"You know the old saying, which is true, as well as witty; that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee."
I don't get this? What's wrong with Camels? Seems they are well adapted to the desert environments they are native to? For a purpose-specific niche (a beast of burden suitable to survival and use in a desert region) they seem like the perfect design, no?
It's a matter of demand. ISPs, I think, don't want to be in the position of 'forcing' IPv6 on their customers and then being blamed for problems the customers have because they are using IPv6 and pretty much everyone else on the Internet *isn't*. Where's the advantage here, from a marketing/PR standpoint (there might be technical advantages which your customers will never know about)?
As an ISP, why would you want to spend a lot of money on marketing and technical support to 'evangelize' customers on IPv6? First you have to convince customers they need something before you can 'sell' it to them.
The Slashdot crowd (at least, those of us who understand why IPv6 will be a good thing, long term) need to start educating/evangelizing our family, friends, and acquaintances about IPv6 and get them all to email their ISP asking when the ISP will be implementing IPv6. Maybe if the ISPs saw enough requests from customers, they'd decide to at least make it available for those who want it.
Ok, my bad. Somehow my eyes looked at 1.0.0.0 and saw 10.0.0.0. Yes, nobody should have been using 1.0.0.0 for private networks, and if they have, you're right, they haven't got a lot of brains.
". ..especially garbage ones that people without a lot of brains have been using for LANs in violation of the spec for years."
Which spec are you referring to? The IETF RFC1918 *specifically designates* 10.0.0.0/8 as reserved for use in private networks. Silly network admins, using the addresses *designated* by IANA/IETF as being used FOR THAT PURPOSE.
So much for all the people who thought that NAT was going to make IPv6 unnecessary - now that 10.0.0.0/8 has been allocated, that only leaves 2 more private address blocks which people can use for NAT, and when those are gone, NAT will break (or, more accurately, the people who get allocated the blocks everyone else is using as private address blocks will discover no one else on the Internet can actually contact their hosts - I sure wouldn't want one of those addresses as my 'global' address).
In theory, you could take an AT&T iPhone to T-mobile, as they are also based on GSM, but I remember a couple weeks ago when the Nexus One launched, people pointing out that AT&T and T-Mo use different frequency bands for their 3G service, and so the Nexus One could only be used on AT&T with the slower 2G data channel. I'm guessing the same issue would be in play here, going the other way? That is, you could use an iPhone on T-Mo, but you'd not be able to get 3G data speeds?
If it's *your* wife, you might be a little concerned that her 'hobby' will end up being 'screwing other guys'. That goes the other way too. If your the wife, you might not just be bored, you might (often legitimately) be concerned that if you never see your spouse, he'll end up 'getting what he needs' with someone else. . . how's the old saw? If you can't be near the one you love, love the one you're near?
People also often have children. It really is important for a father/mother to spend some time every week, multiple days, with their children. These crunch's, I bet, often mean that people are out the door before their kids go to school, and back home maybe in time to say goodnight to them. If you're also working on the weekends (which you probably are in such a 'crunch'), then you also don't even get to see them on the weekends, which means they pretty much never see you.
Yeah, except the person paying income tax and FICA may be paying a lower *rate*, but seriously, 15% of $2.5 Billion is 300 Million Dollars. As for there being no SS/Medicare on the capital gains taxes, does that really matter? Money is liquid - like water, it will flow to the lowest point. When Congress starts coming up short of money for SS/Medicare, they will move money around as necessary, I would think. In any case, Congress 'borrowed' money from SS for many years, so it needs all the 'general' tax revenues it can get to 'pay back' to Soc. Security.
I think you're missing my point. I'm not asking Mozilla to make free distribution of H.264 and to pay the licensing agent on my behalf for what I get for free. I'm saying, why not distribute the browser and the plugin seperately. So, first I download and install Firefox. Then, I go to YouTube, or some other site with video, and I get directed to a page where I can buy and download the plugin for h.264.
Well, obviously, 123456, abc123, password, etc are *aweful* passwords. I'm not saying people should pick downright *stupid* passwords like that, I was just pointing out that the original linked article makes much of the fact that people aren't using passwords like r2u8K%Z1&qW3$, so 'they are open to brute force attacks'. For 'online' systems which lock accounts after a small number of tries, it would *seem* like an 8 digit alphanum password (which isn't one of the trivial ones discussed earlier) would be sufficient, wouldn't it?
