logo Sign In

lordjedi

User Group
Members
Join date
8-Jun-2005
Last activity
9-Apr-2015
Posts
1,640

Post History

Post
#308158
Topic
Time Warner ISP - Metered Internet Access
Time
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
ACTUALLY, I CAN RUN A SERVER WITH MY PLAN.


Sounds like you have business class Internet then, not regular home user Internet (I haven't heard of a single ISP that provides standard home user access that allows you to run a server). In which case, this won't affect you at all. These "tiered plans" are more than likely only going to effect the home user plans, not the business class plans.
Post
#308092
Topic
News from MacWorld
Time
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
I HONESTLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL USING IE. IT'S BECOME SO OUTDATED. THERE ARE A LOT OF WEBSITE THAT REQUIRE EITHER FIREFOX OR SAFARI. IF YOU TRY USING IE YOU'RE SHIT OUT OF LUCK.


Maybe because MS still owns something like 80% of the desktop market?

On the topic of IE, IE 7 is light years ahead of IE 6 as far as standards compliance are concerned. But since your all on Macs, I guess you wouldn't know that.


I've been a pc user every day of my life since 1994, and IE has blown cheese since the day it hit the market. The only reason I ever used it was because Netscape couldn't compete and another viable product didn't come out until Opera, shortly thereafter killed by the much better FireFox. I'll never use IE voluntarily again. Any browser that requires a minimum of 5 mouse-clicks in this day and age to clear my browsing history should be used as a boat anchor.


Oh please! It's one more click than FireFox and ONLY because it prompts you with "Are you sure?" That is the most pathetic reason I've ever heard for not using IE.

I've been using PCs for about 16 years now. Yeah, IE was crap until about version 5, then 6. Netscape blew absolute chunks for the longest time and I've always hated Opera's interface. I went to Mozilla in the 1.x days and didn't switch to FireFox until I couldn't find add-ons for Mozilla anymore. I've been very happy with FireFox ever since, but I still open IE from time to time when a site doesn't work properly. Of course, with IETab, that's becoming less and less often. Now I can just open FireFox with the IE rendering engine and use IE whenever necessary. And no, changing the UA is not an option for some things. There are a few programs (most notably the phone system config program I have at work) that simply do not work unless they're run through at least the IE rendering engine.
Post
#308091
Topic
Time Warner ISP - Metered Internet Access
Time
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Originally posted by: ferris209
Your link ain't working, you got http: twice.

Anyhow, I heard about this and it ought to be outlawed. It is ridiculous.


Why is it ridiculous? I don't like it either, but it's no different from what the hosting companies do right now. You don't get free, unlimited bandwidth on a webhost. You pay for a certain amount each month and if you go over, you're billed for it.

I'm betting this won't last long anyway. With Verizon rolling out FiOS and Wireless ISPs becoming more prevalent, people will just switch to something that has no limits. Once they do that, TW will just remove the tiered packaging.

As the article says, at least they're being fully open about what they're doing and offering different packages. A lot of ISPs simply cap the bandwidth and don't tell you where the cap is at. You pretty much have to figure it out yourself based on when they slow you down.



MY BANDWIDTH IS UNLIMITED ON MY PLAN.


Yeah, that might be what they told you and what they advertised, but that's not what the TOS says. You can argue about it all day, but it's not going to get you anything but disconnected. "Unlimited" except that you can't run a server and if you start impacting other users ability to surf they'll disconnect your ass. Unlimited is not unlimited in the ISPs eyes. Unlimited is "use it as much as you want until it starts impacting service to other people".
Post
#307938
Topic
Time Warner ISP - Metered Internet Access
Time
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
anybody who has time warner aol should quit as soon as they can.

worst company ever. dial up service in 2008, lol!


Time Warner has distanced itself from AOL for a long time. Time Warner also happens to be one of the better broadband companies around. Unlike Comcast, Time Warner isn't blocking bittorrent traffic.

From what I've read, this is something they're going to introduce in one market as a test. More than likely, they'll receive hundreds of complaints from people and they'll be forced to increase capacity rather than try to bill high usage users high rates.
Post
#307798
Topic
Time Warner ISP - Metered Internet Access
Time
Originally posted by: ferris209
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Originally posted by: ferris209
Your link ain't working, you got http: twice.

