That's video. This is music. The current trend among music customers is portability. One of the most common complaints on SprialFrog's Facebook group is its incompatibility with the iPod. And imeem is streaming only; you need a PC to listen to the tracks. These services are great for listening to new music, but not so much for listening to it on a regular basis.
Episodes of both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have been available in the iTunes Store for a while now. Hell, the credits for both shows even say that you can purchase the episode there. Last time I checked they kept the most recent 5-7 episodes up for sale.
However, The Daily Show/Colbert Report is unique in that most of the time people are looking for specific clips instead of complete episodes. This is why both shows have been so prosperous on YouTube. Comedy Central for a while now has offered the same service on Motherload, but the headlines would get deleted after a week or so, only leaving clips from the reporters and interviews. YouTube has every clip of the show submitted (often with several submissions of the same clip), and in some cases with better search tags, so you are almost guaranteed to find what you are looking for. There's also the issue of YouTube being so popular that nowadays that's the first place most people go when looking for online video, as opposed to checking the network's or producer's site directly. OTOH, people who want to watch South Park on demand want to see the whole episode, which is why Comedy Central's Motherload clips haven't satisfied the masses.
First of all, "king of software" goes to the company with the most sales, not whoever has the best software. For that matter, I happen to think Microsoft makes the best software, but that's not what makes them king, it's their indisputable dominance with how much their software is used. To quote Jon Stewart: Whaaaaa?
YouTube was terrible from the very beginning. The only reason anyone puts up with the site is because it is so popular, and the only reason that it is popular is because of the media coverage of the Lazy Sunday removal.
Of course, even if YouTube was genuinely good from the beginning, it would still have sunk to its current low. A popular trend with Internet sites (and everything for that matter) seems to be a decline in their overall quality, purpose, philosophy, and performance as the site in question gets more popular. Look at Facebook. Once more focused on privacy and simplicity, it has now shifted to using questionable policies and allowing people to fill their profiles with crap. Every time a new "feature" is added, it is never really needed in the first place or it undermines the principles on which Facebook was built upon.
Don't be too quick on that one. The Kaleidescope ruling seems to show a nick in the armor of DVD's. Kaleidescope both had a license by the DVD CCA and copied CSS onto the hard drive. The ruling only effects Kaleidescope and any other rippers or copiers that actually have a license from the DVD CCA. And in any case that is a moot point because the DVD CCA changed their licensing rules so that it is now impossible to license or re-license a DVD ripper.
Wrong.. They have copy protection. My DVD's will play just fine in your DVD player. Your DVD's and VHS tapes will play fine in my player. DRM is your music files will play on only your iPod and not mine. While it is true that Macrovision is not DRM, but ARM (Analog Restrictions Management), DVDs have CSS, which is DRM. Just like DRM'd WMA or AAC files won't play on unlicensed computers, DVDs won't play on unlicensed players. The entire point of CSS is to ensure regulation of the DVD player market above and beyond ensuring that it conforms to the standard (i.e. selling licenses to manufactures and criminalizing unlicensed players, creating a guaranteed revenue stream). That's the point for all other forms of DRM as well, to ensure that the media only plays on "approved" devices. It's not about obscurity, it's about control.
Or use Peer to Peer. Often a customer knows he bought the movie. Why buy it twice? In my case, based on the Kaleidescope ruling, I regularly rip to my media server. The kids can put movies on the video Zen and iPod. They can watch the movies, and I don't have to deal with a stack of loose scratched DVD's they never put away. Picking up after the kids and broken DVDs is a thing of the past. Because re-purchasing is the only legal option available to the consumer. As I said before, the Kaleidescope ruling doesn't affect the legal status of any other unlicensed rippers, only licensed ones. And even if one does use a licensed ripper, what portable device has CSS decryption provided by the manufacturer? If you know of a ripper or copier that both removes CSS and is licensed by the DVD CCA do let me know.
