This exactly the reason I don't believe all these reports that Google's (Or other) online apps will take over from local software. Sure online word processing can be handy, but if the network breaks, or their servers do you've got no comeback. If Gmail broke tomorrow and everyone lost all their e-mails (and logins to websites etc) there would be mass problems and loads of people would be really annoyed. But there wouldn't be much we could do about it, I'm sure in the eula we're not allowed to sue for lost data etc because that would be crazy if everyone did. At least if its local you have someone to blame/punch.... --- Contronyms: for people who sanction opposites ---
Its better for them because Google doesn't make money off of it, Sony does. Of course the advantage to the user is less obvious. That side of things seems to get mysteriously lost when companies plan these things, once they know how their money is coming they are happy. Some companies seem to think just because they have something new with x and y feature people will flock to it. --- I'm not wasting time, I'm rehearsing my retirement ---
Where a 40 hour rate to get 210,000 TB of information sounds good you have a slight flaw. It'd also take 40 hour rate to get 1 byte of information. Which as I download allot more things in the rate of the later I think I'd get bored waiting around... --- Contronyms: for people who are chuffed by antonyms ---
The privacy advocates arnt worried about themselves. They're making a scene because they want to make sure people who do 'volunteer' know what they might be signing away.
Some snippets FTA: - "most Google users don't know that their search queries can be tied to them"
"When Google users were asked whether they believed that the company captured data that could be used to identify them, 77% said no."
>They're aware of other browsers, they explicitly just don't care.
I'd have said its more 'aware of other browsers, and presenting a solution to those who use them'. How appropriate or useful the solution is, is different question completly, but short of changing their site its the best thing to do.
You must appreciate of course that the people in control of the site might be fully aware of firefox and so on, but they probably are not in control of the money.
Given the choice of re-design the site for x money, or put a notice telling people who use firefox how to get round it for allot-less-then-x money, I know which I think bosses would go for. Especially if the site is already doing well with out firefox visitors.
Not to mention just because firefox has a certain percentage overall doesn't make that true of every site. Certain tech blogs have posted reader stats before now which show a 70~80% firefox readership. Doesn't make that true of the net in general. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest slashdot gets a massive number of 'non-IE' browser vists, but other sites might only see a 5~10% 'non-IE' impact at best. In those cases re-making a site/changing it for maximum browser capability doesn't make as much sense as some instructions for how FF users might get round the problem. It might be that they don't care, it might be its actually the most sensible action.
Does this mean the best way to cope with being 'attacked' by a bee, is to whip out your mobile make a ringing sound then pass it to the bee and say "Its for you"?
I'm fairly surprised to be honest. I hadn't really thought about it before (Don't use iTunes so it passed me by) but if you'd have asked me I would have assumed that it worked on a 'similar music' style thing. If iTunes looked at what you've bought, finds people with similar taste and suggests bands you might like, bands/record companies would be advertising mostly to the intrested; saving everybody's time.
Although I suppose I'm hardly shocked they'd do it this way. The music business isn't exactly known for its care or thought of the consumer.
It might not completely wipe out jpg, but I don't think people would care enough to try to hang on to it. Most people don't really care what format their photos are in so long as they can edit them and view them without requiring a new hard-drive for storage.
All Microsoft would have to do is add a camera to the Zune with this format and consumers would be using it. If it actually offers lower file size and better picture most manufactures would be happy to add it to their products , claiming its benefits as their own.
If devices support it, image programs will support it and it'll be used more if its actually significantly better. Not to mention as you said the letters HD have quite high marketing potential.
I'm not saying it will be the biggest thing ever, destroying jpg and becoming the ultimate format, more that I don't think it would be too hard for it to do so as I doubt people are really that attached to the format of their photos.
(Plus if Microsoft are smart they could make an 'image library' explorer/organiser progam, that would offer to convert your images and save you xxxMB.)
Games? What are you on about? Games are so last gen. This new generation is all about online communities, user made content, downloadable add-ons/content and changing methods of control.
Games are no longer what you buy a console for, they're just another tick-box on the list of features.
Just because something is free doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything. Best case scenario you have to pay your IT guys to install, configure and help users not used to it.
If the company uses software/internal programs dependent on IE you then you'd need to really test it to check nothing goes wrong. That would take many man hours, and could never guarantee a trouble free life. If you have everything set up fine now, with no advantages in changing why change?
Plus you have to remember that IE6 may be poor security for the home user, but within a professorial environment using mostly internal websites and a proper firewall, virus and so forth there's less of a need to update.
(Course places developing internet based things might have more of a problem.)