Personally, I'd be willing to drop something reasonable, like, say, $1.99 one-time to buy a license to use an H.264 codec (as long as it was of sufficient quality and did things like taking advantage of available hardware acceleration features of my CPU and GPU). I prefer open source, but I also accept that a lot of R&D, and Engineering went into creating H.264, and I don't mind paying a *reasonable* fee for something like that. I'm sure RMS would disagree, but I've always disagreed with RMS, and as long as the browser itself can stay open source, I'm ok with a proprietary plugin.
(Although, not Flash, specifically - I'd really like to get away from the Flash model (where everyone is locked to a single vendor/implementation, and towards the <video> tag model, where there can be competing implementations, but that's more of a free market/open standards ideology than a Free Software dogma).
So, why not a closed-source plugin? Why would they need to close the entire browser source code just to support a video codec which should be able to be punted into a loadable library?
I looked into KeePass once upon a time, but I ended up avoiding it, simply because I've not figured out a way to get around what seems like a fundamental problem to me. . .
What do you do if you need to use a public computer? A lot of times, computers at places like libraries, college computer labs, etc won't allow you to run any programs which weren't installed by an Admin. If you rely on something like KeePass, don't you run the risk that you won't be able to access one of your passwords when you need to? Also, with KeePass, you run some possibility that once you decrypt the password database, some sort of spyware on the computer might hoover up all your passwords?
I mean, granted, if the computer is compromised, it could snatch your password anyhow when you enter it into the browser to login to a site, but at least in that case, the spyware only steals the password for 1 site, instead of every password you have?
I have a couple questions for some more security minded folks here on slashdot, about the 'conclusions' of the analysis in the linked article. . .
* "The shortness and simplicity of passwords means many users select credentials that will make them susceptible to basic forms of cyber attacks known as 'brute force attacks.'"
Is this really true? Here's why I ask - most websites (though unfortunately not all), seem to lock your account if you don't get the right password in 3-5 attempts. Then, it may stay locked for 15 minutes, or 24 hours, or until you go through a process of some sort to verify the account (such as an automated email to the address on record, with a link you have to click in the email).
If the website takes such measures, doesn't that shut down brute force attacks pretty fast, even with fairly simple passwords? If the website is doing that, and it shuts down brute force attacks, doesn't that mean that even a somewhat weak password can provide 'good enough' protection?
* While I'm sure that adding special symbols does make the password harder to brute force, isn't even an alpha-num password pretty strong if it's about 10-12 characters long and mixes both upper and lower as well as some numbers? Personally, if I was guiding someone about a password, and I know they have a hard time remembering complex passwords, I would urge them to a longer password instead of a more complex one, because the length makes the complexity grow exponentially, right?
* Sort of touching on the parent's point - appropriateness. We can't remember lots of complex long passwords, so I would think that we should get people to concentrate on remembering complex passwords for the things that most need them - particularly things which can be attacked 'offline'? By 'offline', I'm thinking of something like, say, an encrypted file (like a zip file or TrueCrypt volume file), and online passwords which protect truly important stuff like access to your network account at work, your bank account, Tax-site password, etc.
Of course, there are always 'password safe' type applications, but I've never really liked the idea of a password safe, simply because I don't necessarily have access to it whenever I need a password. Take, for example, going to a library, FedexKinkos, or college computer lab, and needing to access a password protected site. Even if you *do* have your password safe file, on a USB key (for example; or maybe you can download your 'safe' from a site online), you may not be able to run the password safe software to decrypt it. Even if you *can* run the password safe file from the USB key, on the public computer, do you really trust that public computer to decrypt all your passwords? I just don't like the concept of password safes, for these reasons.
* Why did it take them 11 years to figure out that there was a large degree of overlap between Wine and ReactOS and maybe they should leverage the Wine work?
* How much overlap, really, is there? Wine, I believe, depends upon the presence of certain Posix system calls, X11, Alsa, etc? That is to say, largely, if I understand Wine correctly, it takes a Win32 API call and basically 'maps' it to the appropriate Posix and/or X11 API calls, and fixes up/converts parameters as necessary (in some cases, maybe 1 Win32 API call results in multiple 'native' API calls of functions with 'smaller' functionality that adds up to the Win32 API). However, the ReactOS people don't *have* a Posix kernel, X11, ALSA, etc underneath. This is kind of why I always figured there wasn't much interaction between Wine and ReactOS. How is it that they can get around this problem?
