Other people said they couldn't find themselves. My guess is google had some technical difficulties reindexing the archive or something, but it all seems to be there now. Try again.
How big will DVD's get before it's no longer practical to decode all that data...why not focus on reducing the data, and not have to design hardware that can handle excessive loads?
There is no sensible answer to that question. As processor speeds and efficiency rise along with other technologies DVDs could get much bigger. Using better codecs can help, but only so much. If someone can make a 100GB DVD, and someone else can make a player that can play it, then what's the problem?
You say you want storage needs for digital video down so that you don't need a large drive. Fine. Use a low bitrate and get a shitty picture. Or wait a few years until 500GB drives are available and a relatively small drive will be able to store a lot of high quality video. The word "large" is nearly meaningless when referring to a drive. The fact is that once drive sizes increase, the resolution DV cams use probably will too. But that's a good thing. In 50 years no one will probably think a thing of throwing around petabyte size files. I see that as progress.
That is not the purpose of OfflineRT as I understand it. What OfflineRT is made for is to let someone take the DV stream, compress it down to something small(but with much poorer quality), and edit it. Then, once all the editing is done, you then go back to the uncompressed stream and using FCP it edits the large file based on what you did with the small one.
It's made so that for instance you can take the 200GB of movie data you have and put it on your TiBook for editing, then resync it with the main piece of data. You don't want to store your original in that format because it'll look like shit.
Consumer Reports has a policy of only testing products that are shipping and that it buys in a store. It doesn't take pre-release stuff, and it doesn't take stuff sent directly from the manufacturer.
My 5200/75LC was the suckiest piece of suck ever created. And OS X 10.0 was pretty god-awful too. I still use Macs.
The fact that is has 10GB of storage isn't the disadvantage. The fact that transferring files to/from it would take probably 20x longer than to an iPod is.
They certainly should have taken the instructions off of their website, as they clearly violated the EULA in getting the instructions, and encouraged others to do so by posting them.
So what? If I say "smoking marijuana makes me feel good, and if you smoke it, it will make you feel good too" I just described an illegal action, and encouraged others to engage in it. But that is free speech, and is in no way, shape or form illegal.
even moreso because it's over double the maximum possible transfer rate using USB, and over three times what Archos itself claims as the sustained transfer rate for the device
The iPod holds 5GB of data, far more than a Zip or even Jaz/Orb disk. Plus you don't need to have that drive on the second machine(just need a FW port).
Also, the two machines are not always on a LAN. And 400Mbps is a fast transfer.
Sir, I believe the substance you speak of is none other than dihydrogen monoxide, the deadliest substance known to man. Your sarcastic tone reveals your ignorance.
Actually it's after 12 years IIRC. So Reagan's were just about to be opened up(in January). Now, we wouldn't want to say anything to possibly denigrate the image of our fine President, but George Bush Sr worked as VP for Reagan, and who knows if their might be some scandals waiting to happen as soon as that information gets out.
Has Apple actually made any threats on this, or did someone just find this statement and see it as a possible precursor to a threat?
PNG has been around for a while now, and Apple has never(AFAIK) said anything about it in the past. I really don't see how this changes anything.
Now we're gonna get all these slashbots telling us how Apple is evil and everyone should boycott OS X/Darwin because of this, when they really haven't done anything. Chicken Little ought not be the standard tone of every Slashdot story.
Re:Mac users should not support Bungie
on
Gamecube Hits US Early
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Yeah, the whole thing would be like Ben & Jerry's selling themselves to Monsanto. Bungie is shit in my book. If they make any more good games I will pirate them.
There are companies in the past that have done some rotten shit to Mac users. Maxis, Adobe, etc. that got their start on Macs and then to a greater or lesser extend abandoned them. But selling yourself to fucking Microsoft just takes the cake. Bungie was probably the single most respected Mac developer before they did this, and in the minds of a hell of a lot of people they are now pond-scum.
Wow gosh, that sounds like a really stupid opinion you're criticizing. I wonder who said it. It certainly wasn't me who said every person on earth should be given any drug. You are the one saying giving drugs to sick people is a bad idea.
So, using your example, you apparently would advocate that poor people infected with TB should not be given antibiotics. After all, it was probably their unhygenic lifestyle that led to them getting the disease in the first place.
It's like space travel. No company is going to invest in something like Mars probes, Voyager, etc. So the government does. And it benefits society as a whole, pushes us forward. Some things are better done, or can only be done, by the government. Research into diseases where medicine wouldn't be profitable is one such area. Space travel is another. The military is another. Private companies can not fill every need in a society.
Lastly, I think it is the right of people in a country to control the corporations they allow to exist within that country. If people decide the best interest of the country is to ignore those rights in extraordinary circumstances, so be it. Property rights are not a suicide pact. If I'm poisoned, and you have the antidote in your hand and refuse to give it to me, there's no way in hell I am going to die for the sake of respecting your property rights.
