the end, someone stands out as a "hero". This really has nothing to do with making things a simplistic "good/bad" -- but rather, gives us a "warm fuzzy feeling" inside that humanity really can triumph over difficult odds - and reminds us to believe in ourselves.
In good sci-fi, I think the same basics apply. Sure, it's a make-believe "future world" - but good sci-fi will let the viewer accept that the scenario really *could* take place someday. And again, interesting characters you're compelled to *care about*, plus a story involving these characters overcoming difficult obstacles makes it a good story almost automatically.
The idea of the sci-fi genre introducing us to new ideas about technology we hadn't had before is really just "icing on the cake". If an author has a unique vision and wants to roll that into the storyline - then great! It's one more thing of interest. Otherwise, so what? That's no requirement for staging a story in a fictional futuristic world!
I think that's a fair overall statement. But for what it's worth, I don't see the RIAA actually "getting the message" either way.
The fact is, they already control rights to so much music perceived by the masses as "good", nobody is going to convince them that their I.P. is suddenly "no longer of any real value" - simply because they're downloading songs from new artists that aren't under the RIAA's control.
Unlawful distribution of material they DO have legal rights to isn't so much "convincing the RIAA that they have a valuable product" (they knew this all along!) as it is providing a convenient reason to complain about "financial losses" and attempt to get more laws passed in their favor for the future.
Ultimately, I think organizations like the RIAA would simply like to see legislation guarantee them a profitable "status quo" way of doing business, rather than them having to change with the times and actually compete vigorously with others to retain viability.
The most damage one can do to the RIAA right now is educating folks about their ways and true motives behind what they do. As long as they fail to get new laws enacted that further protect their business model (at the expense of that pesky "fair use" clause, if need-be) - they'll slowly fade into obscurity - p2p file sharing or not.
The *real* liberating factor is technology itself. Artists are (slowly) learning they don't NEED the big recording company contracts to be a success anymore. Granted, we're not 100% there yet - because commercial success pretty much = marketing/advertising/promotion, much more than it = artistic talent. But a basement musician can produce a fully digital, pristine recording and have it mass produced on CDs without anyone else's help. It's a far cry from the "4 track recorder" days!
I think you're overly paranoid, actually. The younger generation seems to be watching much less TV than my own generation did!
The Internet absolutely *is* competing directly with TV watching time. Furthermore, gaming consoles take even more away. Instead of watching canned programming with commercials, people are *interactively* playing games on their TVs with a PS2 or X-Box.
Also, I know that when *I* sit down to watch TV (fairly rare), I'm usually pretty exhausted and just looking for a *passive* form of entertainment. Maybe I'm not quite ready to go to sleep, but just want to relax and be "spoon fed" something mindly entertaining for a little while.
If they studied my brainwave patterns in that state, they probably would find it similar to a hypnotized state - but that doesn't mean commercials are brainwashing me, making me buy those products. Familiarity with a brand name doesn't equate with a desire to purchase it. Advertising has made me aware of quite a few products out there which I have little to no interest in ever buying. Other times, it might make me at least look twice at the box (say, for a particular brand of laundry soap), but the price is still going to determine the sale in the end.
While I hadn't really stopped to count all of the wars the U.S. was involved in since WWII, the number 24 sounds believable to me.
Is that supposed to imply anything negative about the U.S. though?
One reason we have a lot of foreign policy "issues" today is because of times in the past where we chose *not* to defend our properties/assets in other countries when those properties were taken over in changes of leadership in those nations.
For one example, look at Cuba. U.S. businesses invested money there, putting properties there in partnerships with their government. Then, along comes Communist rule and we lost control of all of it. I think it's the JOB of our country to defend the properties of our people in sitatuons like this. Because we've fallen down on the job, though, people are attempting to bully the U.S. around a little bit more today....
The same thing seems to go for the oil felds in Iraq. At one time, those were constructed in partnerships with the U.S. If we didn't just let them seize control of the whole thing after helping them build it and make it all work - we wouldn't have these billionaire princes running around making political decisions today.
Quite well said... but how do you come up with the "in excess of 40 times the medial salary" figure as the "triggering point" of "theft" by a C.E.O.?
I realize another poster already responded to you, commenting that he wasn't going to "quibble about the numbers", but unfortunately - I think you have to. That's really the sticking point in all of this. Lots of people feel C.E.O.'s are overcompensated - but how do you determine which of those people's complaints are just "sour grapes" because they're employed by the guy and they think they should make more money?
Asking government to step in and artificially restrict how much money a person can take home is a pretty serious thing to do. In fact, it's about as "uncapitalistic" as you can get. So before I'd ever accept it as a viable option, I'd need to see some really good proof of a compensation figure that's determined to automatically be detrimental to the business and its continued viability. Is "40x the median salary" the "magic number"? Who knows.... but you'd have to do some good studies before passing a law declaring it "corporate theft".