Anyhow, I heard about this and it ought to be outlawed. It is ridiculous.


Why is it ridiculous? I don't like it either, but it's no different from what the hosting companies do right now. You don't get free, unlimited bandwidth on a webhost. You pay for a certain amount each month and if you go over, you're billed for it.

I'm betting this won't last long anyway. With Verizon rolling out FiOS and Wireless ISPs becoming more prevalent, people will just switch to something that has no limits. Once they do that, TW will just remove the tiered packaging.

As the article says, at least they're being fully open about what they're doing and offering different packages. A lot of ISPs simply cap the bandwidth and don't tell you where the cap is at. You pretty much have to figure it out yourself based on when they slow you down.


Well, if you pay to get the internet, you ought to get the internet. I guess its from years of having unlimited internet, but I just can't fathom having a limit set on my downloading ability. I agree I don't this will last, especially once all the major studios and music companies start greasing hands because they do want folks to download their stuff and if it starts getting capped, they could stand to lose some money.


Actually, I'm betting that at least the movie studios will love this, especially if they end up getting a cut. Not only will you be limited in what you can download now, but you'll have to pay more if you want to go over that limit. Music wouldn't have much of an effect on your total bandwidth since most of the files are pretty small. But a season of the Sopranos (HBO just introduced web downloads of their tv shows) would cost you quite a bit of bandwidth. With this in place, people won't be able to just download gobs and gobs of TV shows and movies without paying someone for it somewhere.
Post
#307790
Topic
Time Warner ISP - Metered Internet Access
Time
Originally posted by: ferris209
Your link ain't working, you got http: twice.

Anyhow, I heard about this and it ought to be outlawed. It is ridiculous.


Why is it ridiculous? I don't like it either, but it's no different from what the hosting companies do right now. You don't get free, unlimited bandwidth on a webhost. You pay for a certain amount each month and if you go over, you're billed for it.

I'm betting this won't last long anyway. With Verizon rolling out FiOS and Wireless ISPs becoming more prevalent, people will just switch to something that has no limits. Once they do that, TW will just remove the tiered packaging.

As the article says, at least they're being fully open about what they're doing and offering different packages. A lot of ISPs simply cap the bandwidth and don't tell you where the cap is at. You pretty much have to figure it out yourself based on when they slow you down.
Post
#307678
Topic
The Dark Knight (Batman Begins Returns Again)
Time
Originally posted by: Sluggo
Great. It is The Crow all over again.

Well, it wouldn't surprise me, at any rate.


Not exactly. The Dark Knight was finished filming. With The Crow, the actor (can't remember his name) died during filming.

I agree with ferris. I see no reason why they can't film a scene with him dying instead. You wouldn't even have to show him dying either. Just have a building that he's in get blown up. Maybe even drag out a charred burned body that's identified as Joker.
Post
#307656
Topic
Blade Runner 2, 4, and 5-disc sets in December
Time
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
One of the most powerful reactions I've had so far is the overwhelming urge to hold it in front of a bound & gagged Luca$h's face while screaming in his ear: "THIS IS HOW TO TREAT YOUR FANS" over and over and over and over again. Now, admittedly, this would probably not change his attitude to his "vision" but it sure would make me feel a whole lot better.


My thoughts exactly
Post
#307588
Topic
News from MacWorld
Time
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
I HONESTLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL USING IE. IT'S BECOME SO OUTDATED. THERE ARE A LOT OF WEBSITE THAT REQUIRE EITHER FIREFOX OR SAFARI. IF YOU TRY USING IE YOU'RE SHIT OUT OF LUCK.


Maybe because MS still owns something like 80% of the desktop market?