Let's see, how many communist or socialist countries have contributed anything to help stop malaria?
Well it depends how you define "socialist" and "capitalist" - the US is is no way pure capitalism, and it could certainly be argued that many European countries as well as Canada have large elements of socialism.
(Therefore, you might say that capitalism never really did fail.)
Except that malaria research is still far less than it would be if the government mandated it. So, no, you couldn't.
True capitalism is actually less government, not more.
Different people would define true capitalism differently. Without IP laws, MS wouldn't exist. That would be less government. But I don't think most people who call themselves "capitalists" want to abolish copyrights. Or patents. And more government would have done something about MS. Less government is what is doing nothing about them.
It's ironic that in some countries in Africa they still believe that having unprotected sex with a virgin gets rid of AIDS, and you're telling me that the solution to improve the quantity and quality of life is to give them all free drugs (drugs which some strains become resistant to, hence it becomes a serious risk to the world in societies with 80%+ AIDS infection rates)?
Your logic is so ridiculous. If what you are saying is true, I guess all AIDS drugs are just pointless, because lifestyle changes are the way to fix the problem, and because drug-resistant strains develop. Oh, but you don't mean that to apply to everyone. Just poor Africans.
Because they have free will, and if you want to start a drug company to cure malaria: Go nuts! A cure for baldness, or a drug to make a guy's dick hard improve quality of life, and it isn't your right to tell them if it's right or not.
Actually we still have freedom of speech in this country, so it is my right. And my point was not that they shouldn't be allowed to make such drugs, but that your characterization of drug companies as some force of good in the world is absurd. Drug companies are about profit and profit alone. If their most profitable course of action was to release anthrax into the water supply and then sell everyone a cure, they'd do it.
Sure, the cooperations don't really give a rat's ass either, but at least they develop the drug, because it will make a profit.
Yes, and what happens when there isn't a profit to be made(e.g. malaria) because the only people infected are too poor to pay the superinflated prices drug companies desire? And what happens when it is more profitable to keep people sick and consuming your drug than to find a cure? Oops, capitalism fails. Or rather, it succeeds. It succeeds in valuing profit over human life.
When you have competition (which you would not have in a government controlled situation), the prices of goods are driven to their marginal cost.
Wow, so I guess that's why viagra is only $0.5 a pill. And why Windows XP is only $5. I think the "when you have competition..." part is the key here. And patents eliminate competition for a set period of time. That is not a free market.
The problem is that idealistic IDIOTS take that a step further, claiming that all drugs should be free
And exactly who the fuck is saying this? Not me. The drug companies don't have to provide any drugs for free(and please show some information that they do...), all they have to do is let countries too poor to pay for drugs make them themselves.
If you're not living in a box on the side of the road, donating 95% of your income (presuming you have one) to Africa, then you are a MURDERER.
Don't use this horseshit argument. I am not demanding that anyone be forced to help those countries. I am saying they should be allowed to help themselves. It's not about stealing the drug companies' money, it is about not forcing people to die because letting them live would violate some capitalist principle.
The basic fact of the matter is that socialist clown idealists like to takes the fruits of an IP-protecting world and pretend like it came as a gift from no-where, created out of nothing by goodwill ambassadors.
And it takes a cold-hearted rabid capitalist fuck to continuing to argue the pro-business, pro-death line in the face of overwhelming evidence that the *only* significant consequence of letting these countries produce their own medicine would be the improvement of the lives of millions.
I am not saying the drug companies don't have a right to make a profit. I am saying that when you have on the one hand a tiny financial gain for mega-corps, and on the other a massive gain in quality and quantity of human life, it's pretty damn sickening to hear someone argue the pro-pharm side. The one living in a fantasy land is you, who seems to think that if the drug comapnies lose 1% of their total AIDS drug revenue the entire global economy will collapse. And you then use this fallacious logic to justify the death and suffering of millions.
No, drug companies have 100s of thousands of people working day in and day out to make the drug companies a massive amount of money. They are a corporation, not some fucking humanitarian group.
If the purpose of the drug companies is to help people live longer, why do they spend so much more in R&D working on a cure for baldness than malaria?
BTW, if you pay with tax dollars instead, the benefits would be that:
a) money could be directed towards the most public good, not the most profit
b) it could actually cost less than with a corporation, because you wouldn't be paying the 40% that is just profit into stockholder's pockets
OK, great theory, except under the alternative system(longer or indefinite patents) they still would have no incentive to charge anything less than the highest price the market would bear.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh God that was bad. Still got a laugh out of me though.
Other people said they couldn't find themselves. My guess is google had some technical difficulties reindexing the archive or something, but it all seems to be there now. Try again.
