I dream of the day of a decent online video store. One with a huge online catalogue of films, obscure and otherwise, and with the bandwidth to support 20-30 minute downloads. I'd pay for that. I'd pay pretty good too.
Sure, I'd like to have an off-the-shelf device to make it easier, but I'm happy with my current setup. TVout is connected to my TV and my soundcard is connected to my stereo. I can sit on my couch and I get a near-VHS quality picture and Pro Logic Surround from the DVD-Divx rips downloaded from eDonkey. Unfortuantely the selection is a little Hollywood-centric, but it's free.
LOL...honest people? The majority of people are completely immoral and as dishonest as you ALLOW them to be...
Well, I don't know if I agree with that statement, but I certainly think that most people believe in "an eye for an eye" and wouldn't mind ripping off the music or film industry a bit in return.
How about the thousands of people downloading a couple of movies every other day from eDonkey. (www.edonkey2000.com if you've not heard of it.)
They've got pretty much every major new release you can think of in high quality DivX DVD rips and a tonne of handy-cam jobs for those that prefer promptness over quality.
Right. And in addition to that, they only need to make it harder than $10 worth of effort, for most people.
I mean, really, that's why Napster was such a pain in the ass to the RIAA, because Napster was becoming a household word. It became a trivial exercise for your average user to download pirated music, no l33tness required.
Actually I bet they will require it. In fact, they have to -- in some way. Otherwise they will be attempting to enforce these restrictions based on state information stored solely on your machine, completely under your control. Then, all you'd need to do in order to play the movie as often as you like is to return your computer to a state it was in before you played the movie.
If playing the movie was a permitted action the first time you were in that state, then it will be every time.
One brute force way I can think of doing this (though inconvenient) is to backup your system before playing it. After viewing, restore and watch it again, as much as you like.
I'm expecting it will be more like a time limitted certificate kind of thing from a CA run by the MPAA.
Re:bearshare/napster/etc
on
Dorm Storm?
·
· Score: 1
That's 25MB/day to off-campus IPs. To on-campus IPs, bandwidth is unlimitted as far as I know. I knew a few people who downloaded to their math Unix accounts, then from math to residence to get around the bandwith quota. Course, that doesn't work for file sharing programs.
As far as disk quotas on the math unix accounts are concerned, well that's what/var/tmp is for.
That's easy to say if both the free option and the pay option are equal in functionality and usability, but what if because of the couple bucks it gets, the pay option was able to provide better features, greater selection and higher bandwidth. Are you telling me nobody would pay for it?
I think the question is how good does Napster need to be in order to get people to pay for it.
Okay, I'm not disagreeing that Hollywood is lame in a lot of ways, but I disagree with lumping this movie in as proof.
I don't believe that this movie was just your typical marketing rehash of an old cult hit. Tim Burton has done some good work (I'm personally a fan) and has established that he's a fan of cult and B movies. (Ed Wood, Mars Attacks).
So what if this attempt failed (though I liked it), Tim Burton is hardly someone who lacks vision and the ability to make an original movie.
Now if you want to start trashing Jerry Bruckheimer, be my guest.
I wouldn't plan to use a PS2 Linux box as a computer. I'd be connecting it to my TV and stereo and using it as some sort of networked media appliance, to play divx movies and mp3s available on my network. I wouldn't need a keyboard and mouse, just a remote, so I think it would look quite attractive.
The only real way to reduce pirating is to make legally aquiring stuff so cheap and convenient that most people won't bother to priate.
If the RIAA could learn to skim money off people instead of trying to gouge them, they might not waste so much time/money fighting people.
Of course, maybe they've already factored that in and figured they could maximize their profits through gouging. I mean, really, who cares about making the world a better place while making some money when you can just screw people and make lots of money?
I doubt that most people who understand that you can redirect links wherever the hell you want would suspect that Ford set this up themselves.
Should 2600 be responsible just because some people don't realize you can do this?
...and that's the difference between people who know how to find what they're looking for on the web and those who don't.
That's the way I use the web too. Currently that's probably the only intelligent way to do it. But the real question is, does it have to be that way? Why can't we come up with a better way, so that I can type in "Yagdoodlestan plane crash" on the day after it happened, and find links to news articles, from around the world, that cover the event? I'd be lying if a said that the above mentioned search technique always worked for me, especially when trying to look for something more obscure. I'm also tired of getting 100 links to the same damn site when I search for things.
Whether you beleive in God or not, I still think that (some) religious leaders are at least a good source of moral guidance. To me, that makes them relevant.
I feel lame responding to my own post before anybody else, but I think a possible solution to the situation I described would be for the government to make it even easier for people to ignore their credit card debts incurred via gambling. If you lose $200 and could then wipe if off your bill with little more effort than sending an email to VISA saying, "I live in California, you can't charge me for that," then the credit card companies would be forced to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
I'm too lazy to look up all the facts in this case, so correct me where my memory fails.