One of the most disturbing trends to me has been the rise of a lot of SIP based VoIP services (and client software) that offers no encryption. The thing is, there's been a couple IETF RFCs which specify how to secure SIP traffic for a few years, I believe (I'm not exactly sure how it all fits together, but I've read about SIPS, ZRTP, and SRTP).
Skype, of course, does use Encryption, so the most popular VoIP service is using encryption, *but* I'd like to see more VoIP providers offering it as part of their service.
I suspect this study is fundamentally flawed, or at least the conclusion is. Here's why: it's been my observation that while doing some things (for example driving is a big case, but walking in a crowded place is also very much the same), my brain goes into a stream-of-thought mode. Basically, my brain sees and processes things around me in real time, as I need to deal with them. It pretty instantly makes decisions, I take action, then almost *immediately* forget about them. The brain throws that memory away because I don't need to remember every thing I ever see.
Now, if I'm bored, I think I'm more likely to remember the clown on a unicycle. If I'm in a good conversation with a friend where I'm thinking mostly about the conversation, and secondarily about walking and avoid obstacles/collisions, I might 'see' the unicyclist, but lets face it, seeing performance artists of all types on a college campus is far from unusual, so it's not going to register with me as that unusual, and so I'm likely to forget about it, but that doesn't mean I didn't actually see it. It just means that my brain *correctly* filtered that memory as unimportant and threw it away.
Wait a minute. . . When did MPAA and RIAA pass a law mandating purchasing crap I don't want? Damn, how the HELL did I miss THAT?
Last time I checked, there are very few things you are *forced* to purchase (at least, in most democratic countries). Why would I buy another copy of the same movie just for a minute change? I mean, one well known example is the original Star Wars movies remastered a few years ago. I didn't buy those. Had absolutely no interest in them.
People are responsible for their own buying. You don't *have* to pay to see the same old crap remade. Take responsibility for your own self. I'm tired of hearing people whine about movie remakes. You know why Holywood remakes old TV and Movies into "new" movies? Because EVERY TIME THEY DO, they MAKE MONEY. So, obviously, there is a market for it. *Somebody* wants to see them. If people aren't that interested in remakes, then frankly, they should not throw money at them, and the problem will go away.
Wow. Someone on slashdot.org makes a threat to EA. I'm sure they're reading it. And that they're terrified. I mean, I'm sure that if they screw up Bioware, MILLIONS of sports gamers who don't give two pennies about the types of games Bioware makes (mostly RPGs), will stop buying their sports games. Fans of The Sims, everywhere, will stop buying any Sims games. Nobody will buy any EA games at all because they screwed up Bioware. All because you prophesied it on slashdot.
Don't get me wrong, I have liked several of Bioware's games in the past, and it seems like EA is already starting to screw them up, and I'm not too happy about it, but seriously, neither you nor I have the power to make sure that no one buys EA games.
It occurs to me that all it takes to break up a 'cartel' like this is one or two successful publishers who are not owned or controlled in any way by the existing publishers, and that such independent publishers are willing to really compete with the other labels to sign talent and publish music. The question is, are there any independent labels right now? I remember seeing a chart sometime ago which showed how a lot of 'independent labels' are really owned by the big music publishers, who just use those other labels to either serve niche markets, or create the illusion of having alternatives to dealing with them.
Anyone know of any labels which really, truly, are independent, with which bands and music lovers might do business?
I don't get it - why does the JavaScript even need to send the text to a server? I mean, the browser knows what page you are on. Why not just have the JS snag the URL from the browser and append it to the text, so the selected text never leaves your computer? This whole setup just sounds like an excuse to send something back to the server, when it's technically completely unnecessary.
Oh, I didn't mean a 'charging station' like a gas station; that is, as a separate off-premises site where you take your car to charge. I mean as something you'd see maybe 1 on every block along the side of the road where you park your car, about the size of a parking meter. You were talking about on-street parking, so I'm saying the solution is parking-meter-like charging stations (as I said, a plug, a meter, and a way to pay, either by credit card, or maybe by using some sort of RFID-like system which recognizes the car and automatically bills you, or debits money out of a pre-paid account of some sort).
