Agreed. I wouldn't use the term "still", though. There's a clear difference between redistributing material which was originally envisioned by someone else and trying to take credit for it.
It's quite possible that taking a stronger stance against redistribution and the creation of derivative works leads to the proliferation of works which don't give credit because it would expose them to legal liability. See: the entire dungeons and dragons universe.
Huh? The whole point is their mutual attempt to reach a massively parallel GPU-like monster which can rip through all the code you can think of just like a CPU. The question is whether this crossbred abomination will originate as a mutated CPU or GPU.
Wrong. There's a ton of people who want to play one of the Sims game, maybe a recent Civilization title, an MMO, or a reasonable RTS (starcraft 2 is coming out and all). They have no need for something FAST, and the difference between Intel's graphics and everyone else is often "it works decently, not great" vs "it won't even run."
Many of us expect offline software to continue working when the net goes down. When it stops, it feels like having a book suddenly go unavailable just because our phone service died. Sure, it's not a BIG thing, but it can still be infuriating.
You're pretty dumb. Piracy is so easy that ethics are the only real reason *not* to. The added value and packaging really aren't worth much to most people.
"People buy the official copy for one reason; they want the higher quality and the added value of the genuine packaging and associated content."
The feeling of supporting the artist counts for something. I've plopped down cash on Nettwerk Records, Trent Reznor's stuff, and emusic for that reason alone.
No. There are many effective business uses for DRM, including price segmentation, market segmentation, rentals..
The idea is that when you control the only source of content (the new Shrek movie), you can restrict all features (where the movie can be played, when, for how long..) and open them up, one at a time, for a fee. By doing this, you can strip as much money from each person as they can possibly afford to spend on Shrek.
I just had a friend buy some movies while vacationing in London. Unsurprisingly, he can't play them here.
If, on the other hand, I start demanding a dollar per leaf, everyone in the neighborhood is going to be amused when I don't get paid.
Re:Gamers need not apply
on
Less Is Moore
·
· Score: 1
My 9600 GT is about.. six months plus old, and it cost about $100 then. It plays Crysis just fine, though at a low res (1440xwhatever). I like higher framerates, but don't need them, and the motion blur does a great job. That res isn't as nice as it could be, but it's better than what consoles will do their games.
I agree with your point, though.
Re:Because you don't need more cycles in biz
on
Less Is Moore
·
· Score: 1
We certainly haven't reached that point. However, it might be more about hard drive I/O than CPU speed, and it has nothing to do with the GPU.
You know the abysmal codec youtube uses? The horrible, unbelievably bad abomination that could use megabits of bandwidth and still be unwatchable?
That's ON Software's VP6 or VP7.. forgot which, *newer* than the VP3 codec Theora is based off.
I think you'er wrong in thinking that ogg requires special decoder hardware. Implementing it is trivial, as proven by the rockbox team (open source firmware for mp3 players). They've reversed engineered multiple players (ipod family, archos family, etc) to add, among many other things, ogg support.
60" TV? Wish I could. They look fine on a 42", though. I rip most of them closer to 2000 kbits (~gig and a half per movie), just because I can afford the space. These are off my own DVDs with handbrake. Looking forward to bluray, but need a couple terabytes of HD space first.
Whether transcoding is relatively insignificant is the whole question. If it makes a noticeable difference in the sound, a vast number of music listeners are going to notice.
Yes, normal, everyday people. They do have ears, though their response to shitty sound usually comes in the form of "doesn't this sound odd to you?" or "what's wrong with the music?" rather than a technical dissertation.
If it doesn't make that difference, you win, I lose. However, I'm pretty sure you're just looking to prove a point without regard for its accuracy. All in all, you seem pretty good at diagnosing yourself as the "average slashdotter" - Aspergers *does* seem to fit your inability to emphasize with or socially connect to others. I do believe you're welcome to find yourself a more suitable community with "your type of people", whoever they may be.
I've blind tested myself mp3 vs CD. I agree, though certain instruments (cymbals) are pretty obvious at 128k.