How big will DVD's get before it's no longer practical to decode all that data...why not focus on reducing the data, and not have to design hardware that can handle excessive loads?
There is no sensible answer to that question. As processor speeds and efficiency rise along with other technologies DVDs could get much bigger. Using better codecs can help, but only so much. If someone can make a 100GB DVD, and someone else can make a player that can play it, then what's the problem?
You say you want storage needs for digital video down so that you don't need a large drive. Fine. Use a low bitrate and get a shitty picture. Or wait a few years until 500GB drives are available and a relatively small drive will be able to store a lot of high quality video. The word "large" is nearly meaningless when referring to a drive. The fact is that once drive sizes increase, the resolution DV cams use probably will too. But that's a good thing. In 50 years no one will probably think a thing of throwing around petabyte size files. I see that as progress.
That is not the purpose of OfflineRT as I understand it. What OfflineRT is made for is to let someone take the DV stream, compress it down to something small(but with much poorer quality), and edit it. Then, once all the editing is done, you then go back to the uncompressed stream and using FCP it edits the large file based on what you did with the small one.
It's made so that for instance you can take the 200GB of movie data you have and put it on your TiBook for editing, then resync it with the main piece of data. You don't want to store your original in that format because it'll look like shit.
Consumer Reports has a policy of only testing products that are shipping and that it buys in a store. It doesn't take pre-release stuff, and it doesn't take stuff sent directly from the manufacturer.
My 5200/75LC was the suckiest piece of suck ever created. And OS X 10.0 was pretty god-awful too. I still use Macs.
The fact that is has 10GB of storage isn't the disadvantage. The fact that transferring files to/from it would take probably 20x longer than to an iPod is.
The only way to "fix" this "problem" would be to outlaw good food and school.
Or, I mean this is an insane idea, but we could actually try feeding and educating our poor people.
so do you know how they found out about who you are? also, did they have a warrant for a search, and if not, why did you let them?
BTW, ever read the Old Man Murray story about SS agents? funny stuff
So when the gov't gave the airlines $15 billion, that didn't cost them anything?
They certainly should have taken the instructions off of their website, as they clearly violated the EULA in getting the instructions, and encouraged others to do so by posting them.
So what? If I say "smoking marijuana makes me feel good, and if you smoke it, it will make you feel good too" I just described an illegal action, and encouraged others to engage in it. But that is free speech, and is in no way, shape or form illegal.
even moreso because it's over double the maximum possible transfer rate using USB, and over three times what Archos itself claims as the sustained transfer rate for the device
hmm, I think that makes you a liar
Am I missing something obvious?
The iPod holds 5GB of data, far more than a Zip or even Jaz/Orb disk. Plus you don't need to have that drive on the second machine(just need a FW port).
Also, the two machines are not always on a LAN. And 400Mbps is a fast transfer.
Sir, I believe the substance you speak of is none other than dihydrogen monoxide, the deadliest substance known to man. Your sarcastic tone reveals your ignorance.
Please do some research for yourself at dhmo.org
Actually it's after 12 years IIRC. So Reagan's were just about to be opened up(in January). Now, we wouldn't want to say anything to possibly denigrate the image of our fine President, but George Bush Sr worked as VP for Reagan, and who knows if their might be some scandals waiting to happen as soon as that information gets out.
Has Apple actually made any threats on this, or did someone just find this statement and see it as a possible precursor to a threat?
PNG has been around for a while now, and Apple has never(AFAIK) said anything about it in the past. I really don't see how this changes anything.
Now we're gonna get all these slashbots telling us how Apple is evil and everyone should boycott OS X/Darwin because of this, when they really haven't done anything. Chicken Little ought not be the standard tone of every Slashdot story.
Yeah, the whole thing would be like Ben & Jerry's selling themselves to Monsanto. Bungie is shit in my book. If they make any more good games I will pirate them.
There are companies in the past that have done some rotten shit to Mac users. Maxis, Adobe, etc. that got their start on Macs and then to a greater or lesser extend abandoned them. But selling yourself to fucking Microsoft just takes the cake. Bungie was probably the single most respected Mac developer before they did this, and in the minds of a hell of a lot of people they are now pond-scum.
Fuck you, Bungie.
Wow gosh, that sounds like a really stupid opinion you're criticizing. I wonder who said it. It certainly wasn't me who said every person on earth should be given any drug. You are the one saying giving drugs to sick people is a bad idea.
So, using your example, you apparently would advocate that poor people infected with TB should not be given antibiotics. After all, it was probably their unhygenic lifestyle that led to them getting the disease in the first place.
It's like space travel. No company is going to invest in something like Mars probes, Voyager, etc. So the government does. And it benefits society as a whole, pushes us forward. Some things are better done, or can only be done, by the government. Research into diseases where medicine wouldn't be profitable is one such area. Space travel is another. The military is another. Private companies can not fill every need in a society.