Wow, that's a very strong response - I hope you don't get this worked up every time you spot such minor mistakes, just 5 minutes of internet surfing could give you a stress based heart attack.
I apologise if my mistake offended you but I don't really think it warrants such a reply. The point of my post is still easily understandable, and it doesn't require that much thought to work out what I meant. There, they're and there are similar enough words for it to be very easy to use the wrong one and equally easy to correct. I know that doesn't make it a good thing or correct grammar but it's hardly the end of the world.
I have far more problems with people who speak in stupid abbreviations or add numbers etc to their words because that does remove people's ability to understand. I also take fair care for other people to understand me, as a dyslexic my spelling is quite often rather imaginative, so I use the firefox spell checker so that people don't have to guess what I'm saying. (I sometimes have to look up the definition of words to see which is the right spelling to use because I can't tell the difference.) Good communication helps to get your point across, but its really the idea that matters, communication is somewhat secondary. Slashdot is a place to share your views, opinions or insights on a topic, not to test who has best command of the English language.
Besides that I also feel that you can't assume that someone hasn't proofread something just because they miss errors you spot instantly. Newspapers and Books will often have grammatical errors, and they have professional proofreaders who managed to miss something. I happen to be incredibly bad at proofreading; in anything important I get someone else to proofread it.
When posting online I tend to re-read what I've said to make sure it makes sense/my point can be understood, but having only just typed it its remarkably easy to miss things. I read above post before submitting, noticing just afterwards that it said 'donate' rather then 'donating'. People seem to have got passed that though, I don't think it's likely to have really confused anyone.
I don't agree with the idea of accepting mediocrity, and have no problem with you pointing out peoples mistakes, however you seem to really over react. A simple "I think you mean they're;)" would suffice; the poster gets the point, and doesn't feel unfairly picked on, by a person trying to start an argument.
(I'm also curious as to who exactly the "you people" are you're referring to? Grammatical errors are hardly enough to label a whole subgroup with.)
Yes but governments don't exist without the blessings of groups like the *AA's. If lobby groups can't get the government to do what they want, they either stop 'donate' money until they do, or give money to the other side on the condition they'll do what their told.
How's zonk reponsible? If Sony had said they'd be giving 8 free games and 5 Blu-ray movies to all ps3 purchasers he'd have reported that. Sony have annouced something, which the people don't like = anti-ps3.
>Does anyone know what the severity of the "issue" is and what games are likely to be affected? It would seem not. And my guess is no-one will until the console is launched and some gamers start posting game results.
Which means your best bet is to wait to see what games work before purchase. (Also giving you the fun of getting to laugh at sony if PS3's don't sell out on launch;)
From a manufacturing point of view it might make sense, but from a PR viewpoint its ridiculous. The only way it could have worked is if it offered the same (or better) functionality, or they passed the price-drop onto the consumer.
People will hear 'functionally reduced - doesn't play PS2 games" no-matter of what real situation is. I think the people who were thinking of trading in their ps2 in for money off/towards a ps3 might wait their time...
This might be a good move for sony, thats more of a bad move for sony.
Thanks, thats very interesting. I was under the impression that they were in [quiet] favor of the plan. Either my following of politics isn't as good as I thought it was, or they've been rather rubbish on mentioning that policy.
I love the way that people involved in DRM think it adds to the product. You can do less with this product now! Whoo-hoo!
It may be shameless self-promotion but I made a visualisation of the Ultimate DRM just the other day. What happened to giving the customer what they want?
>Now the people who benefitted from that want to become and stay some sort of new IBM by controlling the architecture through crypto.
But that's just obvious. If you were a 'little guy' who took over/became the new 'big guy' you'd be extra aware of the vulnerabilities of your position, and would take major care to secure it. You'd know first hand how you got where you were and what you exploited, and would make sure that it doesn't happen to you, but you protected if it does.
would this mean that all file sharing would be fine, as long you delete your file sharing software and promise to not do it anymore if they try to prosecute you?
Its not quite case closed; true the fact Betamax wasn't licensed to the adult industry is apparently what gave VHS the first edge, and the adult industry is what drove DVD sales/development, but can the same be said of High Def material?
From what I've read the adult industry in general isn't that fond of HD. Apparently the sudden increase in quality isn't always -that- good a thing. So whilst it no doubt will still have an effect, I'd doubt it'll be as big as in previous situations.
Slashdot Mirror
This exactly the reason I don't believe all these reports that Google's (Or other) online apps will take over from local software. Sure online word processing can be handy, but if the network breaks, or their servers do you've got no comeback. If Gmail broke tomorrow and everyone lost all their e-mails (and logins to websites etc) there would be mass problems and loads of people would be really annoyed. But there wouldn't be much we could do about it, I'm sure in the eula we're not allowed to sue for lost data etc because that would be crazy if everyone did. At least if its local you have someone to blame/punch....