What does that have to do with transcoding, though? A 1 gig x264 rip looks perfect, but try to turn it back into DVD-size mpeg-2 and it's an unwatchable mess of blocks.
Do you have any sort of professional background in the audio industry, or have you tested this yourself? Everything I've seen on the subject claimed transcoding from a badly compressed source would pretty much wreck audio quality. It's not something I want to mess with ATM, but my experiences with video agree.
In that vein, what does the quality of the mp3 player matter? In my experience, the headphones you've got plugged into an mp3 player define the audio quality (given a functional mp3 player with a decent standard of amplification and source.)
You can get really decent headphones for $15, so it's not a stretch to think this could matter.
Far less powerful (though comparing the PC's x86 CPU architecture to the Cell is difficult..)
256 mb system ram vs 2-4+ gigs, 256 video RAM on a several generations old card vs a gig or so.. there's a giant gulf there. If you want to play games at PS3-level resolutions on a PC, you can get by pretty cheaply.
European countries never had that mentality of freedom > safety and security as nations - some of the "elites" there did, to their great credit (especially in Britain - after all, that's what inspired US) - but it didn't infuse the country like it did ours. They've been doing pretty well under Pax Americana, but will that remain when things go badly and their governments start to use the powers they've gathered?
As for most of the rest of the world, well, that goes without saying.
I wouldn't say that's the case. Back then, there was a strong belief in freedom which no longer exists - people just didn't see it as applying to everyone.
Now, our concept of freedom is very watered down, but it covers all of us. That's better than what we had before, but not perfect by any means.
This poses difficulties. The whole goal of copyright is to spur inventors or creators who would not have otherwise have produced their work (historically, and constitutionally in the US, modern copyright thinking in Europe may differ).
Presumably, some of these people are motivated by the ability to create a work and pay someone else to monetize it (a corporation). Without the ability to sell their rights for cash, they may stop inventing.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I wouldn't use the term "still", though. There's a clear difference between redistributing material which was originally envisioned by someone else and trying to take credit for it. It's quite possible that taking a stronger stance against redistribution and the creation of derivative works leads to the proliferation of works which don't give credit because it would expose them to legal liability. See: the entire dungeons and dragons universe.
Huh? The whole point is their mutual attempt to reach a massively parallel GPU-like monster which can rip through all the code you can think of just like a CPU. The question is whether this crossbred abomination will originate as a mutated CPU or GPU.
Wrong. There's a ton of people who want to play one of the Sims game, maybe a recent Civilization title, an MMO, or a reasonable RTS (starcraft 2 is coming out and all). They have no need for something FAST, and the difference between Intel's graphics and everyone else is often "it works decently, not great" vs "it won't even run."
Many of us expect offline software to continue working when the net goes down. When it stops, it feels like having a book suddenly go unavailable just because our phone service died. Sure, it's not a BIG thing, but it can still be infuriating.
You're pretty dumb. Piracy is so easy that ethics are the only real reason *not* to. The added value and packaging really aren't worth much to most people. "People buy the official copy for one reason; they want the higher quality and the added value of the genuine packaging and associated content." The feeling of supporting the artist counts for something. I've plopped down cash on Nettwerk Records, Trent Reznor's stuff, and emusic for that reason alone.
No. There are many effective business uses for DRM, including price segmentation, market segmentation, rentals.. The idea is that when you control the only source of content (the new Shrek movie), you can restrict all features (where the movie can be played, when, for how long..) and open them up, one at a time, for a fee. By doing this, you can strip as much money from each person as they can possibly afford to spend on Shrek. I just had a friend buy some movies while vacationing in London. Unsurprisingly, he can't play them here.
If, on the other hand, I start demanding a dollar per leaf, everyone in the neighborhood is going to be amused when I don't get paid.
My 9600 GT is about.. six months plus old, and it cost about $100 then. It plays Crysis just fine, though at a low res (1440xwhatever). I like higher framerates, but don't need them, and the motion blur does a great job. That res isn't as nice as it could be, but it's better than what consoles will do their games. I agree with your point, though.