While it's true that, sometimes, a character idea needs a reboot, there is a *reason* I hate reboots. . .
I hate having to slog through essentially the same story again. I want *new* stories. Not the same basic Spiderman, Superman, or Batman story 'remixed'.
The recent Star Trek 'reboot' was nice in that, at least, they basically presented a brand new story. If companies insist on rebooting things, I hope they realize they don't have to take us back through the same 2 or 3 *tired* stories all over again. I really don't care if I never see another Batman movie which has The Catwoman, The Joker, or The Penguin, ever again. I want *other* Batman stories.
It's theoretically possible to synthesize gas and diesel. One way, of course, is to synthesize gasoline from coal. Not an ideal solution, but if it came to a crisis in the U.S., we have enough coal to produce a lot of synth gas. Some people are exploring more environmentally friendly ways of synthesizing gas. There is a company, Dotyenergy, that claims they can use captured CO2, Water, and electricity to generate gas. Currently, they plan to use Wind power to generate it, but I see no reason why solar, oceanic, or nuclear sourced electricity couldn't be used instead, if it made sense (just use whatever's cheapest/most abundant at the time).
So, my point is, that we don't necessarily need to move away from gasoline (not sure if they can also use this process to make diesel), quickly - as petroleum supplies decline, we could potentially ramp up synthetic fuels (if the technology proves to be efficient/cost competitive). There's also, potentially, bio-mass fuels (although, currently, that doesn't appear to be playing out very well, but who knows, advances could be made in that tech too).
To try to elaborate on what the parent is trying to say, US English has the concept that when you take many things and lump them into a single 'compound' item, the item is singular, so a "Galaxy" is a singular noun, a "Solar System" is a singular noun, and a "group" is a singular noun. It does make a certain sort of sense, if you think about it, though I can also see the argument for treating a 'group' as a plural.
The most confusing thing is that when people see a phrase like "a group of scientists {verb}", since scientists (which is plural) is the very last thing before the verb, people tend to think the object of the sentence is "scientists", when it's actually "group".
Slashdot Mirror
"You know the old saying, which is true, as well as witty; that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee."
I don't get this? What's wrong with Camels? Seems they are well adapted to the desert environments they are native to? For a purpose-specific niche (a beast of burden suitable to survival and use in a desert region) they seem like the perfect design, no?
It's a matter of demand. ISPs, I think, don't want to be in the position of 'forcing' IPv6 on their customers and then being blamed for problems the customers have because they are using IPv6 and pretty much everyone else on the Internet *isn't*. Where's the advantage here, from a marketing/PR standpoint (there might be technical advantages which your customers will never know about)?
As an ISP, why would you want to spend a lot of money on marketing and technical support to 'evangelize' customers on IPv6? First you have to convince customers they need something before you can 'sell' it to them.
The Slashdot crowd (at least, those of us who understand why IPv6 will be a good thing, long term) need to start educating/evangelizing our family, friends, and acquaintances about IPv6 and get them all to email their ISP asking when the ISP will be implementing IPv6. Maybe if the ISPs saw enough requests from customers, they'd decide to at least make it available for those who want it.
Ok, my bad. Somehow my eyes looked at 1.0.0.0 and saw 10.0.0.0. Yes, nobody should have been using 1.0.0.0 for private networks, and if they have, you're right, they haven't got a lot of brains.
". . .especially garbage ones that people without a lot of brains have been using for LANs in violation of the spec for years."
Which spec are you referring to? The IETF RFC1918 *specifically designates* 10.0.0.0/8 as reserved for use in private networks. Silly network admins, using the addresses *designated* by IANA/IETF as being used FOR THAT PURPOSE.
So much for all the people who thought that NAT was going to make IPv6 unnecessary - now that 10.0.0.0/8 has been allocated, that only leaves 2 more private address blocks which people can use for NAT, and when those are gone, NAT will break (or, more accurately, the people who get allocated the blocks everyone else is using as private address blocks will discover no one else on the Internet can actually contact their hosts - I sure wouldn't want one of those addresses as my 'global' address).
In theory, you could take an AT&T iPhone to T-mobile, as they are also based on GSM, but I remember a couple weeks ago when the Nexus One launched, people pointing out that AT&T and T-Mo use different frequency bands for their 3G service, and so the Nexus One could only be used on AT&T with the slower 2G data channel. I'm guessing the same issue would be in play here, going the other way? That is, you could use an iPhone on T-Mo, but you'd not be able to get 3G data speeds?