A woman already won a case like this due to a technicallity in California law.
This man is also a Californian, and since it occured online, I'm going to assume he was California at the time. So based on precidence, he should win. He probably knew this and is trying to take advantage of it. Not something I'd try, but...
Since the law has spoken, the only way to prevent lawsuits like this is for the credit card companies to protect themselves. At first I thought this was stupidity on their part, since I'm sure that they were aware of the prior decision.
But in order to do something about it, either the gambling sites or the credit companies would have to implement some method of determining the origin of the transaction. Even if they can do this, how long will it take to roll out? So, should they just halt all transactions to these sites in the meantime? I don't think so. I imagine $25k is insignificant to the amount that these companies rake in via online gambling loans.
Will we ever see such a system implemented? Unless the law forces them to do so, I doubt it. $25k may still be insignificant when compared to the amount of income that Californians, with less will to sue, generate for the credit companies.
To sum it up, unless we start to see ridiculous sums (as if $25k isn't bad enough) I think it will just be an accepted loss. Note too, however, that the credit limits will probably prevent that from happening.
Maybe it's true that if it was criticizing Islam that some may call it bigotry, but that doesn't make it so. And, what, just because he critisizes the Catholic church, the sole purpose of those jokes is to offend the Catholic church !?! That's just a bit egocentric don't you think? Isn't it more likely that he's pointing out the differences between the churches belief and his own in order to present his on beliefs? And it's a comedy, so it's done in a joking manner. To be offend I think is too take things too far. And tell me, if it's such a slam against the Catholic church, how come no officials in the Catholic Church have spoken out against it? And tell me, how does one choose a religion? I would imagine that one would choose the religion that lines up most with their own beliefs. So how is that different from picking one off the shelf?
In short, my opinion of the movie is: The first chunk of the movie reveals an interesting and scary idea. The rest of the movie doesn't blow it, and has some nice eye candy to help it along.
To quote Roger Ebert, "It's cruel, really, to put tantalizing ideas on the table and then ask the audience to be satisfied with a shoot-out and a martial arts duel."
Slashdot Mirror
I dream of the day of a decent online video store. One with a huge online catalogue of films, obscure and otherwise, and with the bandwidth to support 20-30 minute downloads. I'd pay for that. I'd pay pretty good too.
Sure, I'd like to have an off-the-shelf device to make it easier, but I'm happy with my current setup. TVout is connected to my TV and my soundcard is connected to my stereo. I can sit on my couch and I get a near-VHS quality picture and Pro Logic Surround from the DVD-Divx rips downloaded from eDonkey. Unfortuantely the selection is a little Hollywood-centric, but it's free.
LOL...honest people? The majority of people are completely immoral and as dishonest as you ALLOW them to be...
Well, I don't know if I agree with that statement, but I certainly think that most people believe in "an eye for an eye" and wouldn't mind ripping off the music or film industry a bit in return.
How about the thousands of people downloading a couple of movies every other day from eDonkey. (www.edonkey2000.com if you've not heard of it.)
They've got pretty much every major new release you can think of in high quality DivX DVD rips and a tonne of handy-cam jobs for those that prefer promptness over quality.
Right. And in addition to that, they only need to make it harder than $10 worth of effort, for most people.
I mean, really, that's why Napster was such a pain in the ass to the RIAA, because Napster was becoming a household word. It became a trivial exercise for your average user to download pirated music, no l33tness required.
Actually I bet they will require it. In fact, they have to -- in some way. Otherwise they will be attempting to enforce these restrictions based on state information stored solely on your machine, completely under your control. Then, all you'd need to do in order to play the movie as often as you like is to return your computer to a state it was in before you played the movie.
If playing the movie was a permitted action the first time you were in that state, then it will be every time.
One brute force way I can think of doing this (though inconvenient) is to backup your system before playing it. After viewing, restore and watch it again, as much as you like.
I'm expecting it will be more like a time limitted certificate kind of thing from a CA run by the MPAA.
That's 25MB/day to off-campus IPs. To on-campus IPs, bandwidth is unlimitted as far as I know. I knew a few people who downloaded to their math Unix accounts, then from math to residence to get around the bandwith quota. Course, that doesn't work for file sharing programs.
/var/tmp is for.
As far as disk quotas on the math unix accounts are concerned, well that's what
www.digital-digest.com has some guides and links to tools as well.
I haven't seen any mention of this branch yet.
At my school we used "Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation" by Hopcroft and Ullman. Any other suggestions along these lines?
That's easy to say if both the free option and the pay option are equal in functionality and usability, but what if because of the couple bucks it gets, the pay option was able to provide better features, greater selection and higher bandwidth. Are you telling me nobody would pay for it?
I think the question is how good does Napster need to be in order to get people to pay for it.
Okay, I'm not disagreeing that Hollywood is lame in a lot of ways, but I disagree with lumping this movie in as proof.
