To put it all in fewer words: YOUR RIGHT TO KILL YOURSELF IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY RIGHT TO LIVE.
Get over the "smokers' rights" bullshit.
Amen to that. I believe in rights and all, but it's clear that it's no longer a right when it encroaches on my rights - such as the right to breathe, or live.
Smokers are all under this belief that they just HAVE this right to always smoke no matter what. We wouldn't need legislation if smokers had manners, but honest to god, I haven't met too many smokers who give half a crap. They don't want anybody standing between them and cigarettes.
And me? I just don't feel like the cancer. And that IS my right.
Without being very careful, it was very easy to trigger Macrovision in which case the picture would get brighter/darker and keep pulsing like that. You could still watch the picture, but it was annoying.
Claiming that DVDs were compatible with all the old televisions around at the time they were released is just simply wrong. Your original assertion was "DVD looks like crap on any television with coax inputs." It was inherently wrong. And getting a DVD player to work with a COAX only tv was not very hard, and yes, I had a first generation. And although a newer VCR would start macrovision, finding a way to get around it was not very difficult. I never had to buy a new tv. (My parents still use their 13 channel tv from 197X, with a DVD PLAYER)
But compatability aside- it's proven with some of the right tech, you got it to work. But when it worked it looked damn good. Worth the jump from VHS to DVD, which is what was being argued- not that macrovision was/wasn't a pain in the ass.
2. I think you're either intentionally or accidentally mis-interpreting what I said. I was discussing future-proofing. If you can buy a next-generation game system that's fully BD Live compliant now (PS3) for about the same as a DVD player+its competition (XBox360), why wouldn't you? Would you seriously buy a standalone DVD player today, even if you didn't have an HD TV? It makes sense to future-proof instead of wasting money on a dying investment, but not when the cost of a DVD player is disposable ($30-$50) and the cost of a blu-ray is so much more ($400+). The only time you'll buy the blu-ray just to future proof is when it's within $30-$50 of the cost of a DVD player.
But if you're spending $400, you expect to get something out of it other than just "Future-proofing." With the way technology works, and the way prices continuously go down, it's very unlikely anybody will buy a player at $400 that they can't take full advantage of the features- but only to future proof themselves. They'll wait till it's priced as something you can get on a whim while you're out looking for a dvd player.
3. I wasn't trying to show that iPods are equivalent purchases to Blu-Ray players, simply that the amount of money for which Blu-Ray players now sell falls within many, many folks' idea of what's acceptable to pay for consumer electronics, and even something that plays personal media. Again, the provided value is the most important factor that you're not paying attention to.
People will spend thousands if they see the value. The problem is the value of blu-ray over regular DVD is not the same as the value of an old generation ipod vs a new generation ipod, even if the price increase is the same. Value is the difference, not specific features. You cannot make an analogy if the stories aren't parallel.
A lot of people want game systems, especially around Christmas, and the PS3 is a pretty obvious choice for a very future-proof system. And once you have a PS3, even without an HDTV you might be very tempted to pay a small premium for Blu-Ray discs so when you DO get the HDTV you won't have to re-buy anything. I agree- but only because there's actual value in a ps3
1. "Not to mention that DVD looked good on virtually any TV (even older legacy sets)"
DVD looks like crap on any television with coax inputs (a significant portion of them when DVD first came out) because of Macrovision copy protection. Running the DVD player through a VHS machine to get coax outputs triggered the copy protection, and DVD players did not have coax natively.
BS. DVD is always better, even on crappy sets. And, no, people didn't just deal with the macrovision and assume that it was functioning normally. They got themselves an RF modulator (or just used their VCR, since back then, a lot of VCRs didn't even have macrovision features). But claiming that DVDs looked like crap? I still use a DVD player hooked through an RF modulator, looks just fine, and there's no annoying stripe at the top of the screen for the first half hour of the movie.
So compairing the best scenerio (Blu-ray) with a clearly not-functioning setup (DVD-through macrovision enabled VCR) is just a bit disingenuous. At least give us a fair comparison.
2. "Blu-ray players will (for most people) require the purchase of a new, potentially very expensive, HDTV."
Actually Blu-Ray will work just fine on older televisions, although it won't look any better than DVD. But if the prices do come down it would be silly to buy a DVD when you could future-proof your collection with a Blu-Ray disc instead.
Actually, blue ray will require a new tv. Know why? Technically, it'd work on an old TV. But wasn't your last argument simply that DVDs "DVD looks like crap" on older tvs? So why go blueray if that's true? At least be consistent!
The upgrade from DVD to Bluray is purely asthetic. So don't get your panties in a bunch, but people are only going to upgrade to blu-ray if they have a TV that will show the difference. Otherwise you're throwing $400 out for absolutely NO increase in quality.