If it's *your* wife, you might be a little concerned that her 'hobby' will end up being 'screwing other guys'. That goes the other way too. If your the wife, you might not just be bored, you might (often legitimately) be concerned that if you never see your spouse, he'll end up 'getting what he needs' with someone else. . . how's the old saw? If you can't be near the one you love, love the one you're near?
People also often have children. It really is important for a father/mother to spend some time every week, multiple days, with their children. These crunch's, I bet, often mean that people are out the door before their kids go to school, and back home maybe in time to say goodnight to them. If you're also working on the weekends (which you probably are in such a 'crunch'), then you also don't even get to see them on the weekends, which means they pretty much never see you.
Yeah, except the person paying income tax and FICA may be paying a lower *rate*, but seriously, 15% of $2.5 Billion is 300 Million Dollars. As for there being no SS/Medicare on the capital gains taxes, does that really matter? Money is liquid - like water, it will flow to the lowest point. When Congress starts coming up short of money for SS/Medicare, they will move money around as necessary, I would think. In any case, Congress 'borrowed' money from SS for many years, so it needs all the 'general' tax revenues it can get to 'pay back' to Soc. Security.
I think you're missing my point. I'm not asking Mozilla to make free distribution of H.264 and to pay the licensing agent on my behalf for what I get for free. I'm saying, why not distribute the browser and the plugin seperately. So, first I download and install Firefox. Then, I go to YouTube, or some other site with video, and I get directed to a page where I can buy and download the plugin for h.264.
What's the problem with that?
Well, obviously, 123456, abc123, password, etc are *aweful* passwords. I'm not saying people should pick downright *stupid* passwords like that, I was just pointing out that the original linked article makes much of the fact that people aren't using passwords like r2u8K%Z1&qW3$, so 'they are open to brute force attacks'. For 'online' systems which lock accounts after a small number of tries, it would *seem* like an 8 digit alphanum password (which isn't one of the trivial ones discussed earlier) would be sufficient, wouldn't it?
Personally, I'd be willing to drop something reasonable, like, say, $1.99 one-time to buy a license to use an H.264 codec (as long as it was of sufficient quality and did things like taking advantage of available hardware acceleration features of my CPU and GPU). I prefer open source, but I also accept that a lot of R&D, and Engineering went into creating H.264, and I don't mind paying a *reasonable* fee for something like that. I'm sure RMS would disagree, but I've always disagreed with RMS, and as long as the browser itself can stay open source, I'm ok with a proprietary plugin.
(Although, not Flash, specifically - I'd really like to get away from the Flash model (where everyone is locked to a single vendor/implementation, and towards the <video> tag model, where there can be competing implementations, but that's more of a free market/open standards ideology than a Free Software dogma).
So, why not a closed-source plugin? Why would they need to close the entire browser source code just to support a video codec which should be able to be punted into a loadable library?
I looked into KeePass once upon a time, but I ended up avoiding it, simply because I've not figured out a way to get around what seems like a fundamental problem to me. . .
What do you do if you need to use a public computer? A lot of times, computers at places like libraries, college computer labs, etc won't allow you to run any programs which weren't installed by an Admin. If you rely on something like KeePass, don't you run the risk that you won't be able to access one of your passwords when you need to? Also, with KeePass, you run some possibility that once you decrypt the password database, some sort of spyware on the computer might hoover up all your passwords?
I mean, granted, if the computer is compromised, it could snatch your password anyhow when you enter it into the browser to login to a site, but at least in that case, the spyware only steals the password for 1 site, instead of every password you have?
I have a couple questions for some more security minded folks here on slashdot, about the 'conclusions' of the analysis in the linked article. . .
* "The shortness and simplicity of passwords means many users select credentials that will make them susceptible to basic forms of cyber attacks known as 'brute force attacks.'"
Is this really true? Here's why I ask - most websites (though unfortunately not all), seem to lock your account if you don't get the right password in 3-5 attempts. Then, it may stay locked for 15 minutes, or 24 hours, or until you go through a process of some sort to verify the account (such as an automated email to the address on record, with a link you have to click in the email).