On the topic of IE, IE 7 is light years ahead of IE 6 as far as standards compliance are concerned. But since your all on Macs, I guess you wouldn't know that.
Post
#307408
Topic
Fall to the Dark Side?
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
If Anakin had offered to protect Palpatine when he first revealed himself, there would have been more time for Anakin to have second guest himself. It would have made the turn slower, not faster. He could have still been asking himself if he was doing the right thing or not, then when it got down to the Mace Windu fight it wouldn't have seemed like such a quick turn.

buddy-x-wing is right that the turn being more convincing had Anakin been expelled or given a better reason to fall. George played around with the idea of Anakin suspecting that Obi-Wan and Padme were having an affair. There was a scripted scene were Palpatine mentions to Anakin that he had heard rumors of Obi-Wan having some sort of love affair with some young female senator. Had he gone with that idea more fully, it really could have made a huge difference. I think for Anakin to have convincingly turned to the dark side he really needed to have a reason to hate Padme. The idea of him becoming evil for her sake, then killing her, then later trying to turn her son evil or kill him is kind of silly.

Let's say she really did have an affair (kind of heavy subject matter for a movie aimed at preteen audiences) or at least Palpatine truely convinced Anakin that she was cheating on him with his best friend, even though she wasn't, after all these years of being pushed toward the dark side by his close friendship with Palpatine he comes home after finding some pretty convincing evidence and is in a fit of rage. Padme tries to convince him that he doesn't know what he is talking about and that she loves him and would never do anything to hurt him, but he is so enraged that he doesn't listen to any of it. He starts kicking over furniture and squashing things with the force and Padme flees fearing for her life, and runs to their mutual friend Obi-Wan for help. Obi-Wan and the Jedi take her in to protect her and hide her someplace. The fact that she ran to Obi-Wan only makes him more suspicious, Palpatine adds in a few more facts and rumors he has heard in order to gently rub salt on the wound and to confirm to Anakin that what really has not happened has happened. No killing children, no order 66. Padme has disappeared, Anakin goes to Obi-Wan and attacks him, the two have their first fight, Obi-Wan is heart broken and tries to confince his friend that he could never do anything to hurt him, that he was like his brother. This could have been the point where Anakin looses an arm. Obi-Wan only tries to defend himself, but in the process accidently takes off Anakin's hand. Obi-Wan stares on dumbstruck at what he has just done, and Anakin escapes clutching his stump to fight again another day. Anakin is suspended from the Jedi order for his violent attack against another Jedi. Anakin goes to the Jedi to demand information on his wife's location, they refuse to tell him, this confirms to him that there is something up with Obi-Wan and that the Jedi are helping him hide his misdeeds. Anakin looses his temper and maybe kills a few Jedi at this point. And so on.

That is a much slower turn, with much more convincing motives. I don't think Anakin should have known about Padme being pregnant. Neither should the audience. Padme goes off to live on Alderan, fearing that if her husband should ever find her he will kill her. There she discovers she is pregnant, and Obi-Wan decides that it is better that not all three of them should be in the same place in the event that they are found, Padme reluctantly hands her son off to Obi-Wan so he can hid him and raise him to be a Jedi. This part doesn't have to happen on screen, it is implied well enough in the first movie. If we had Padme still living at the end of episode three, what more is there to explain in episodes four, five, and six. It becomes obvious Anakin is the father of them and easy enough for us to put two and two together and figure out that she was pregnant when she left him. Obi-Wan clearly explains the separation of the twins and the hiding of Luke. Leia remembered her real mother, so it would all make a lot more sense. We don't even have to have Anakin hunting down and killing all of the Jedi in episode three. It would be a lot better if we knew that was what Palpatine intended for him to do and see him start to do it. Then when episode four comes along we see, ah, Obi-Wan made it! Then when episode five rolls along and we hear Obi-Wan mention meeting Yoda we will realize he survived the purge as well.


This would have definitely made for a much better and more rewarding story!
Post
#307291
Topic
Fall to the Dark Side?
Time
Originally posted by: xhonzi
So... in pondering how poorly and unconvincingly the Prequel Trilogy handled Anakin's "Fall to the Dark Side," it got me thinking: What stories have convincing depictions of a character's fall to a dark side of sorts? I quickly thought of 2:

1) Luke in RotJ (for all of 5 minutes) as he destroys Vader with the Dark Side

2) Lex Luthor in Smallville. Others may not agree, but he's been our favourite character on the show (early seasons, at least) and we really enjoyed seeing the seeds of his future dark side being sown. At some point it seems that he became the typical villain, but up until then he was really interesting.