3. "By the time DVD reached that kind of market share, the prices on players had dropped to the sub-$200 range and disc prices had dropped to the average $20 range."
Firstly, it's not really comparable because DVD players could not play VHS, so you were making a pretty big jump back then. All Blu-Ray players can play DVDs, so if you're buying a new player you might want to future-proof the hardware, as well. But even so, with inflation you can't compare exact dollar figures. If folks are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on iPods, it doesn't seem unreasonable they'd spend something similar to play the latest disc media.
First problem in your reasoning:
1. Blu-ray needs to be backwards compatible because it's the only way to get people to switch. DVD was a major improvement over VHS, that alone was enough reason to switch and buy replacement DVDs for all those crappy VHS Tapes. Additionally, it didn't take long for combo players to appear, to get those people who wouldn't make the switch.
2. The iPod comparison doesn't work. There are obvious benefits to the new iPod: Space. Your old iPod only fits X number of songs? But you have more? If your audio collection is cumulative (and it is) then you'll always need more space. But the comparison you're trying to make is buying an ipod that plays the exact same amount of songs, but pretends to do so with higher quality, which isn't that big of a deal unless you're plugging it into $1500 speakers or earbuds. Oh, and this high-quality version of the ipod is $400 more, but again, offers no new space for more music.
As you can see, you've compared apples and oranges. During a recession people will have to make decisions on what they'll buy. Understand that you must maximize the advertised value to get people to buy. Money is tight, but not gone. So yes, people will buy an iPod because it's obvious what the benefits are. Blu-Ray? Expensive, plus neccessary additional equiptment to enjoy. Not in the budget- my dvds play just fine.
I've noticed this (about the replacement music), I noticed on Bonanza and Dragnet.
Anyway- my guess is it made royalties directly to the authoer of the music that much cheaper. you're right though- it's not like they were collecting a ton of money on those themes anyway - I'd assume.
I just wanted to let you know- After drooling over this all day- I.. uh.. seriously just purchased it. Well, the basic deal (one receiver & Remote) but I will most likely be getting one or two more receivers before the end of the month. Thanks for the recommendation!!
Press Release -
In an industry first, consumers can search Rhapsody's library for specific artists, albums and songs and then instantly play back selections via the intuitive Squeezebox and Transporter remote interface without ever having to interact with a PC.
Holy cow! This is new and exciting! Thanks for the recommendation I'm going to check it out. By any chance do you know if it integrates with Rhapsody's catalog (different than just your library, the ability to search for new music..) ??
Well the other half of the battle is getting something that looks good on a TV screen. Media Center would be perfect -but I've already tried this. It will only stream my current library- not integrate with the subscription services. And even then- it's clunky for providing sound to multiple rooms
I'm still waiting for a good solution to provide audio throughout my house.
I've always loved the fact that through Yahoo Music (or Rhapsody) you can access any music you'd like via subscription. Greatest Party Toy ever!
I've purchased many toys to try to accomplish bringing this to my livingroom, and my results have been varied. I purchased the D-Link DSM320 Media Lounge. This wireless player hooked up to a UPNP server on my computer and played music (and video) in my livingroom, with TV-Remote browsing. The problem: It only integrated with my personal library. No full 2-million track searching. This of course was a problem, because at parties, I want people to take full advantage of the 2 million tracks available (and I don't want to add justin timberlake to my personal library, just because people at a party want to hear him).
I've tried a sansa connect (mp3 player). This was the best solution yet, although it was a small mp3 player, it connects via wireless network and allows the full catalog search. Yahoo Music has just announced they're closing and the Sansa Connect no longer will offer this functionality.
I know that Tivo now offers functionality with Rhapsody- but I don't have cable, and I don't want to pay Tivo's subscription (not to mention high price for hardware I won't use).
And of course there's Sonos- which has EXACTLY what I want, for about 4 times a reasonable price.
This reminds me of those articles who say that the amount of data humanity has archived is so much data that nobody could possibly use it in a lifetime. I think what people fail to remember is this: the point is to have available data just-in-case you need to reference it in the future. Nobody watches security tapes in full. The review the day or hour that the robbery occured. Does that mean we should stop recording everything? No. Let's keep archiving.
Combine that with the speed at which computers are getting more efficient - and I see no reason to just keep piling up this crap. More is always better. (More efficient might be better- but add the two together, and you're unstoppable)
I would say men's blurry vision is a result of women's blurry behavior. If we didn't have to just keep guessing, we'd be able to react to situations better. Fact of the matter is, we are expected to pick up on strange signals and look for clues where there shouldn't be. That is what women expect of us. So excuse us for doing our best trying to figure out women, but don't blame us when we misinterperate. If women wanted to be more direct and less ambiguous, men could stop trying to "read into" things, and fsck everything up.
