Buffy the Vampire Slayer Stargate SG1 Highlander La Femme Nakita (haven't watched this one, but have heard it is good)
You are welcome to think that any of those are terrible. Except M*A*S*H. Don't be dissin' M*A*S*H.
What I'd like to see...
on
Digital VCRs
·
· Score: 1
What I'd like to see is a box that has several tuners so that diferent shows on diferent channels could be recorded at once, and maybe a couple of transmitters so that other sets in the house could request specific programming using an rf remote. Of course the size and speed of the hard drive would have to be top rate to do this, maybe even a RAID, or better yet, instead of a disk, an enourmous amount of RAM. Yeah, that would be cool.
Re:Are you sure you want to get excited about this
on
Digital VCRs
·
· Score: 1
I guess my little hint to read their privacy policy didn't help much. But to sum it up, they don't give out any of your personal information without your consent... I would suggest that you check your facts a little more closely. In fact, I think this entire thread should be marked down because of its irresponsible accusations!
I did read the privacy policy. I also know that they are using the profiling capability of the machine to target certain adds to certain users. I surmise that the way they are doing this is by encoding some extra info in the adds that are broadcast, and, by using this info, the box is smart enough to know which adds to keep, based on your profile. It must keep an archive of targeted adds on the hard drive to show to you over and over again. Note that all of this is possible within the confines of their "privacy policy". The replaytv box not only doesn't do the profiling, but they are nice enough to include a handy thirty second skip feature, so you can easily avoid the adds. Also, once you buy the box, they don't charge for their service.
Now for a REAL irresponsible accusation: if tivo wanted to avoid criticism of their equipment on slashdot, the best thing they could possibly do, whenever the tivo vs. replaytv topic came up, is to have someone make bumbling and stupid anonymous postings claiming that Linux is stupid and WinCE is the future.
Re:Are you sure you want to get excited about this
on
Digital VCRs
·
· Score: 1
you can always disconnect from the service and continue using your box. i fail to see how this is really important.
Yeah, but wouldn't it be better to support a company that doesn't feel comfortable about providing your user profile to advertisers, and actually gives you an easy means to skip the ad's in the first place?
I bet if CA threatened to sell the profit/loss figures for privately held corporations (which of course they know) then that would be stopped Real Quick.
It is also rumored that IBM will be building G4 chips with up to four G4 cores per chip. The multi core G4's won't have AltiVec, though. It should be possible to build a fairly low cost sixteen way box using those.
Well, if they did that *now* it would be suicide for them, but if they could have done it in 1992, there would be no Linux today.
Regardless of what effect such a move would have, you seem to be arguing that Microsoft should have the right to blacklist certain people from their products. I'm sorry, but that's just wacky.
Believe me, I don't trust the government. However I trust business even less, because I can't vote for who should be CEO of Microsoft.
I don't see any situation which would cause MIcrosoft from banning me specifically from their software.
If there were no government oversight at all, Microsoft could include on their shrinkrap license a list of people who Charman Bill has decided to excomunicate, and these people would be prohibited from using their software. Or imagine if the original Windows 95 license had a clause that denied licensing to anybody who has ever used Linux. Do you think that anywhere neer as many people would be using Linux today if Microsoft could have done that? The vast majority of jobs in the computer industry require the use of some Microsoft software, even with all of the headway that Linux has made recently.
Uh... in most states in the U.S. your boss *could* fire you.
Not in the state where I live.
I do think there should be a federal anti-discrimination law which covers sexual orientation, but I guess I'm biased. Before anyone here screams "Special Rights Bad", such a law would also prevent non-straight landowners and employers from discriminating against straight tenents and employees.
I don't support so called "hate crimes" laws, though. I think that it is inproper (even if the Suprime Court thinks it is constitutional) to punnish people for their thoughts.
As for smelly vegans comment, that was a snide comment that could (and should have) been left out of the discussion, as it was not pertinent to the discussion at hand. If you want to be a vegan, it's your choice.
No no no, you misunderstand. I'm a veganitarian. I eat vegans. Very soft and tender. um um um.
Either you have the right to your property (and the disposal thereof), or you don't. There is no inbetween. So, it's your choice:, freedom or slavery.
I would submit to you that it does not constitute slavery for the law, which is written by representatives elected by the people, to require that if you are going to offer an apartment for rent, that you not discriminate against prospective tenants on the basis of race and certain other traits. There was a time in this country that it would have been impossible for a black person to rent an apartment in a white neighborhood. If you think that it should be right and proper for a cartel of landowners to decide where people should live based on race, then I guess I don't understand why you think such a cartel would be any different from an oppressive government.
Your flavor of Libertarianism fails to recognize that you can't have completely unregulated business without marginalizing our representive form of government. Public funding of private schools is another example of this, all that would accomplish would be to take the power out of the hands of an elected school board and put it into the hands of the owner(s) of the private schools, who are not elected.