Still.... if it's your wife, I bet it's not going to be illegal to track her with a GPS on a vehicle both of you own.
Morally questionable, perhaps -- but not illegal.
In fact, I'd bet even more money that if the reverse was true (wife tracked the husband while he was driving), nothing would be done. The courts are generally biased against men in these things....
I'm tempted to just label you a worthless troll and move on, except I understand you're not really aware of 99% of my marriage/divorce situation.
So that in mind, I'll try to explain this to you a bit further.... Even before the divorce, my wife got several credit cards on her own (which I was never a co-signer on or ever used myself), and she ran all of them up to the limit and refused to pay on them. Guess what? Before long, the credit agencies were coming after ME for the money. I tried the whole "I'm not an authorized user or co-signer, so I'm not legally responsible!" angle - and it got me NOWHERE. The credit card agencies and the collection agencies they often sell their debts off to don't care in the least about what's "legally correct". They simply want to get their money. They argue right back that "You're not divorced, so her debt is your debt.", and claim that even signatures made on receipts don't "mean anything". (I pointed out that I'd be happy to pay the debt off in full if they could produce even ONE receipt with my name signed on it.)
Due to this, my credit was already destroyed. (You know what they started doing when they couldn't get repaid in a timely manner? They changed the records in their computer to show the card was applied for with MY social security number and name! Illegal? Oh sure, but try proving that one in court!)
By the time I filed for divorce, I was screwed over much worse. She took practically everything of value in the house while I was at work, and took and resold 2 of my cars. At this point, "fear of bad credit" is the least of my concerns. Bankruptcy is inevitable....
Actually, no, the problem is - when you're married and a divorce in pending/in process (not "finalized"), your wife can do all sorts of otherwise "illegal" things and law enforcement won't touch it!
Why? Simple... They consider everything to be "marital property" until the divorce judge divides the assets and splits up the debts. Until that happens, everything is just a "civil case", not "criminal", to them. (Among other things, my wife illegally forged my signature on the title to my sports car and sold it without my knowledge. It was never titled in her name. I contacted the police department and my attorney about this, but neither will do much of anything about it. The police say this has happened before, and they now have a policy in place of not even opening a fraud investigation until *after* the divorce is over, and then, only if the divorce judge feels a criminal investigation is warranted.)
Ultimately, the family court judge has ultimate authority over the outcome of your divorce. If he/she wanted to, he/she could theoretically force you to sign over a car or truck to your spouse, making it his/hers - even if it never was to begin with. Therefore, the cops don't want to waste time and effort pursusing this type of thing when it might be rendered a "moot point" in the end, anyway.
Same goes with the credit card debts.... It was illegal for my wife to sign her name to cash advance checks on a card that was never hers, but she did it - and they cashed them. Think Discover really cares about my plight? Heck no! It's easier for them to just chase after whoever is most likely to have money to pay it back (me, since my wife hasn't worked a day since I filed for our divorce).
Actually, I thought I read someplace that the G5 processors don't generate quite as much heat as some of the latest AMD and Intel offerings.... The main reasons Apple has that huge water-cooled radiator gizmo are because (A) it's very quiet, and (B) for all intentions and purposes, they're really running what's basically a 2.0Ghz CPU with IBM sanctioned and properly engineered "overclocking" applied to it.
That being said though, they certainly *do* generate lots of heat, and don't seem appropriate for use in a laptop at all. (Of course, neither did the non-mobile versions of Intel's P4 CPU, yet some vendors shoehorned them into laptops anyway.) As others have said, surely Apple is just waiting on IBM to redesign the G5 so they have a version with lower power consumption and heat generation, suitable for mobile use. As with practically all CPUs, the desktop version comes first - followed by "mobile" versions much further down the road.
I think it's probably *possible* to build a laptop with an existing G5 CPU in it. You'd have to make the laptop fairly thick and heavy though, which would never fly as a Powerbook upgrade. People buy them largely because they're lightweight and thin. You'd also end up with some kind of cooling contraption like peltier junctions transferring heat over to a large plate with multiple cooling fans blowing on it. It surely wouldn't be a "quiet" laptop.... (But neither are Sager's "gaming/performance laptops" - and some people still buy those.)
Frankly, I think bill collectors already do MUCH more calling than is necessary to "get the money that is owed to them". The problem is not that they can't make initial communications, or remind people they still have an outstanding balance.
That's already accomplished much more effectively with the "past due" notices and "collection activity is being taken" notices they mail out on a regular basis.