Mod parent up- Fact is that "anonymous" means nobody knows who did it. So blaiming the people who are attacking scientology for an anonymous attack is the same as blaiming every crime whose perpetrator is unknown on the group protesting scientology.
It seems the only ones looking to benefit from making this connection would be the church of scientology itself, and this "article" just helps the scientology propaganda.
Forcing sexual abuse on a child will cause problems. Explaining sex to a child is natural. (however the actual sex talk probably should wait till around puberty).
I'm not saying treat them like adults, just don't baby them. The idea is simple: give them just a little more responsibility than they know so they have room to grow. Don't give them room to grow, and they won't.
But sometimes I confuse myself. I mean, sure, don't show children "adult" things, and make sure they don't swear... but why? Why exactly do we embrace an arbitrary concept of "innocence" in children? I believe being honest is the best way to raise children. Of course my child has already seen breasts, he was breast fed. Why deny their existance just months later? Why not explain how society works and give them the honest scoop?
"Sex is only for adults, but since you asked..."
Sometimes I hear a young kid swear in public and it always catches me off guard, thinking "geez, kids these days have no respect." But then I think- what is inherently bad about swear words anyhow? We're just safegarding them from things that we've deemed innapropriate in our society- that they don't even realize is inappropriate, because they're new to society. Why not be brutally honest with them instead?
"Son, Fuck is a bad word that people don't like. Try not to say it in public or around your teacher. Also, don't use it around your parents, it's disrespectful."
Treat them like children.. they'll act like children...
please forgive me for going a little OT here, but, at one point she suggested that Photoshop was better then GIMP. I tried to hold in the laughter, but my mouth was full of cheetos, and I spluttered some soggy crumbs over her keyboard. I used my Ubuntu t-shirt to wipe most of them off, and when I looked up, she was staring at me, and making eye contact. Does this mean she likes me? So I'm waiting for the "So what did I do? I whistled for a cab, and when it came near, the license plate said "fresh" and there were dice in the mirror."
As the trend continues, people are going to be even less likely to hear opposing points of view. If your circle of friends is the only group that sends you news, and your circle of friends tends to think/agree with your point of view, you'll be even more insulated. I predict the opposite. I predit that articles and info from both sides of the spectrum hit me, and that the way I receive my news (friends, groups, slashdot) provides discussion on all sorts of news and allows me to develop an opinion- even if the comments are just slashdot readers playing devils advocate.
Slashdot Mirror
Get over the "smokers' rights" bullshit.
Amen to that. I believe in rights and all, but it's clear that it's no longer a right when it encroaches on my rights - such as the right to breathe, or live.
Smokers are all under this belief that they just HAVE this right to always smoke no matter what. We wouldn't need legislation if smokers had manners, but honest to god, I haven't met too many smokers who give half a crap. They don't want anybody standing between them and cigarettes.
And me? I just don't feel like the cancer. And that IS my right.
I knew it! Finally! April fools!!!
oh wait. slow news day I guess
1. "Not to mention that DVD looked good on virtually any TV (even older legacy sets)"
DVD looks like crap on any television with coax inputs (a significant portion of them when DVD first came out) because of Macrovision copy protection. Running the DVD player through a VHS machine to get coax outputs triggered the copy protection, and DVD players did not have coax natively.
BS. DVD is always better, even on crappy sets. And, no, people didn't just deal with the macrovision and assume that it was functioning normally. They got themselves an RF modulator (or just used their VCR, since back then, a lot of VCRs didn't even have macrovision features). But claiming that DVDs looked like crap? I still use a DVD player hooked through an RF modulator, looks just fine, and there's no annoying stripe at the top of the screen for the first half hour of the movie.
So compairing the best scenerio (Blu-ray) with a clearly not-functioning setup (DVD-through macrovision enabled VCR) is just a bit disingenuous. At least give us a fair comparison.
2. "Blu-ray players will (for most people) require the purchase of a new, potentially very expensive, HDTV."
Actually Blu-Ray will work just fine on older televisions, although it won't look any better than DVD. But if the prices do come down it would be silly to buy a DVD when you could future-proof your collection with a Blu-Ray disc instead.
Actually, blue ray will require a new tv. Know why? Technically, it'd work on an old TV. But wasn't your last argument simply that DVDs "DVD looks like crap" on older tvs? So why go blueray if that's true? At least be consistent!
The upgrade from DVD to Bluray is purely asthetic. So don't get your panties in a bunch, but people are only going to upgrade to blu-ray if they have a TV that will show the difference. Otherwise you're throwing $400 out for absolutely NO increase in quality.
3. "By the time DVD reached that kind of market share, the prices on players had dropped to the sub-$200 range and disc prices had dropped to the average $20 range."