I'm not a Randite (whatever that is) and I'm definitely not in cahoots with a political party that glorifies drug dealers and prostitutes as "business models".
It is interesting that you believe that you should have the right to conduct business with little government oversight, but that the government should have the power to waste our tax dollars locking up sex workers, drug dealers and drug users.
But, you are correct. From MY business strategy, anyone with money is a potential customer. However, I reserve the right to withhold my products and services to whomever I deem fit (communists, smelly vegan types). You should do the same.
Smelly vegan types? Most of the vegans I know aren't smelly, but I'll assume for a moment that what you really mean is "Smelly hippie types", like the loser Phisheads that hang out in front of Nectar's that I have to walk by every day. If you run a retail establishment, I suppose that you could set a minimum personal hygiene standard for clientele, but most states don't allow you to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation (like communists). The fact is, you simply don't have the right to withhold your products and services to whomever you deem fit. You can't produce a software product, distribute it to stores, and then specify in the shrinkwrap license that communists and smelly vegan types shall not be allowed to use the software. There are also restrictions on hiring/firing of employees, My boss can't stumble across the bisexual links on my homepage and decide to fire me because of it. If you don't like this, go start your own government somewhere, and leave the rest of us alone.
1. Allow the user to decide how much to penalize AC's. There could be a box in the prefs screen that would be set to however many points to adjust an AC post's score. That way, if a user really hates AC's, they could set it to -4000, or if they think they should be equal, set it to 1 (adjusting all of the zero's to one's) or whatever. Maybe this idea could be generalized into a very flexable killfile.
2. Have the moderators directly select what score they think an article should be, rather then plus or minus relative to the article's current score. This would avoid the potential problem of several moderators adjusting a comment down simultainously. How it is now, a comment could end up at -400 when all 400 moderators really only thought it should be a -1. Of course, it may be complex to figure out how the moderator scores should be weighted and rounded.
Monsanto plans to soon release Roundup Ready seeds with terminator genes which will prevent second generation seeds from germinating. Many environmentalists and geneticists have stated concerns that such terminator genes could be passed into the general crop population via pollen and potentially kill off our original crops leaving only corporate produced seeds available to farmers. Such a move is insanity if we consider survival a worthy goal for humanity.
The fact that the terminator genes prevent the crop from reproducing will absolutely prevent it from "spreading" into other crops. See my other post above.
As far as labeling goes, I totally agree with you. Monsanto doesn't want the consumer to be informed. They have the same attitude regarding labeling of milk that is from rBGH treated cows. Monsanto is simply evil.
Disclaimer: This post contains my opinions regarding the evilness of Monsanto. If you are a lawyer who works for Monsanto, please disregard all of the content above this disclaimer.
OTOH, having Monsanto creating seeds that spread infertility among plant crops is a criminal action tantamount to biological warfare
I can assure you that the terminator gene won't be "spread among other crops". Billions of years of evolution won't be thwarted so easily. Inability to reproduce, genetically speaking, is a disadvantage, and the trait won't [duh] be passed on to the next generation.
That doesn't make Monsanto any less evil, however. If they could find a way to profit from global crop destruction, they would.
Disclaimer: The paragraph directly above this one, about Monsanto being evil, is my opinion. Please don't sue me, oh great god Monsanto!
You're joking, right? Always? In 20 years when you can store a terabyte on the head of a pin you think that film will be better? It's just a matter of time before digital storage outpaces the alternatives. Audio first, then video, then high-performance video.
Storage/bandwidth won't be the bottleneck, display technology will be. Sure DLP and other digital projection will improve, but analog projection isn't standing still, look at imax. As technology improves, the resolution achievable with film will always be better than tiny mechanical mirrors. Maybe in the year 2020 DLP chips will be built at an insane resolution by nanites, but nanites could also be used to expose analog film.
Note that I am not saying that digital won't take over, (for various distribution related economic reasons), but it won't take over because it is of higher quality.
It will always be possible to transfer a digital copy to film at a higher resolution then a digital copy could be projected onto a screen. You only need to have one badass super mega expensive film recorder to transfer a digital copy to film. Due to economics, the digital projection systems in theaters will be lower quality. Film will always be better.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a link to a CNNfn article that is a little better informed. It even has some comments from Sun.
Someone else mentioned M*A*S*H...
Also,
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Stargate SG1
Highlander
La Femme Nakita (haven't watched this one, but have heard it is good)
You are welcome to think that any of those are terrible. Except M*A*S*H. Don't be dissin' M*A*S*H.