Unfortunately true. Some movie studios who also have a music label are making the same mistakes all over again and will suffer the same fate. I picked up a copy of Open Season distributed by Sony. It wouldn't rip with Acid Rip on Linux. I called them to complain. They provided a replacement for no charge without the additional copy protection. They asked what player I was having trouble with. I flat told them. I hope it is properly added to their market research. I told them flat out that it didn't work on my Linux machine, and wouldn't rip with Acid Rip to my media server so I couldn't play it on my TV or play on an iPod or Zen. The additional copy protection on HD stuff along with the high price is why for the time being I'm sticking to the old format that is good enough. Consider yourself lucky that the FBI didn't arrest you shortly afterward, as AcidRip is an unlicensed ripper. I have serious doubts that the FBI actually would care that much about someone ripping for personal use, but what you did there was basically admit to breaking criminal law to someone who has an incentive to tip the authorities about your confession. It probably would not pass for "probable cause," but it is still a confession nonetheless and I wouldn't be surprised if Sony didn't at least hassle the FBI to raid your doorstep. I'm even more surprised that Sony sent you a new copy.
That's exactly the point. No technology solution will work in the long run, and inevitably colleges will lose the financial aid regardless of whether or not they have implemented a filtering solution system under this bill, because it will no longer be "effective."
The only places that I've ever seen a $5 movie is near the checkout isle, next to the candy and tabloids, and honestly I've never seen anyone grab a copy. I've seen $10 movies in their own shelves in the middle of the store that are actually worth considering, but for the most part any movie that people seem to actually show interest in costs at least $10.
Then again, I haven't been to a big box store in ages, and have no intention of entering one anytime soon.
It's because the government has been able to get people to believe that voting for third parties is "throwing your vote away," thus ensuring that anyone who does turn out to the polls will ensure the status quo by only voting for either one or the other out of fear that their vote won't make a difference.
The same gripes you make about CDs can easily be made about movies too. Both VHS and DVD have DRM. The only difference is that CSS was incorporated into the DVD standard so you can play CSS-encrypted discs in almost every player, and Macrovision only kicks in if you're playing or recording through a VCR or DVD recorder. Like the CDs, many companies have also introduced non-standard DRM into their DVDs that can break the compatibility. DVDs also have region encoding and there's the PAL/NTSC nuisance to deal with, while CDs play everywhere. CDs can be ripped into MP3 files. DVDs can not without breaking the DRM and consequently the DMCA. Thus there is no convenient way to get movies from DVDs onto portable players without using an underground ripper, and your average customer is forced to buy the videos again from an online store.
While DVDs are sold for $5 in Wal-Mart, it's usually because most people just don't want those titles. By contrast, I would imagine that most music made in the last 20 years still has a good amount of demand, which is why their prices haven't gotten lower.
I'm sure that this has probably shown up in other OLPC arguments, but is this project really what the Third World needs? I would imagine that it is far more important to get essentials such as medicine, clean water, food, and adequate shelter before we start worrying about something like this.
My point here was that "non-essential" can be relative. I'm sure that Stallman considers them to be essential as well, but others may not. I guess it could also depend on how much the product or technology in question was looked into, and whether or not efficiency or simplicity is more important to the person asked. When I was questioning whether or not computers are "essential," I was simply implying that in some cases and to some people they may be seen as more of a luxury than a necessity.
You, nor I, nor anybody else know what would have happened if the "IBM clone" platform had never achieved dominance. Very true. I seem to often have the problem of wording my opinions and views as if they are irrefutable facts. It's not my intention, they just sound better to me written that way for some reason, and for that I apologize.
But I still can only imagine a non-clone PC market as being similar to today's console market, eventually only coming down to two or three competitors while relying on "killer software" to make sales. If you have another prediction I would love to hear it.
He does not believe in wasting wealth on non-essential items; this enables him to live on a relatively small income while spending most of his time pursuing the ideals he cares about. Um, aren't computers non-essential items? Seeing as he's a hacker, I'm willing to bet that Stallman owns at least one.