We certainly haven't reached that point. However, it might be more about hard drive I/O than CPU speed, and it has nothing to do with the GPU.
Yeaaaaaah. Gotta love doom3 level loads taking as long as Crysis would with that configuration on a modern PC.
It's obvious sarcasm.
You know the abysmal codec youtube uses? The horrible, unbelievably bad abomination that could use megabits of bandwidth and still be unwatchable? That's ON Software's VP6 or VP7.. forgot which, *newer* than the VP3 codec Theora is based off.
I think you'er wrong in thinking that ogg requires special decoder hardware. Implementing it is trivial, as proven by the rockbox team (open source firmware for mp3 players). They've reversed engineered multiple players (ipod family, archos family, etc) to add, among many other things, ogg support.
60" TV? Wish I could. They look fine on a 42", though. I rip most of them closer to 2000 kbits (~gig and a half per movie), just because I can afford the space. These are off my own DVDs with handbrake. Looking forward to bluray, but need a couple terabytes of HD space first.
Whether transcoding is relatively insignificant is the whole question. If it makes a noticeable difference in the sound, a vast number of music listeners are going to notice. Yes, normal, everyday people. They do have ears, though their response to shitty sound usually comes in the form of "doesn't this sound odd to you?" or "what's wrong with the music?" rather than a technical dissertation. If it doesn't make that difference, you win, I lose. However, I'm pretty sure you're just looking to prove a point without regard for its accuracy. All in all, you seem pretty good at diagnosing yourself as the "average slashdotter" - Aspergers *does* seem to fit your inability to emphasize with or socially connect to others. I do believe you're welcome to find yourself a more suitable community with "your type of people", whoever they may be.
I've blind tested myself mp3 vs CD. I agree, though certain instruments (cymbals) are pretty obvious at 128k. What does that have to do with transcoding, though? A 1 gig x264 rip looks perfect, but try to turn it back into DVD-size mpeg-2 and it's an unwatchable mess of blocks.
Do you have any sort of professional background in the audio industry, or have you tested this yourself? Everything I've seen on the subject claimed transcoding from a badly compressed source would pretty much wreck audio quality. It's not something I want to mess with ATM, but my experiences with video agree. In that vein, what does the quality of the mp3 player matter? In my experience, the headphones you've got plugged into an mp3 player define the audio quality (given a functional mp3 player with a decent standard of amplification and source.) You can get really decent headphones for $15, so it's not a stretch to think this could matter.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens...
Is this the YEAAAAAH Jack Bauer TORTURE THE HIPPIES thread?
Far less powerful (though comparing the PC's x86 CPU architecture to the Cell is difficult..) 256 mb system ram vs 2-4+ gigs, 256 video RAM on a several generations old card vs a gig or so.. there's a giant gulf there. If you want to play games at PS3-level resolutions on a PC, you can get by pretty cheaply.
.. what? Yes, I would very much want FOSS tax software. I would also want to pay a supplier for whatever the standard anti-IRS indemnity is.
These are good points; if the corporation can't clone the goose that lays the golden eggs, it has to keep it alive and find more geese..
European countries never had that mentality of freedom > safety and security as nations - some of the "elites" there did, to their great credit (especially in Britain - after all, that's what inspired US) - but it didn't infuse the country like it did ours. They've been doing pretty well under Pax Americana, but will that remain when things go badly and their governments start to use the powers they've gathered? As for most of the rest of the world, well, that goes without saying.
I wouldn't say that's the case. Back then, there was a strong belief in freedom which no longer exists - people just didn't see it as applying to everyone. Now, our concept of freedom is very watered down, but it covers all of us. That's better than what we had before, but not perfect by any means.
This poses difficulties. The whole goal of copyright is to spur inventors or creators who would not have otherwise have produced their work (historically, and constitutionally in the US, modern copyright thinking in Europe may differ). Presumably, some of these people are motivated by the ability to create a work and pay someone else to monetize it (a corporation). Without the ability to sell their rights for cash, they may stop inventing.