Lastly, I think it is the right of people in a country to control the corporations they allow to exist within that country. If people decide the best interest of the country is to ignore those rights in extraordinary circumstances, so be it. Property rights are not a suicide pact. If I'm poisoned, and you have the antidote in your hand and refuse to give it to me, there's no way in hell I am going to die for the sake of respecting your property rights.
Let's see, how many communist or socialist countries have contributed anything to help stop malaria?
Well it depends how you define "socialist" and "capitalist" - the US is is no way pure capitalism, and it could certainly be argued that many European countries as well as Canada have large elements of socialism.
(Therefore, you might say that capitalism never really did fail.)
Except that malaria research is still far less than it would be if the government mandated it. So, no, you couldn't.
True capitalism is actually less government, not more.
Different people would define true capitalism differently. Without IP laws, MS wouldn't exist. That would be less government. But I don't think most people who call themselves "capitalists" want to abolish copyrights. Or patents. And more government would have done something about MS. Less government is what is doing nothing about them.
It's ironic that in some countries in Africa they still believe that having unprotected sex with a virgin gets rid of AIDS, and you're telling me that the solution to improve the quantity and quality of life is to give them all free drugs (drugs which some strains become resistant to, hence it becomes a serious risk to the world in societies with 80%+ AIDS infection rates)?
Your logic is so ridiculous. If what you are saying is true, I guess all AIDS drugs are just pointless, because lifestyle changes are the way to fix the problem, and because drug-resistant strains develop. Oh, but you don't mean that to apply to everyone. Just poor Africans.
Because they have free will, and if you want to start a drug company to cure malaria: Go nuts! A cure for baldness, or a drug to make a guy's dick hard improve quality of life, and it isn't your right to tell them if it's right or not.
Actually we still have freedom of speech in this country, so it is my right. And my point was not that they shouldn't be allowed to make such drugs, but that your characterization of drug companies as some force of good in the world is absurd. Drug companies are about profit and profit alone. If their most profitable course of action was to release anthrax into the water supply and then sell everyone a cure, they'd do it.
Sure, the cooperations don't really give a rat's ass either, but at least they develop the drug, because it will make a profit.
Yes, and what happens when there isn't a profit to be made(e.g. malaria) because the only people infected are too poor to pay the superinflated prices drug companies desire? And what happens when it is more profitable to keep people sick and consuming your drug than to find a cure? Oops, capitalism fails. Or rather, it succeeds. It succeeds in valuing profit over human life.
When you have competition (which you would not have in a government controlled situation), the prices of goods are driven to their marginal cost.
Wow, so I guess that's why viagra is only $0.5 a pill. And why Windows XP is only $5. I think the "when you have competition..." part is the key here. And patents eliminate competition for a set period of time. That is not a free market.
The problem is that idealistic IDIOTS take that a step further, claiming that all drugs should be free
And exactly who the fuck is saying this? Not me. The drug companies don't have to provide any drugs for free(and please show some information that they do...), all they have to do is let countries too poor to pay for drugs make them themselves.
If you're not living in a box on the side of the road, donating 95% of your income (presuming you have one) to Africa, then you are a MURDERER.
Don't use this horseshit argument. I am not demanding that anyone be forced to help those countries. I am saying they should be allowed to help themselves. It's not about stealing the drug companies' money, it is about not forcing people to die because letting them live would violate some capitalist principle.
The basic fact of the matter is that socialist clown idealists like to takes the fruits of an IP-protecting world and pretend like it came as a gift from no-where, created out of nothing by goodwill ambassadors.
And it takes a cold-hearted rabid capitalist fuck to continuing to argue the pro-business, pro-death line in the face of overwhelming evidence that the *only* significant consequence of letting these countries produce their own medicine would be the improvement of the lives of millions.
I am not saying the drug companies don't have a right to make a profit. I am saying that when you have on the one hand a tiny financial gain for mega-corps, and on the other a massive gain in quality and quantity of human life, it's pretty damn sickening to hear someone argue the pro-pharm side. The one living in a fantasy land is you, who seems to think that if the drug comapnies lose 1% of their total AIDS drug revenue the entire global economy will collapse. And you then use this fallacious logic to justify the death and suffering of millions.
No, drug companies have 100s of thousands of people working day in and day out to make the drug companies a massive amount of money. They are a corporation, not some fucking humanitarian group.
If the purpose of the drug companies is to help people live longer, why do they spend so much more in R&D working on a cure for baldness than malaria?
BTW, if you pay with tax dollars instead, the benefits would be that:
a) money could be directed towards the most public good, not the most profit
b) it could actually cost less than with a corporation, because you wouldn't be paying the 40% that is just profit into stockholder's pockets
OK, great theory, except under the alternative system(longer or indefinite patents) they still would have no incentive to charge anything less than the highest price the market would bear.