I don't believe that this movie was just your typical marketing rehash of an old cult hit. Tim Burton has done some good work (I'm personally a fan) and has established that he's a fan of cult and B movies. (Ed Wood, Mars Attacks).
So what if this attempt failed (though I liked it), Tim Burton is hardly someone who lacks vision and the ability to make an original movie.
Now if you want to start trashing Jerry Bruckheimer, be my guest.
Cape Fear and The Thing are two remakes I can think of that were pretty decent
I wouldn't plan to use a PS2 Linux box as a computer. I'd be connecting it to my TV and stereo and using it as some sort of networked media appliance, to play divx movies and mp3s available on my network. I wouldn't need a keyboard and mouse, just a remote, so I think it would look quite attractive.
Exactly. Cheap.
The only real way to reduce pirating is to make legally aquiring stuff so cheap and convenient that most people won't bother to priate.
If the RIAA could learn to skim money off people instead of trying to gouge them, they might not waste so much time/money fighting people.
Of course, maybe they've already factored that in and figured they could maximize their profits through gouging. I mean, really, who cares about making the world a better place while making some money when you can just screw people and make lots of money?
Nice.
I doubt that most people who understand that you can redirect links wherever the hell you want would suspect that Ford set this up themselves. Should 2600 be responsible just because some people don't realize you can do this?
"sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is."
So selling it like a commodity seems to be okay, but he draws the line at trading.
Fuck you Lars Ulrich, and your band's new alt-look! You egotistical asshole!
...and that's the difference between people who know how to find what they're looking for on the web and those who don't.
That's the way I use the web too. Currently that's probably the only intelligent way to do it. But the real question is, does it have to be that way? Why can't we come up with a better way, so that I can type in "Yagdoodlestan plane crash" on the day after it happened, and find links to news articles, from around the world, that cover the event? I'd be lying if a said that the above mentioned search technique always worked for me, especially when trying to look for something more obscure. I'm also tired of getting 100 links to the same damn site when I search for things.
Ya, and all he's got so far is a crummy 2.
Why do we want to create life? Can you think of a better way to test your understand how something came to be than to try to create it yourself?
Whether you beleive in God or not, I still think that (some) religious leaders are at least a good source of moral guidance. To me, that makes them relevant.
Actually it seems to me that he doesn't think he's more special than God, since he doesn't think there's a God at all.
I feel lame responding to my own post before anybody else, but I think a possible solution to the situation I described would be for the government to make it even easier for people to ignore their credit card debts incurred via gambling. If you lose $200 and could then wipe if off your bill with little more effort than sending an email to VISA saying, "I live in California, you can't charge me for that," then the credit card companies would be forced to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
I'm too lazy to look up all the facts in this case, so correct me where my memory fails.
A woman already won a case like this due to a technicallity in California law.
This man is also a Californian, and since it occured online, I'm going to assume he was California at the time. So based on precidence, he should win. He probably knew this and is trying to take advantage of it. Not something I'd try, but...
Since the law has spoken, the only way to prevent lawsuits like this is for the credit card companies to protect themselves. At first I thought this was stupidity on their part, since I'm sure that they were aware of the prior decision.
But in order to do something about it, either the gambling sites or the credit companies would have to implement some method of determining the origin of the transaction. Even if they can do this, how long will it take to roll out? So, should they just halt all transactions to these sites in the meantime? I don't think so. I imagine $25k is insignificant to the amount that these companies rake in via online gambling loans.
Will we ever see such a system implemented? Unless the law forces them to do so, I doubt it. $25k may still be insignificant when compared to the amount of income that Californians, with less will to sue, generate for the credit companies.
To sum it up, unless we start to see ridiculous sums (as if $25k isn't bad enough) I think it will just be an accepted loss. Note too, however, that the credit limits will probably prevent that from happening.
Maybe it's true that if it was criticizing Islam that some may call it bigotry, but that doesn't make it so. And, what, just because he critisizes the Catholic church, the sole purpose of those jokes is to offend the Catholic church !?! That's just a bit egocentric don't you think? Isn't it more likely that he's pointing out the differences between the churches belief and his own in order to present his on beliefs? And it's a comedy, so it's done in a joking manner. To be offend I think is too take things too far. And tell me, if it's such a slam against the Catholic church, how come no officials in the Catholic Church have spoken out against it? And tell me, how does one choose a religion? I would imagine that one would choose the religion that lines up most with their own beliefs. So how is that different from picking one off the shelf?
A little harsh, but I do agree.
In short, my opinion of the movie is:
The first chunk of the movie reveals an interesting and scary idea. The rest of the movie doesn't blow it, and has some nice eye candy to help it along.
To quote Roger Ebert, "It's cruel, really, to put tantalizing ideas on the table and then ask the audience to be satisfied with a shoot-out and a martial arts duel."