If the website takes such measures, doesn't that shut down brute force attacks pretty fast, even with fairly simple passwords? If the website is doing that, and it shuts down brute force attacks, doesn't that mean that even a somewhat weak password can provide 'good enough' protection?
* While I'm sure that adding special symbols does make the password harder to brute force, isn't even an alpha-num password pretty strong if it's about 10-12 characters long and mixes both upper and lower as well as some numbers? Personally, if I was guiding someone about a password, and I know they have a hard time remembering complex passwords, I would urge them to a longer password instead of a more complex one, because the length makes the complexity grow exponentially, right?
* Sort of touching on the parent's point - appropriateness. We can't remember lots of complex long passwords, so I would think that we should get people to concentrate on remembering complex passwords for the things that most need them - particularly things which can be attacked 'offline'? By 'offline', I'm thinking of something like, say, an encrypted file (like a zip file or TrueCrypt volume file), and online passwords which protect truly important stuff like access to your network account at work, your bank account, Tax-site password, etc.
Of course, there are always 'password safe' type applications, but I've never really liked the idea of a password safe, simply because I don't necessarily have access to it whenever I need a password. Take, for example, going to a library, FedexKinkos, or college computer lab, and needing to access a password protected site. Even if you *do* have your password safe file, on a USB key (for example; or maybe you can download your 'safe' from a site online), you may not be able to run the password safe software to decrypt it. Even if you *can* run the password safe file from the USB key, on the public computer, do you really trust that public computer to decrypt all your passwords? I just don't like the concept of password safes, for these reasons.
I have a couple questions. . .
* Why did it take them 11 years to figure out that there was a large degree of overlap between Wine and ReactOS and maybe they should leverage the Wine work?
* How much overlap, really, is there? Wine, I believe, depends upon the presence of certain Posix system calls, X11, Alsa, etc? That is to say, largely, if I understand Wine correctly, it takes a Win32 API call and basically 'maps' it to the appropriate Posix and/or X11 API calls, and fixes up/converts parameters as necessary (in some cases, maybe 1 Win32 API call results in multiple 'native' API calls of functions with 'smaller' functionality that adds up to the Win32 API). However, the ReactOS people don't *have* a Posix kernel, X11, ALSA, etc underneath. This is kind of why I always figured there wasn't much interaction between Wine and ReactOS. How is it that they can get around this problem?
One of the most disturbing trends to me has been the rise of a lot of SIP based VoIP services (and client software) that offers no encryption. The thing is, there's been a couple IETF RFCs which specify how to secure SIP traffic for a few years, I believe (I'm not exactly sure how it all fits together, but I've read about SIPS, ZRTP, and SRTP).
Skype, of course, does use Encryption, so the most popular VoIP service is using encryption, *but* I'd like to see more VoIP providers offering it as part of their service.
I suspect this study is fundamentally flawed, or at least the conclusion is. Here's why: it's been my observation that while doing some things (for example driving is a big case, but walking in a crowded place is also very much the same), my brain goes into a stream-of-thought mode. Basically, my brain sees and processes things around me in real time, as I need to deal with them. It pretty instantly makes decisions, I take action, then almost *immediately* forget about them. The brain throws that memory away because I don't need to remember every thing I ever see.
Now, if I'm bored, I think I'm more likely to remember the clown on a unicycle. If I'm in a good conversation with a friend where I'm thinking mostly about the conversation, and secondarily about walking and avoid obstacles/collisions, I might 'see' the unicyclist, but lets face it, seeing performance artists of all types on a college campus is far from unusual, so it's not going to register with me as that unusual, and so I'm likely to forget about it, but that doesn't mean I didn't actually see it. It just means that my brain *correctly* filtered that memory as unimportant and threw it away.
". . .so we must buy it all over again."
Wait a minute. . . When did MPAA and RIAA pass a law mandating purchasing crap I don't want? Damn, how the HELL did I miss THAT?
Last time I checked, there are very few things you are *forced* to purchase (at least, in most democratic countries). Why would I buy another copy of the same movie just for a minute change? I mean, one well known example is the original Star Wars movies remastered a few years ago. I didn't buy those. Had absolutely no interest in them.
People are responsible for their own buying. You don't *have* to pay to see the same old crap remade. Take responsibility for your own self. I'm tired of hearing people whine about movie remakes. You know why Holywood remakes old TV and Movies into "new" movies? Because EVERY TIME THEY DO, they MAKE MONEY. So, obviously, there is a market for it. *Somebody* wants to see them. If people aren't that interested in remakes, then frankly, they should not throw money at them, and the problem will go away.