Who/What else?

xhonzi


I'd say Luke's "dance with the Dark Side" really came about when he took his weapons into the cave, so it was even before he left Dagobah. Yoda was an ancient Jedi Master and he still wouldn't listen to him. I wouldn't even call his "turn" in ROTJ a real turn. More like a dance on the Dark Side.

As for Lex, he definitely exhibited a slow turn. Again, that comes from the direction the actor was given. They told him to ignore everything he knew about Lex Luthor and just play him like a normal guy. He comes off as being the perfect friend in the beginning and by Season 5, you're really starting to hate the guy.

Now with Anakin's turn, I remember thinking that it was going to happen when Palpatine revealed himself to be the Sith to Anakin. I kept thinking 'He's going to turn and offer to protect him' or something along those lines. When he didn't turn in that scene but later did in another scene, I was one of those going "WTF?!" Then to hear the commentary on the ROTS DVD where Lucas says "I was going to have Anakin turn in this scene where Palpatine reveals himself, but I decided that it just wasn't going to work" Again, "WTF?!" Wasn't going work?! How was it not going to work? It was the perfect moment! The actual turn scene is like a tacked on bit that makes no sense at all!
Post
#307289
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Time
Originally posted by: Jay
More nonsense from teh innernets.


Care to explain why it's nonsense?

I don't know why they'd do that, but that's the way it reads. I would assume that when recording video to a blu-ray disc, it gets recorded in the same format as a commercially available Blu-ray movie, minus the encryption. If the players aren't going to play anything without AACS, then the story is accurate. It would be akin to DVD players not playing anything that doesn't have a CSS key. We all know that isn't possible, since DVD burners, at least the consumer ones, can't even record a CSS key. That doesn't mean the video format for CSS protected DVDs is any different from non CSS protected DVDs. The formats are exactly the same, the only difference is the lack of a key.

So is it true or not? Will future Blu-ray players refuse to play movies that aren't encrypted with AACS?

Post
#306873
Topic
News from MacWorld
Time
Originally posted by: sean wookie
I was watching the updates on the keynote live to see what was coming up. The Macbook Air looks pretty cool. Whats everyone else's thoughts on it? If it didn't cost so much I might want one. I'm saving up for a Macbook at the moment.
Macbook Air hands on.

Now that I've seen the Macbook Air, here's my thoughts. To much money for not enough notebook. I can get a Sony laptop that weighs only .1 lbs more, but comes with two USB ports, Firewire, PCI-X, and a DVD burner for only $200 more than the Macbook Air. In fact, we have three of them at work. They're great little computers too.

Originally posted by: sean wookie
A few hippies that changed the world that what Apple was.


Yeah, except Jobs stopped being a hippie at the first trade show they ever went to. Watch Pirates of Silicon Valley and then tell me if you still think they were hippies.
Post
#306848
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Time
Originally posted by: Johnny Ringo
You really shouldn't be asking us.

So, I guess I should buy a PS3, huh.


I really can't tell if you are being sincere or sarcastic. I wouldn't, But hey, It's your money...In any case, you should look at everything that's available to you and decide for yourself. Don't be a hater, Just be happy with what you've got.

In terms of Bluray. If you steer clear of 1.0 profile you SHOULD be okay. As far as I know you can't go from 1.0 to 2.0 outside of PS3.

I know I'm probably in the minority but I really hope Bluray loses. I really can't stomach the thought of Sony being in control. But I guess we'll just see how things pan out.


You cannot buy a 1.0 profile player anymore. 1.1 profile was REQUIRED as of November.

At this point, there's no reason to believe that Blu-ray even has a chance of losing. Only two studios are left in the HD-DVD camp. HD-DVD has essentially lost the battle.

Blu-ray outsells HD-DVD 6:1
Post
#306714
Topic
God Bless The USA
Time
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
I don't think its that's simple to make a semi-auto hand gun or an uzi. If it were, they wouldn't cost $900(as Sean said).


