Because it is always easier to come up with a technological solution (even if it doesn't work) than it is to address the real (usually human) problem.

This really illustrates the absurdity of the claim that phones are to blame for the problem.

If you're using a hands-free device, you're just basically having a conversation with someone who isn't actually in the car. It's not going to be any more inherently distracting than having a conversation with somebody who is in the car. So if hands-free phones are a problem... So is talking to a passenger.

Pretty much anything purchased in the last few years is going to be 64-bit capable.

If you're running 32-bit, it probably isn't the hardware holding you back. It's probably your software.

I'm still having to reload machines with 32-bit Windows XP because we've got software that won't support anything else.

That's funny. I really never thought I'd see someone on Slashdot complain about a CLI being more useful than a GUI.

I can certainly relate. Windows has been so GUI-centric for so long that suddenly finding the CLI more functional than the GUI is downright strange. Moving from Exchange 2003 to 2007 was a very jarring experience for me.

However... Now that I'm actually learning PowerShell, I have to say that it's pretty damn nice. The added flexibility and control is amazing. And it enables all kinds of scripting and automation.

This.

I'd be willing to bet a year's pay that the previous guy wasn't straight-up incompetent. He was probably relatively skilled, and doing the best he could with the resources at his disposal. Which were probably not actually the resources he needed.

Odds are good that there's a reason why the place is in the condition it is now.

Odds are good that there's a reason why the last guy isn't there anymore.

Odds are good that you're going to need more than one guy in IT to get it all straightened-out.

Which is where practical effects really shine.

Again, you aren't trying to re-invent the wheel. You're just filming reality.

Agreed.

Teleporting from one continent to another because it's Star Trek and that's what we do is fine.

Somehow traveling from the US to Australia with absolutely no apparent passage of time or explanation of how it happened in the context of the story is a plot hole.

Sure, if you're doing something that's straight-up impossible, being free of the constraints of real-world physics is pretty nice.

But if you're just trying to do something impractical or incredibly dangerous, and still want it to look somewhat realistic, you're adding a lot of overhead by doing it in CGI instead of practical effects. A ball bouncing down stairs shot with practical effects looks real because it is real... The same shot using CGI looks real because some guy spend hours/days/weeks tweaking the shot until it looked right. There's nothing intrinsic to the CGI process that'll make a ball fall down at all, much less deform and bounce and roll correctly. All that is the result of many lines of code and many hours of tweaking.

Really?

Right after you talk about how CGI is nice for doing impossible things, you say that it should all be as realistic and believable as possible?

Needless to say, I disagree.

Sure, if you're doing some kind of gritty cop-drama or something, realism is pretty nice. But what if you're doing a fantasy or science fiction movie? Do you really want realism? Once you introduce magic or dragons or FTL travel or something, realism pretty much goes out the window.

They'll probably do it exactly the same way the original Star Trek did it... And Next Generation did it... Without a green screen.

But, they aren't.

They're making a decision to use a specific real-world technology to tell their story in what they believe to be the best way possible.

It would really depend on the situation.

If I were at work - sure. Plenty of folks around the building with radios or TVs on. I'm sure somebody would see the warning.

At home? Probably not. My wife is just as bad as I am, if not worse. Our neighbors all head South for the winter, and aren't terribly social at the best of times. My wife's side of the family is all dead. My side of the family is 1,500+ miles away.

That's kind of what I was thinking when I heard about this test.

I consume less and less broadcast media - be it television or radio - every day.

Unless I just happened to be driving somewhere in a car at the time of the emergency, I simply wouldn't hear the warning.

And, like it or not, that is a prevalent assumption in the U.S.

I'm no constitutional lawyer... And I'd like to think that we're better than this... But I really wouldn't be all that surprised to see such an obviously discriminatory policy at least proposed, if not actually approved.

Or kicking folks off planes because they look too Muslim?

Granted, it's a private corporation that's kicking people off of planes, so they don't really have to worry about constitutionality the way that the government does... But it's just as discriminatory, and just as stupid, and just as effective.

I'm no expert. We've got a NetApp where I work now, and had a Netgear ReadyNAS at my previous job. But I will say that some ability to upgrade is going to be key.

We got the ReadyNAS up and running with just a couple TB of storage because we really didn't think we'd need more than that. Within a year we were full and looking for some way to expand it.

The NetApp here was installed with a good pile of storage... But we've grown our environment so much that we've exceeded the capabilities of the chassis, and are looking at upgrading to a faster model.

It's very easy, when you're shopping around, to simply look at prices and your current needs and come to the conclusion that you really don't need that much storage... It's also very easy, once you've got a network storage device, to throw everything on there - simply because it is so convenient. And then, before you know it, you're running out of room.