Wow. Someone on slashdot.org makes a threat to EA. I'm sure they're reading it. And that they're terrified. I mean, I'm sure that if they screw up Bioware, MILLIONS of sports gamers who don't give two pennies about the types of games Bioware makes (mostly RPGs), will stop buying their sports games. Fans of The Sims, everywhere, will stop buying any Sims games. Nobody will buy any EA games at all because they screwed up Bioware. All because you prophesied it on slashdot.
Don't get me wrong, I have liked several of Bioware's games in the past, and it seems like EA is already starting to screw them up, and I'm not too happy about it, but seriously, neither you nor I have the power to make sure that no one buys EA games.
It occurs to me that all it takes to break up a 'cartel' like this is one or two successful publishers who are not owned or controlled in any way by the existing publishers, and that such independent publishers are willing to really compete with the other labels to sign talent and publish music. The question is, are there any independent labels right now? I remember seeing a chart sometime ago which showed how a lot of 'independent labels' are really owned by the big music publishers, who just use those other labels to either serve niche markets, or create the illusion of having alternatives to dealing with them.
Anyone know of any labels which really, truly, are independent, with which bands and music lovers might do business?
"All he needs to do now is hire Michael Moore to make a documentary. . ."
. . .which establishes that Republicans are responsible for climate change of, and the subsequent end of life on, Mars.
I don't get it - why does the JavaScript even need to send the text to a server? I mean, the browser knows what page you are on. Why not just have the JS snag the URL from the browser and append it to the text, so the selected text never leaves your computer? This whole setup just sounds like an excuse to send something back to the server, when it's technically completely unnecessary.
Oh, I didn't mean a 'charging station' like a gas station; that is, as a separate off-premises site where you take your car to charge. I mean as something you'd see maybe 1 on every block along the side of the road where you park your car, about the size of a parking meter. You were talking about on-street parking, so I'm saying the solution is parking-meter-like charging stations (as I said, a plug, a meter, and a way to pay, either by credit card, or maybe by using some sort of RFID-like system which recognizes the car and automatically bills you, or debits money out of a pre-paid account of some sort).
While it's true that, sometimes, a character idea needs a reboot, there is a *reason* I hate reboots. . .
I hate having to slog through essentially the same story again. I want *new* stories. Not the same basic Spiderman, Superman, or Batman story 'remixed'.
The recent Star Trek 'reboot' was nice in that, at least, they basically presented a brand new story. If companies insist on rebooting things, I hope they realize they don't have to take us back through the same 2 or 3 *tired* stories all over again. I really don't care if I never see another Batman movie which has The Catwoman, The Joker, or The Penguin, ever again. I want *other* Batman stories.
It's theoretically possible to synthesize gas and diesel. One way, of course, is to synthesize gasoline from coal. Not an ideal solution, but if it came to a crisis in the U.S., we have enough coal to produce a lot of synth gas. Some people are exploring more environmentally friendly ways of synthesizing gas. There is a company, Dotyenergy, that claims they can use captured CO2, Water, and electricity to generate gas. Currently, they plan to use Wind power to generate it, but I see no reason why solar, oceanic, or nuclear sourced electricity couldn't be used instead, if it made sense (just use whatever's cheapest/most abundant at the time).
So, my point is, that we don't necessarily need to move away from gasoline (not sure if they can also use this process to make diesel), quickly - as petroleum supplies decline, we could potentially ramp up synthetic fuels (if the technology proves to be efficient/cost competitive). There's also, potentially, bio-mass fuels (although, currently, that doesn't appear to be playing out very well, but who knows, advances could be made in that tech too).
To try to elaborate on what the parent is trying to say, US English has the concept that when you take many things and lump them into a single 'compound' item, the item is singular, so a "Galaxy" is a singular noun, a "Solar System" is a singular noun, and a "group" is a singular noun. It does make a certain sort of sense, if you think about it, though I can also see the argument for treating a 'group' as a plural.
The most confusing thing is that when people see a phrase like "a group of scientists {verb}", since scientists (which is plural) is the very last thing before the verb, people tend to think the object of the sentence is "scientists", when it's actually "group".