Bill collectors really just use phone calls as a means of harassment, to wear down someone - hopefully to the point where they'll just pay the bill rather than being interrupted constantly by the ringing phone.
As just one example, my ex-wife ran up a bunch of bills on my Discover card right before she moved out. Even though I had the card itself in my possession the whole time )and her name was never on it as a co-signer), she used some old "cash advance checks" to get thousands of dollars for herself.
I alerted them as soon as I realized what happened, but they still claim I'm responsible for the charges. I tore up my card and refuse to pay (largely because there's no way I CAN pay!). They called both my home and my workplace about 6 times per day, on average - and on weekends, call several times, starting at about 8AM, again around 10AM and again around lunchtime. I finally just changed my home number to an unpublished number, but they still call my work as regularly as ever.
Lucky for me, my boss is pretty understanding about the situation... but any fool should know that if you're trying to collect money, you don't take steps that could get the person fired from their job as part of your efforts!
Exactly what I was thinking.... Slashdot owners didn't "call this one" at all. The overall vibe I got here was generally "this SP2 is going to be great - even though it'll inconvenience some people for a while and break some stuff, because it makes changes that were sorely needed, instead of just doing superficial patches after the fact for specific vulnerabilities".
.... but I found evidence of some strange item still attaching itself to the TCP/IP stack. I figured "Oh well - I'll look that one up later." and applied SP2. It installed fine, and upon reboot - generated a couple error messages related to the exact item I was worried about. On the next reboot, those errors didn't come back - and the malware seemed to be completely gone! I think in this case, the malware was trying to use some method of attaching to the stack that was changed or eliminated in SP2, so my problem was solved for me. I'd say SP2 is definitely not all bad - and seems more secure than what we had before.
But now that it's released and some complaints come forth, Slashdotters want to claim they "told you so"? Nah.... not really.
One of my customers runs XP at home on the family PC, and I've been out there at least 4 times now to clean up viruses and spyware. Despite my best efforts at preventing things from getting in (AVG anti-virus set to auto update every 3 days and Spybot 1.3 set up to immunize the browser, etc.) - nothing has really worked. Basically, they have a household full of teenager girls who know just enough about computers to download all sorts of free offers that sound good on the web, use music sharing programs, and exchange lots of email and instant messages.
This last time out, I cleaned up the system the best I could, and it seemed to be running well again
As a matter of fact, I already *do* make liberal use of comapct flourescent replacements for regular lightbulbs - but they're not always viable. The biggest problem I have with them is they don't seem to be designed to stand up to the levels of heat they put out. They're not recommended for use in enclosed fixtures. (I tried it once anyway, in a couple ceiling lights in my kitchen. After only a few weeks, one of the flourescent bulbs started turning itself on and off every 30 seconds or so. I took it out and found its white plastic case had turned brownish - and it was obviously failing from the heat. A second one started exhibiting the same symptoms shortly afterwards, so I went back to regular 60 watt bulbs.)
The "100 watt + vs. 30 watt LCD monitor" suggestion isn't that sensible either, really. If you have a good CRT (like my Sony Trinitron 21"), where's the sense in disposing of it to save some watts of power? You're creating a big waste disposal issue from the lead in the glass and paying a big price premium for LCD technology that will take longer to recoup in energy savings than the panel is likely to last.
Honestly, attempts to guilt computer users into putting up with slower CPU speeds or twisting their arms to purchase specific technologies are not going to solve our country's power problems.
Most modern systems have all sorts of power savings/management features built into them already - including "sleep" and "suspend" modes, processors that step down to slower CPU speeds whenever they're idle, and so on.
The thing I find interesting is that most of us buy car insurance primarily with concerns about them covering damage to the vehicles - yet really, the insurance companies are much more concerned about medical expenses due to injuries in accidents.
As a U.S. citizen myself, I wish my auto insurance would give me the choice to pay a much lower rate in return for more limited medical coverage in case of an accident. When any of us get behind the wheel of a car, we should be well aware that a certain amount of risk is involved, and we should be willing to accept that risk. If something does go horribly wrong, I'd want some basic coverage in place to pay for serious injuries... BUT, I'm not expecting millions in compensation for a lost limb or what-have-you. I just want the immediate medical expenses paid for, and I'll accept the long-term consequences.
The way it is now, I'm sure I'm paying MUCH more than would otherwise be necessary, simply because I'm helping cover the losses from people suing and winning huge settlements over medical problems. Not only that, but it's almost become "standard practice" to go see a chiropractor and run up $1000+ in medical bills after any accident where you sprained or twisted anything. Car insurance seems to gladly pay for that, despite these people not even being REAL DOCTORS!