What I'd like to see is a box that has several tuners so that diferent shows on diferent channels could be recorded at once, and maybe a couple of transmitters so that other sets in the house could request specific programming using an rf remote. Of course the size and speed of the hard drive would have to be top rate to do this, maybe even a RAID, or better yet, instead of a disk, an enourmous amount of RAM. Yeah, that would be cool.
I guess my little hint to read their privacy policy didn't help much. But to sum it up, they don't give out any of your personal information without your consent ... I would suggest that you check your facts a little more closely. In fact, I think this entire thread should be marked down because of its irresponsible accusations!
I did read the privacy policy. I also know that they are using the profiling capability of the machine to target certain adds to certain users. I surmise that the way they are doing this is by encoding some extra info in the adds that are broadcast, and, by using this info, the box is smart enough to know which adds to keep, based on your profile. It must keep an archive of targeted adds on the hard drive to show to you over and over again. Note that all of this is possible within the confines of their "privacy policy". The replaytv box not only doesn't do the profiling, but they are nice enough to include a handy thirty second skip feature, so you can easily avoid the adds. Also, once you buy the box, they don't charge for their service.
Now for a REAL irresponsible accusation: if tivo wanted to avoid criticism of their equipment on slashdot, the best thing they could possibly do, whenever the tivo vs. replaytv topic came up, is to have someone make bumbling and stupid anonymous postings claiming that Linux is stupid and WinCE is the future.
you can always disconnect from the service and continue using your box. i fail to see how this is really important.
Yeah, but wouldn't it be better to support a company that doesn't feel comfortable about providing your user profile to advertisers, and actually gives you an easy means to skip the ad's in the first place?
This needs to be halted.
I bet if CA threatened to sell the profit/loss figures for privately held corporations (which of course they know) then that would be stopped Real Quick.
He built C3PO to help his mother, that's why it was left behind.
Post all info to a news group, so that you can't get fingered by "hmmmmm, all this information seems to be being sent to joe.stupid@unlucky.isp.com"
Or just have it send to the address of someone you don't like, who's email account you have managed to break into.
Whats so clever about Mad Magazine?
Whats so clever about Troops?
Whats so clever about Segfault?
Whats so clever about any kind of paridy?
It is also rumored that IBM will be building G4 chips with up to four G4 cores per chip. The multi core G4's won't have AltiVec, though. It should be possible to build a fairly low cost sixteen way box using those.
I'll be placing an order for a quad (or at least dual) PPC G4 board for my Powermac 9600 just as soon as Newer Technology announces it.
We could call it "Internet Clue" because that sorta rhymes with "Internet II"
Well, if they did that *now* it would be suicide for them, but if they could have done it in 1992, there would be no Linux today.
Regardless of what effect such a move would have, you seem to be arguing that Microsoft should have the right to blacklist certain people from their products. I'm sorry, but that's just wacky.
Believe me, I don't trust the government. However I trust business even less, because I can't vote for who should be CEO of Microsoft.
I don't see any situation which would cause MIcrosoft from banning me specifically from their software.
If there were no government oversight at all, Microsoft could include on their shrinkrap license a list of people who Charman Bill has decided to excomunicate, and these people would be prohibited from using their software. Or imagine if the original Windows 95 license had a clause that denied licensing to anybody who has ever used Linux. Do you think that anywhere neer as many people would be using Linux today if Microsoft could have done that? The vast majority of jobs in the computer industry require the use of some Microsoft software, even with all of the headway that Linux has made recently.
Uh... in most states in the U.S. your boss *could* fire you.
Not in the state where I live.
I do think there should be a federal anti-discrimination law which covers sexual orientation, but I guess I'm biased. Before anyone here screams "Special Rights Bad", such a law would also prevent non-straight landowners and employers from discriminating against straight tenents and employees.
I don't support so called "hate crimes" laws, though. I think that it is inproper (even if the Suprime Court thinks it is constitutional) to punnish people for their thoughts.
As for smelly vegans comment, that was a snide comment that could (and should have) been left out of the discussion, as it was not pertinent to the discussion at hand. If you want to be a vegan, it's your choice.
No no no, you misunderstand. I'm a veganitarian. I eat vegans. Very soft and tender. um um um.
Either you have the right to your property (and the disposal thereof), or you don't. There is no inbetween. So, it's your choice:, freedom or slavery.
I would submit to you that it does not constitute slavery for the law, which is written by representatives elected by the people, to require that if you are going to offer an apartment for rent, that you not discriminate against prospective tenants on the basis of race and certain other traits. There was a time in this country that it would have been impossible for a black person to rent an apartment in a white neighborhood. If you think that it should be right and proper for a cartel of landowners to decide where people should live based on race, then I guess I don't understand why you think such a cartel would be any different from an oppressive government.