If there's no OS on the drive than I really couldn't care whether or not I beat the idle time to get the CD in. The concern for me is if there's a virus on the machine. I've only had to deal with two viruses in my life after they hit their payload, one ancient boot sector virus that just hogged memory and one nasty modern one that corrupted files nonstop, both on my family's computer at the time. After witnessing just how nasty the second payload was, my newly developed failsafe plan at the time was to immediately shut down the machine if I find that a virus is on it. I'd then yank out the hard drive, install it in another machine which will not boot from it, and use that machine's AV to scan and remove any threats on the drive that I just stuck in. The only variation to that plan today is that instead of going through the trouble of pulling out the hard drive, I'll just boot an alternative immune OS from a LiveCD and use that to scan my drive - preferably a LiveCD that is explicitly designed for such a purpose. I dare not boot an infected drive lest the virus be in the boot sequence and subsequently take the chance to infect or destroy other files, and I dare not use the AV on the infected drive because experience tells me that said AV will not be able to help me eradicate the virus if the virus in question is on the same drive as the AV, only find it (and it may not even do that given recent reports about modern virus and worm payloads attacking the AV directly). So far I have never had to do this so I have no idea how effective it would be. I have since kept updated definitions after the last payload (the lack of which was mostly due to my arrogant parents who refused to get an AV subscription on our family machine) and have identified 5-7 viruses before they hit payload and deleted them, and by my observations I haven't yet missed any. If this is an ineffective or excessive strategy tell me now. I now have my own laptop with which I primarily use Ubuntu and Firefox in addition to updated definitions from CalmAV but a number of my files are still on my family's Windows computer and despite my efforts to secure their machine with updated Windows patches and AV definitions I don't trust them to make wise security decisions.
Oh I'm well aware of that, but it's a pain in the ass do have to do so given the amount of times I boot from a CD. In my experience paper clips make poor poking rods because they are so flimsy and can't withstand the stress of having to manually push a motor that well. That's probably why often times a more sturdy rod is included with the retail purchase of an optical drive. These are much more efficient in getting that drive open, but not only do I find that I lose the things often (which is odd because I know that I always put them back in the same place so I'm assuming one of my idiot family members is doing this - if you know what they are called and where I can purchase them separately that would be very helpful) but I really don't see the efficiency of having to do this every time I want to boot from the CD drive. The few seconds of idleness is more efficient to me than inserting the CD and then killing the hard drive's boot process by hitting the reset button, assuming that I have the fortune to have a reset button at all. And back in the pre-journaling days this method could have caused drive corruption.
I've never noticed that much "under the hood" difference between 2000 and XP other than XP's completely unnecessary bloat due to all of the extra crud Microsoft threw in "for the desktop user."
Slashdot Mirror
That's video. This is music. The current trend among music customers is portability. One of the most common complaints on SprialFrog's Facebook group is its incompatibility with the iPod. And imeem is streaming only; you need a PC to listen to the tracks. These services are great for listening to new music, but not so much for listening to it on a regular basis.
Episodes of both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have been available in the iTunes Store for a while now. Hell, the credits for both shows even say that you can purchase the episode there. Last time I checked they kept the most recent 5-7 episodes up for sale.
However, The Daily Show/Colbert Report is unique in that most of the time people are looking for specific clips instead of complete episodes. This is why both shows have been so prosperous on YouTube. Comedy Central for a while now has offered the same service on Motherload, but the headlines would get deleted after a week or so, only leaving clips from the reporters and interviews. YouTube has every clip of the show submitted (often with several submissions of the same clip), and in some cases with better search tags, so you are almost guaranteed to find what you are looking for. There's also the issue of YouTube being so popular that nowadays that's the first place most people go when looking for online video, as opposed to checking the network's or producer's site directly. OTOH, people who want to watch South Park on demand want to see the whole episode, which is why Comedy Central's Motherload clips haven't satisfied the masses.