---
Contronyms: for people who sanction opposites
---
Its better for them because Google doesn't make money off of it, Sony does. Of course the advantage to the user is less obvious. That side of things seems to get mysteriously lost when companies plan these things, once they know how their money is coming they are happy. Some companies seem to think just because they have something new with x and y feature people will flock to it.
---
I'm not wasting time, I'm rehearsing my retirement
---
Where a 40 hour rate to get 210,000 TB of information sounds good you have a slight flaw. It'd also take 40 hour rate to get 1 byte of information. Which as I download allot more things in the rate of the later I think I'd get bored waiting around...
---
Contronyms: for people who are chuffed by antonyms
---
The privacy advocates arnt worried about themselves. They're making a scene because they want to make sure people who do 'volunteer' know what they might be signing away.
Some snippets FTA: -
"most Google users don't know that their search queries can be tied to them"
"When Google users were asked whether they believed that the company captured data that could be used to identify them, 77% said no."
>They're aware of other browsers, they explicitly just don't care. I'd have said its more 'aware of other browsers, and presenting a solution to those who use them'. How appropriate or useful the solution is, is different question completly, but short of changing their site its the best thing to do. You must appreciate of course that the people in control of the site might be fully aware of firefox and so on, but they probably are not in control of the money. Given the choice of re-design the site for x money, or put a notice telling people who use firefox how to get round it for allot-less-then-x money, I know which I think bosses would go for. Especially if the site is already doing well with out firefox visitors. Not to mention just because firefox has a certain percentage overall doesn't make that true of every site. Certain tech blogs have posted reader stats before now which show a 70~80% firefox readership. Doesn't make that true of the net in general. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest slashdot gets a massive number of 'non-IE' browser vists, but other sites might only see a 5~10% 'non-IE' impact at best. In those cases re-making a site/changing it for maximum browser capability doesn't make as much sense as some instructions for how FF users might get round the problem. It might be that they don't care, it might be its actually the most sensible action.
Does this mean the best way to cope with being 'attacked' by a bee, is to whip out your mobile make a ringing sound then pass it to the bee and say "Its for you"?
But are the helmets tested or will they fly off and break your tvs?
but.... 4.999... isn't 5. there's always a 0.0000...001 difference...
(someone had to ask)
Yeah, its an odd feature of the Time Lord molecular structure that every couple of years they regenerate into someone cheaper...
I'm fairly surprised to be honest. I hadn't really thought about it before (Don't use iTunes so it passed me by) but if you'd have asked me I would have assumed that it worked on a 'similar music' style thing. If iTunes looked at what you've bought, finds people with similar taste and suggests bands you might like, bands/record companies would be advertising mostly to the intrested; saving everybody's time.
Although I suppose I'm hardly shocked they'd do it this way. The music business isn't exactly known for its care or thought of the consumer.
It might not completely wipe out jpg, but I don't think people would care enough to try to hang on to it. Most people don't really care what format their photos are in so long as they can edit them and view them without requiring a new hard-drive for storage.
All Microsoft would have to do is add a camera to the Zune with this format and consumers would be using it. If it actually offers lower file size and better picture most manufactures would be happy to add it to their products , claiming its benefits as their own.
If devices support it, image programs will support it and it'll be used more if its actually significantly better. Not to mention as you said the letters HD have quite high marketing potential.
I'm not saying it will be the biggest thing ever, destroying jpg and becoming the ultimate format, more that I don't think it would be too hard for it to do so as I doubt people are really that attached to the format of their photos.
(Plus if Microsoft are smart they could make an 'image library' explorer/organiser progam, that would offer to convert your images and save you xxxMB.)
Games? What are you on about? Games are so last gen. This new generation is all about online communities, user made content, downloadable add-ons/content and changing methods of control.
Games are no longer what you buy a console for, they're just another tick-box on the list of features.
Just because something is free doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything. Best case scenario you have to pay your IT guys to install, configure and help users not used to it.
If the company uses software/internal programs dependent on IE you then you'd need to really test it to check nothing goes wrong. That would take many man hours, and could never guarantee a trouble free life. If you have everything set up fine now, with no advantages in changing why change?
Plus you have to remember that IE6 may be poor security for the home user, but within a professorial environment using mostly internal websites and a proper firewall, virus and so forth there's less of a need to update.
(Course places developing internet based things might have more of a problem.)