I hate to feed the troll, but in this case, I'm going to. Uzi's have been illegal since the 70's, MORON! You also wouldn't need a semi-automatic weapon to kill lots of people. As someone else already said, explosives will do just fine. Find the gas main at the school and plant a bomb there. You'll kill a helluva lot more people in the resulting explosion. Or you could make some napalm (gasoline and laundry detergent if I'm not mistaken) and the resulting fire will stick to people just wonderfully.

The bigger the gun, the more it will cost. A 50 caliber desert eagle costs about $1000. Does anyone need that kind of power to kill someone? No. You could get by easily with a 38 caliber revolver. Those probably only cost about $350. Want something even easier? Find some metal pipe, maybe 7 or 8 pieces. Tie them together with glue and rope. Now use a rubber band or other type of elastic with some kind of pin. Congratulations, if you've used pipe that can hold a 38, you've just made a multi-shot snap gun. It may not be very efficient, but it'll do the job.

I don't have the know how to make a revolver that could be cocked and then fired, but I'm not an engineer. The mechanics are not that complex. I know enough engineers that if I really wanted to make one, I could.

And to get back OT:

http://www.jigsawgallery.com/prodpics/SZ174.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/139/327270746_de0c3f8f19.jpg

http://www.inhats.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/sirpussofposhpants-inhat.jpg
Post
#306438
Topic
God Bless The USA
Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Originally posted by: ferris209
Why is it nobody ever blames the Democratic majority of Congress.

Because they have only had the majority for one year and in the senate especially, they have been blocked by the new Republican Minority with a record number of filibusters. The very thing they railed on Democrats for when the roles were reversed. Like I said, they're all to blame.


Record number of threatened filibusters.

You're right of course, they are all to blame. Which is why people need to stop buying into the idea that the Dems are going to fix everything.

Post
#306436
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Time
The last time we got into this discussion, someone mentioned the number of keys that could be used for Blu-ray was on the order of billions. Billions of keys. That's a shit load of keys. It's enough keys that yes, you could disable one single player (not the whole line of a certain model) and still have plenty of keys left. The current world population is approximately 7 billion people. If they can do double or even triple that number of keys, there will be no forseeable shortage.

I do agree that having any form of DRM is pathetic and laughable. I imagine it'll only take a couple of weeks for someone to hack through BD+ and that'll be the end of it.
Post
#306313
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Time
Actually, according to one of the articles I read, there will be no problem playing the movie on any of those players. The only problem that might come up is the additional features that are on the disc.

To me, this is no different than some of the problems that DVD encountered when it finally went mainstream. The APEX DVD player that someone else mentioned is one player that had trouble with seamless branching and would choke on the T2 DVDs that came out. A firmware upgrade fixed it, but it had to be sent in to the manufacturer and then they removed the back door that let you change the region.

I doubt that the people who bought Blu-ray players are suddenly going to migrate to HD-DVD. Why would they do that? They've started a library of Blu-ray movies and those would be useless on an HD-DVD player. It's more likely that they'll wait for the 2.0 spec to be finalized and then get a player that can be upgraded in the future. And if they don't want to wait, they can just get a PS3. It really isn't our problem that the price of the PS3 doesn't cover the manufacturing cost. That's Sony's problem and it likely won't be a problem once Blu-ray really takes off since they'll be taking in even more fees from licensing at that point.

To be perfectly honest, the early adopters did "know what they were getting into". They knew there was a chance that BD wouldn't take off. They knew they might end up with a dead format. At least this way, they can still play the movies, they just can't necessarily access all the features. That's really no different from early adopters of HDTVs that don't have HDMI ports or DVI ports without HDCP. Those people will never be able to watch a hi-def movie at 1080p until they upgrade their TVs.

Early adoption of any new technology always involves getting screwed by something.
Post
#306291
Topic
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD?
Time
Ok, even I think this is pathetic and I've been "supporting" HD-DVD from day one:

Toshiba slashing prices on HD-DVD players

It's time to give up guys. They fought a hard battle, but it's really time to throw in the towel and move on. I guess they can't be expected to go quietly though, at least not until Paramount and Universal switch formats.