The way I see it, my odds are much greater that my car will eventually get messed up and need some repair done to it from an accident than *I* will get messed up and need "repair work". I bet I've been in at least 5 or 6 accidents over the years - and so far, only one even required any medical attention. (And that time, all they really did was take a bunch of expensive x-rays and determine nothing was broken after all.)
It occurs to me that the most sensible place to consider disposal of something dangerous is a place where civilization is unlikely to go. I mean, why even think of Yucca mountain when people lived less than a mile away from it? Why not a remote part of the desert, or someplace around the polar ice caps? Surely we can make better use of the areas people find "unusable" for many traditional things?
Wow... I didn't realize that part of it. Thanks for the additional clarification!
If he demonstrated what he was doing, and the officers clearly understood it wasn't doing damage, they had no business making the arrest at all!
IMHO, that's neither "strange" nor is it uncommon in the film industry, overall.
One of the big reasons the second round of Star Wars films sucked so bad compared to the original 3 is the huge budgets they were allowed to spend on them. Lucas dumped it all into computer graphics and effects, expecting that would be enough to "Wow!" everyone -- and in reality, fans just wanted a good, well acted-out story. (Consider the sets in the original Star Wars movie, compared to the extravagant worlds depicted in the second trilogy. Tatooine was a plain old desert.... a bunch of sand and a few simple structures. Very believable and effective without needing much of anything in the way of "special effects".)
I also agree that Clerks and Chasing Amy were probably Smith's best 2 films, and furthermore, I've really enjoyed a few other obviously low budget films I've run across, such as "The Cube".
Kevin Smith movies are all centered around the same basic theme.... the struggles, behaviors, and desires of youth. By its very nature, this isn't something that should require a huge budget to put together. (I mean, his characters aren't sons and daughers of millionaires, right? So he doesn't need extravagant sets and settings.)
I think in some ways, making movies is like software development. There's a time and place for big, powerful systems and code that requires them to run. But there's also a certain elegance only found when you work within tight restrictions, such as coding for a PDA with limited RAM and video capabilities, or the classic games seen on old consoles like the Atari 2600. Most of us expect Kevin Smith movies to be more comparable to the latter....
I agree, but the only "logic" I can see to this in the first place is that the police didn't necessarily know in advance that the guy was using/still using water-soluable chalk that would wash off quickly.
They have to make arrests based on what they observe, and they were probably thinking of such things as vandals causing damage with paint.
When you think of *chalk* on streets or sidewalks, what comes to mind? I bet 99% of you thought of small children playing. That's precisely the point. You assume little kids are marking with harmless chalk, BUT it's not as easily to extend that assumption to someone writing political protest messages with a contraption built onto a bike.
As soon as this guy gets a court date and they find out more about what he was doing, then yes - he should absolutely be let go. He has done nothing illegal.
Yeah.... could be. But "Brave New World" was such an excellent and thought-provoking book, it's definitely one I'd think long and hard about fighting to keep in the classroom....
Of all the dystopian fiction books out there, that one may hit the closest to home, as far as depicting scenarios you don't have to make huge mental leaps to picture as the result of decisions being made here and now.
Any school that bans that book sounds to me like they're really trying to ban something much larger.... a ban on encouraging individualism at the expense of globalization and "New World Order" politics.
That's a fair comment, but at the same time, I can't help but think that most public school teachers took up their career choice with concerns other than just a paycheck in mind.
If you're teaching and you're too scared to stand up for what you believe is the right thing to teach your students, then why continue at all? You'll probably be able to earn more money changing careers anyway....
To be perfectly honest, I'm not quite sure I totally agree with your premise that "prejudice almost always comes from ignorance", when it comes to the workplace and hiring decisions.
Sure, it *can* be the reason. But often-times, I think people are just playing a "statistics game", trying to make choices that minimize their risk of making a poor hiring decision.
For example, we currently live in a society where it's a simple, statistical fact that a greater proportion of the population of blacks have been convicted of serious crimes (and imprisoned!) than whites. (Discussing the reasons for this and possible solutions is really outside the scope of the point I'm making here. Remember, we're talking about percentages and relative risks - plain and simple, here.)
Does this make things unduly difficult for the honest, black man or woman who wants a job and is truly the "best qualified" for it? Absolutely! Is that extremely unfortunate? Absolutely! Yet, I can't necessarily write it off as simple "ignorance" when an employer is rushed to decide on a candidate, and opts to pass on the black man or woman. In some ways, it's not much different than employers picking the 4 year college educated graduate over the "self-taught" candidate, even though both seem to be equally well qualified.
They'd get further creating a Virtual Boyfriend on cellphones for the women. At least that way, the cellphone itself can double as a self-pleasuring device.....
The whole thing is stupid. Sounds like someone just rehashed the whole Tamagotchi thing, with a human face instead of some other creature to take care of.