Which is why it was already submitted a few days ago.
YouTube was terrible from the very beginning. The only reason anyone puts up with the site is because it is so popular, and the only reason that it is popular is because of the media coverage of the Lazy Sunday removal. Of course, even if YouTube was genuinely good from the beginning, it would still have sunk to its current low. A popular trend with Internet sites (and everything for that matter) seems to be a decline in their overall quality, purpose, philosophy, and performance as the site in question gets more popular. Look at Facebook. Once more focused on privacy and simplicity, it has now shifted to using questionable policies and allowing people to fill their profiles with crap. Every time a new "feature" is added, it is never really needed in the first place or it undermines the principles on which Facebook was built upon.
So having several MythTV boxen is suddenly a bad idea?
That's exactly the point. No technology solution will work in the long run, and inevitably colleges will lose the financial aid regardless of whether or not they have implemented a filtering solution system under this bill, because it will no longer be "effective."
The only places that I've ever seen a $5 movie is near the checkout isle, next to the candy and tabloids, and honestly I've never seen anyone grab a copy. I've seen $10 movies in their own shelves in the middle of the store that are actually worth considering, but for the most part any movie that people seem to actually show interest in costs at least $10.
Then again, I haven't been to a big box store in ages, and have no intention of entering one anytime soon.
It's because the government has been able to get people to believe that voting for third parties is "throwing your vote away," thus ensuring that anyone who does turn out to the polls will ensure the status quo by only voting for either one or the other out of fear that their vote won't make a difference.
The same gripes you make about CDs can easily be made about movies too. Both VHS and DVD have DRM. The only difference is that CSS was incorporated into the DVD standard so you can play CSS-encrypted discs in almost every player, and Macrovision only kicks in if you're playing or recording through a VCR or DVD recorder. Like the CDs, many companies have also introduced non-standard DRM into their DVDs that can break the compatibility. DVDs also have region encoding and there's the PAL/NTSC nuisance to deal with, while CDs play everywhere. CDs can be ripped into MP3 files. DVDs can not without breaking the DRM and consequently the DMCA. Thus there is no convenient way to get movies from DVDs onto portable players without using an underground ripper, and your average customer is forced to buy the videos again from an online store.
While DVDs are sold for $5 in Wal-Mart, it's usually because most people just don't want those titles. By contrast, I would imagine that most music made in the last 20 years still has a good amount of demand, which is why their prices haven't gotten lower.
No. You get a sports watch.
I'm sure that this has probably shown up in other OLPC arguments, but is this project really what the Third World needs? I would imagine that it is far more important to get essentials such as medicine, clean water, food, and adequate shelter before we start worrying about something like this.
You would think that the trolls would have updated their bot software to point to an actual goatse mirror by now.
Exactly. It makes much more sense to write a book only for the LTS releases.
I actually read it like that almost every time I see IFPI spelled out. That's probably why few people use the term "phonographic" anymore.
My point here was that "non-essential" can be relative. I'm sure that Stallman considers them to be essential as well, but others may not. I guess it could also depend on how much the product or technology in question was looked into, and whether or not efficiency or simplicity is more important to the person asked. When I was questioning whether or not computers are "essential," I was simply implying that in some cases and to some people they may be seen as more of a luxury than a necessity.
I was actually talking about his assertion that it is "another fine Viacom-owned program." But hey, if you like the show, I really don't care.
I seriously hope that your example of Drawn Together is supposed to be some kind of irony.
But I still can only imagine a non-clone PC market as being similar to today's console market, eventually only coming down to two or three competitors while relying on "killer software" to make sales. If you have another prediction I would love to hear it.
We can all just join "If this group reaches 18,446,744,073,709,551,616, it WILL cause an overflow"
I've never noticed that much "under the hood" difference between 2000 and XP other than XP's completely unnecessary bloat due to all of the extra crud Microsoft threw in "for the desktop user."
And what if your hard drive has a virus or is otherwise undesirable for booting? Then what?