Oh well, only another 6 months until WB is completely exclusive to Blu-ray.
Post
#306288
Topic
Peter Jackson evidently IS returning for The Hobbit...sort of...
Time
Originally posted by: Johnny Ringo
How do you explain all those ppl watching FOTR right before seeing TTT then? To refresh their memory maybe? I get what you are saying but your comments actually back up the Director statements you seem upset with.


My point is, people took initiative to make sure they hadn't forgotten. A LOT of people did that. They didn't need the director to cut things out of TTT and ROTK in order to "help them remember".

Go watch the commentary for FOTR. Then watch the one for TTT and ROTK. They took A LOT more liberties with TTT and ROTK. In FOTR PJ plainly states "We were going to change this, but we decided not to afterall". Can you imagine the backlash they would've received if they had changed to much? After FOTR was a success, they were pretty much free to change things as they pleased. Hence, you get Aragorn "dying" in the Warg attack and Faramir becoming a completely different character.

The only thing, in my mind, that they really needed to cut was the Tom Bombadil stuff from FOTR. That part was a good chunk of the book, but it was essentially just there to show how large the LOTR world was. Changing Faramir and Aragorn's character was completely unnecessary. And with the amount of "endings" that ROTK has, having the Hobbits fight one last battle in the Shire wouldn't have been that big of a problem. I know a couple of people that said "end already!" at the end of ROTK because of all the things that happen at the end of that movie. But there's nothing you can do about someone like that (he's more like a film critic than your average movie goer). Just make the best movie you can without sacrificing the content in order to "dumb it down".
Post
#306280
Topic
Peter Jackson evidently IS returning for The Hobbit...sort of...
Time
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
SOME THINGS JUST DDON'T WORK ON FILM. OTHER THINGS DO. PETER AND FRAN CHANGED THESE THINGS FOR A REASON THOUGH IT PAINED THEM TO DO SO. THIS IS WHY I ALWAYS TELL PEOPLE TO WATCH THE MOVIE BEFORE READING THE BOOKS.


Oh please. They said very clearly in the commentary on ROTK that they essentially changed things to cope with people's attention spans. They said that if the movies had all been released at once, there would have been far fewer changes. So they really changed things because they didn't think people would remember what had happened in the previous movie. Most of the people I talked to either rented FOTR before seeing TTT (and the same for ROTK) or rewatched their DVD the night of the movie.

I am seriously getting sick of these director's and producer's saying they're changing things essentially because "people are stupid and can't remember anything". The people who are going to the theater to see these movies are not stupid and can very easily remember what happened in the last one.
Post
#306279
Topic
Florida "Baker Act" and "Gang Stalking" My True Horror Story!
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Most people are just not that important to the government that the government cares what they're thinking or doing. If you're not a high level VIP that's featured on the nightly news, chances are the government isn't out to get you.


Too true. But come on, we all like to pretend we are the hero of our own comedy or the victim of our own tragedy. We could all use the ego boost of the government showing a particular interest us, or even better than the local government, an international secret society, or intergalactic aliens, or best of all a combination of the three.

Just to avoid flaming, this post was not directed at you FF, just my thoughts on conspiracy theories in general and agreement with lordjedi's post about most people not being important enough to attract that kind of attention.


It's funny. People get all afraid that the government is going to have so much information on them and they want their lives to be private. The reality is that all your information is out there everywhere, especially if you've got a "Club Card" or you belong to a Costco or Walmart. If you're using a credit card for purchases, your information is everywhere. Go ahead and buy something at Home Depot or the super market. Now go and return it. They won't even ask for your credit card because they don't need it. They scan that little barcode on the receipt and they know everything you bought that day. If you have your credit card, they can tell you everything you've ever bought from them. If the government really wanted to get all this info on people, they'd subpoena Home Depot and any other retailer and then just cross reference the information to find out where everyone shops, what they've bought, and how often they've bought it.

The only way to have full anonymity in today's society is to only use cash. So go ahead and try to just use cash (and no atm machine) and see how long before you decide that you're really not that important.

As for ADM's comments, that's pretty typical. He usually stoops that low after a few rounds back and forth.