Make sure you get something that can easily be expanded and/or upgraded - because it will happen. Probably much sooner than you expect.

I don't know that I'd say ridiculously expensive... Sure, they cost more than a generic fax machine, but not that much more. And you often get what you pay for - meaning a more expensive document scanner will likely hold up better than your bargain fax machine.

And then there's the real multifunction devices...

Any place that's dealing with a large volume of paper - be it scanning, printing, or faxing - really ought to have a good, solid all-in-one device. Not one of those piece-of-crap inkjet things that HP sells for $100 - but a real office machine. The kind of things that Kyocera or Canon make. The big beasts that'll scan in reams of paper in just seconds, automatically convert it to whatever format you want, OCR it, and then store it somewhere on the network or email it or whatever else.

These things really aren't that expensive. Usually you can get them under contract with some local company and then you don't have to worry about maintenance or anything. And the cost per page is usually much lower than it would be otherwise.

These things make scanning insanely easy. And they'll also email for you - making the whole process just as easy as sending a fax.

I guess it depends on where you work and what you're sending and where it's going... But a PDF document isn't that big. I've got 100 page documents that are just a couple MB. Most folks can receive files of that size.

Plus, it isn't like you fax machines have a magically endless supply of paper. If you're sending a document that's big enough to worry about the size limits on their mailserver, then they're going to be going through a lot of paper. Better hope they filled it up before you sent the thing.

Ideally, sure, that's how it works. But I can boil down sending a PDF attachment to something just as simple.

What you're neglecting to mention is that the entire time you're sending your 100+ page document, your fax machine (and attached phone line) are busy and unable to do anything else. As is the recipient's fax machine and phone line. And if you're sending (or receiving) a lot of these things, you can tie that line up all day long. Which is exactly what we were doing here.

I am always amazed that folks think a fax transmission is somehow secure, and simultaneously seem to believe that securing email is an insurmountable challenge.

Yeah... They'd have to remove that feature, or allow some kind of internal licensing server... Because there's no way in hell I'm going to roll out an OS that bricks my workstations when the Internet goes down.

Yeah. I cringed when I first heard about a new Blade Runner movie... But then I heard it was Ridley Scott... And now I'm just kind of confused.

Ridley Scott generally does good work. I can't think of a whole lot of movies he's done that I didn't enjoy. So that's definitely a step in the right direction.

And Blade Runner was certainly an interesting movie... Fairly complex world... I could easily see more stories being told in that setting...

But I just don't know where they'd go with the actual Blade Runner storyline. It seemed fairly self-contained to me. I've never really felt a burning desire to see what Deckard did before this last job... Or how the replicants managed their escape... Or what happened to Deckard and Rachael after they drove off into the sunset... All that really seemed superfluous to the main storyline.

Of course... That's never stopped someone for throwing together an ill-thought-out prequel/sequel before...

I guess what would make the most sense would be another story told in the same setting, but largely unrelated to the events of Blade Runner. See the events on one of the colonies, where replicants are not hunted down, but treated as slaves. Or maybe follow some other detective somewhere else. Maybe a super-prequel showing the development and release of the original series of replicants?

One thing I'd definitely hate to see is any of the original cast making an appearance as themselves. I guess a quick shot of Decker in the background somewhere would be ok... Or see his file on a detective's desk, or hear about him on the news... I could see maybe a glimpse inside a factory and see a bunch of Decker/Priss/Zhora/Roy-model replicants... But they'd have to be digitally altered to look more-or-less like they did 30 years ago.

PvE, PvP - it doesn't really matter. Ultimately, it's all about the people you play with.

I had a great group of people I used to play WoW with... We'd played EQ before that, and DAoC, and CoH... Awesome folks.

But the gameplay mechanics of WoW really kind of ruined things for us. We were used to raids that involved 100+ people, and WoW limited it to just 40... And then 25... And, last time I played, most things were geared towards groups of 10.

Absolutely everything is instanced, so you don't really run into other people unless you want to. Then there's all the automated systems to help you find a group... Even going so far as to pull people into a group across different servers...

The end result is that WoW became downright antisocial. I'd log in, join a queue, run through a dungeon, get my loot, and join a new queue - all without anybody saying more than a half-dozen words to anyone else. Didn't get to know anyone, no feeling of camaraderie or anything like that, no sense of community.

This is the biggest difference between WoW and EVE - not any particular gameplay mechanic or quest structure or anything like that. The fact that the entire game takes place in a single, shared universe; and that even in the mission pockets you can still be scanned-down... You're forced to deal with other people. That makes the whole process more social, more communal. And it leads to better inter-player dynamics. Which is the whole point of a MMOG.