Wow, that's a very strong response - I hope you don't get this worked up every time you spot such minor mistakes, just 5 minutes of internet surfing could give you a stress based heart attack.
/my point can be understood, but having only just typed it its remarkably easy to miss things. I read above post before submitting, noticing just afterwards that it said 'donate' rather then 'donating'. People seem to have got passed that though, I don't think it's likely to have really confused anyone.
;)" would suffice; the poster gets the point, and doesn't feel unfairly picked on, by a person trying to start an argument.
I apologise if my mistake offended you but I don't really think it warrants such a reply. The point of my post is still easily understandable, and it doesn't require that much thought to work out what I meant. There, they're and there are similar enough words for it to be very easy to use the wrong one and equally easy to correct. I know that doesn't make it a good thing or correct grammar but it's hardly the end of the world.
I have far more problems with people who speak in stupid abbreviations or add numbers etc to their words because that does remove people's ability to understand. I also take fair care for other people to understand me, as a dyslexic my spelling is quite often rather imaginative, so I use the firefox spell checker so that people don't have to guess what I'm saying. (I sometimes have to look up the definition of words to see which is the right spelling to use because I can't tell the difference.) Good communication helps to get your point across, but its really the idea that matters, communication is somewhat secondary. Slashdot is a place to share your views, opinions or insights on a topic, not to test who has best command of the English language.
Besides that I also feel that you can't assume that someone hasn't proofread something just because they miss errors you spot instantly. Newspapers and Books will often have grammatical errors, and they have professional proofreaders who managed to miss something. I happen to be incredibly bad at proofreading; in anything important I get someone else to proofread it.
When posting online I tend to re-read what I've said to make sure it makes sense
I don't agree with the idea of accepting mediocrity, and have no problem with you pointing out peoples mistakes, however you seem to really over react. A simple "I think you mean they're
(I'm also curious as to who exactly the "you people" are you're referring to? Grammatical errors are hardly enough to label a whole subgroup with.)
Yes but governments don't exist without the blessings of groups like the *AA's. If lobby groups can't get the government to do what they want, they either stop 'donate' money until they do, or give money to the other side on the condition they'll do what their told.
How's zonk reponsible? If Sony had said they'd be giving 8 free games and 5 Blu-ray movies to all ps3 purchasers he'd have reported that. Sony have annouced something, which the people don't like = anti-ps3.
slashdot eds report the news, not make it.
>Does anyone know what the severity of the "issue" is and what games are likely to be affected?
;)
It would seem not. And my guess is no-one will until the console is launched and some gamers start posting game results.
Which means your best bet is to wait to see what games work before purchase. (Also giving you the fun of getting to laugh at sony if PS3's don't sell out on launch
From a manufacturing point of view it might make sense, but from a PR viewpoint its ridiculous. The only way it could have worked is if it offered the same (or better) functionality, or they passed the price-drop onto the consumer.
People will hear 'functionally reduced - doesn't play PS2 games" no-matter of what real situation is. I think the people who were thinking of trading in their ps2 in for money off/towards a ps3 might wait their time...
This might be a good move for sony, thats more of a bad move for sony.
Thanks, thats very interesting. I was under the impression that they were in [quiet] favor of the plan. Either my following of politics isn't as good as I thought it was, or they've been rather rubbish on mentioning that policy.
>and that it will then be scrapped by the Tories Can you point me to anything which says the Tories would scrap it?
I love the way that people involved in DRM think it adds to the product. You can do less with this product now! Whoo-hoo!
It may be shameless self-promotion but I made a visualisation of the Ultimate DRM just the other day. What happened to giving the customer what they want?
This phone bends better. Okay so it may not exist (yet), but that's no reason not to watch the cool video.
>Now the people who benefitted from that want to become and stay some sort of new IBM by controlling the architecture through crypto.
But that's just obvious. If you were a 'little guy' who took over/became the new 'big guy' you'd be extra aware of the vulnerabilities of your position, and would take major care to secure it. You'd know first hand how you got where you were and what you exploited, and would make sure that it doesn't happen to you, but you protected if it does.
would this mean that all file sharing would be fine, as long you delete your file sharing software and promise to not do it anymore if they try to prosecute you?
Its not quite case closed; true the fact Betamax wasn't licensed to the adult industry is apparently what gave VHS the first edge, and the adult industry is what drove DVD sales/development, but can the same be said of High Def material?
From what I've read the adult industry in general isn't that fond of HD. Apparently the sudden increase in quality isn't always -that- good a thing. So whilst it no doubt will still have an effect, I'd doubt it'll be as big as in previous situations.