Your flavor of Libertarianism fails to recognize that you can't have completely unregulated business without marginalizing our representive form of government. Public funding of private schools is another example of this, all that would accomplish would be to take the power out of the hands of an elected school board and put it into the hands of the owner(s) of the private schools, who are not elected.
I'm not a Randite (whatever that is) and I'm definitely not in cahoots with a political party that glorifies drug dealers and prostitutes as "business models".
It is interesting that you believe that you should have the right to conduct business with little government oversight, but that the government should have the power to waste our tax dollars locking up sex workers, drug dealers and drug users.
But, you are correct. From MY business strategy, anyone with money is a potential customer. However, I reserve the right to withhold my products and services to whomever I deem fit (communists, smelly vegan types). You should do the same.
Smelly vegan types? Most of the vegans I know aren't smelly, but I'll assume for a moment that what you really mean is "Smelly hippie types", like the loser Phisheads that hang out in front of Nectar's that I have to walk by every day. If you run a retail establishment, I suppose that you could set a minimum personal hygiene standard for clientele, but most states don't allow you to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation (like communists). The fact is, you simply don't have the right to withhold your products and services to whomever you deem fit. You can't produce a software product, distribute it to stores, and then specify in the shrinkwrap license that communists and smelly vegan types shall not be allowed to use the software. There are also restrictions on hiring/firing of employees, My boss can't stumble across the bisexual links on my homepage and decide to fire me because of it. If you don't like this, go start your own government somewhere, and leave the rest of us alone.
Jake "Veganitarian" Patterson
3D sterioscopic like the Virtual Boy, but in color?
Maybe they will be using that new 3D flat panel technology that doesn't require glasses?
Of course, they might just mean that it will do "3D graphics" in the same way that the N64 does "3D graphics"
1. Allow the user to decide how much to penalize AC's. There could be a box in the prefs screen that would be set to however many points to adjust an AC post's score. That way, if a user really hates AC's, they could set it to -4000, or if they think they should be equal, set it to 1 (adjusting all of the zero's to one's) or whatever. Maybe this idea could be generalized into a very flexable killfile.
2. Have the moderators directly select what score they think an article should be, rather then plus or minus relative to the article's current score. This would avoid the potential problem of several moderators adjusting a comment down simultainously. How it is now, a comment could end up at -400 when all 400 moderators really only thought it should be a -1. Of course, it may be complex to figure out how the moderator scores should be weighted and rounded.
You made alot of good points in your post, but:
Monsanto plans to soon release Roundup Ready seeds with terminator genes which will prevent second generation seeds from germinating. Many environmentalists and geneticists have stated concerns that such terminator genes could be passed into the general crop population via pollen and potentially kill off our original crops leaving only corporate produced seeds available to farmers. Such a move is insanity if we consider survival a worthy goal for humanity.
The fact that the terminator genes prevent the crop from reproducing will absolutely prevent it from "spreading" into other crops. See my other post above.
As far as labeling goes, I totally agree with you. Monsanto doesn't want the consumer to be informed. They have the same attitude regarding labeling of milk that is from rBGH treated cows. Monsanto is simply evil.
Disclaimer: This post contains my opinions regarding the evilness of Monsanto. If you are a lawyer who works for Monsanto, please disregard all of the content above this disclaimer.
OTOH, having Monsanto creating seeds that spread infertility among plant crops is a criminal action tantamount to biological warfare
I can assure you that the terminator gene won't be "spread among other crops". Billions of years of evolution won't be thwarted so easily. Inability to reproduce, genetically speaking, is a disadvantage, and the trait won't [duh] be passed on to the next generation.
That doesn't make Monsanto any less evil, however. If they could find a way to profit from global crop destruction, they would.
Disclaimer: The paragraph directly above this one, about Monsanto being evil, is my opinion. Please don't sue me, oh great god Monsanto!
You're joking, right? Always? In 20 years when you can store a terabyte on the head of a pin you think that film will be better? It's just a matter of time before digital storage outpaces the alternatives. Audio first, then video, then high-performance video.
Storage/bandwidth won't be the bottleneck, display technology will be. Sure DLP and other digital projection will improve, but analog projection isn't standing still, look at imax. As technology improves, the resolution achievable with film will always be better than tiny mechanical mirrors. Maybe in the year 2020 DLP chips will be built at an insane resolution by nanites, but nanites could also be used to expose analog film.
Note that I am not saying that digital won't take over, (for various distribution related economic reasons), but it won't take over because it is of higher quality.
Nope.
It will always be possible to transfer a digital copy to film at a higher resolution then a digital copy could be projected onto a screen. You only need to have one badass super mega expensive film recorder to transfer a digital copy to film. Due to economics, the digital projection systems in theaters will be lower quality. Film will always be better.
www.transmeta.com
so we can see the status of their page at a glance.
The "CmdrTaco's Links" box doesn't show up on the side when activated.