Firstly, it's not really comparable because DVD players could not play VHS, so you were making a pretty big jump back then. All Blu-Ray players can play DVDs, so if you're buying a new player you might want to future-proof the hardware, as well. But even so, with inflation you can't compare exact dollar figures. If folks are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on iPods, it doesn't seem unreasonable they'd spend something similar to play the latest disc media.
First problem in your reasoning:
1. Blu-ray needs to be backwards compatible because it's the only way to get people to switch. DVD was a major improvement over VHS, that alone was enough reason to switch and buy replacement DVDs for all those crappy VHS Tapes. Additionally, it didn't take long for combo players to appear, to get those people who wouldn't make the switch.
2. The iPod comparison doesn't work. There are obvious benefits to the new iPod: Space. Your old iPod only fits X number of songs? But you have more? If your audio collection is cumulative (and it is) then you'll always need more space. But the comparison you're trying to make is buying an ipod that plays the exact same amount of songs, but pretends to do so with higher quality, which isn't that big of a deal unless you're plugging it into $1500 speakers or earbuds. Oh, and this high-quality version of the ipod is $400 more, but again, offers no new space for more music.
As you can see, you've compared apples and oranges. During a recession people will have to make decisions on what they'll buy. Understand that you must maximize the advertised value to get people to buy. Money is tight, but not gone. So yes, people will buy an iPod because it's obvious what the benefits are. Blu-Ray? Expensive, plus neccessary additional equiptment to enjoy. Not in the budget- my dvds play just fine.
Ok- so you're convinced that twitter has 5 accounts. Explain yourself, or stop trolling. What you say doesn't make sense.
I've noticed this (about the replacement music), I noticed on Bonanza and Dragnet.
Anyway- my guess is it made royalties directly to the authoer of the music that much cheaper. you're right though- it's not like they were collecting a ton of money on those themes anyway - I'd assume.
I just wanted to let you know- After drooling over this all day- I .. uh.. seriously just purchased it. Well, the basic deal (one receiver & Remote) but I will most likely be getting one or two more receivers before the end of the month. Thanks for the recommendation!!
Press Release - In an industry first, consumers can search Rhapsody's library for specific artists, albums and songs and then instantly play back selections via the intuitive Squeezebox and Transporter remote interface without ever having to interact with a PC.
Hacking Yahoo Music - here
Note that you cannot browse the full Rhapsody music catalog from the SqueezeBox or web UI.
*Sigh* Maybe some day..
Holy cow! This is new and exciting! Thanks for the recommendation I'm going to check it out. By any chance do you know if it integrates with Rhapsody's catalog (different than just your library, the ability to search for new music..) ??
Well the other half of the battle is getting something that looks good on a TV screen. Media Center would be perfect -but I've already tried this. It will only stream my current library- not integrate with the subscription services. And even then- it's clunky for providing sound to multiple rooms
I'm still waiting for a good solution to provide audio throughout my house.
I've always loved the fact that through Yahoo Music (or Rhapsody) you can access any music you'd like via subscription. Greatest Party Toy ever!
I've purchased many toys to try to accomplish bringing this to my livingroom, and my results have been varied. I purchased the D-Link DSM320 Media Lounge. This wireless player hooked up to a UPNP server on my computer and played music (and video) in my livingroom, with TV-Remote browsing. The problem: It only integrated with my personal library. No full 2-million track searching. This of course was a problem, because at parties, I want people to take full advantage of the 2 million tracks available (and I don't want to add justin timberlake to my personal library, just because people at a party want to hear him).
I've tried a sansa connect (mp3 player). This was the best solution yet, although it was a small mp3 player, it connects via wireless network and allows the full catalog search. Yahoo Music has just announced they're closing and the Sansa Connect no longer will offer this functionality.
I've tried Napster's Media Center Plugin- but it crashes regularly.
I know that Tivo now offers functionality with Rhapsody- but I don't have cable, and I don't want to pay Tivo's subscription (not to mention high price for hardware I won't use).
And of course there's Sonos- which has EXACTLY what I want, for about 4 times a reasonable price.
I've chronicaled my adventures for anybody looking to learn from my mistakes: Digital Wireless Audio Age , and my review of the DSM-320 and 520.
Could this be a publicity stunt for T-Mobile?
This reminds me of those articles who say that the amount of data humanity has archived is so much data that nobody could possibly use it in a lifetime. I think what people fail to remember is this: the point is to have available data just-in-case you need to reference it in the future. Nobody watches security tapes in full. The review the day or hour that the robbery occured. Does that mean we should stop recording everything? No. Let's keep archiving.
Combine that with the speed at which computers are getting more efficient - and I see no reason to just keep piling up this crap. More is always better. (More efficient might be better- but add the two together, and you're unstoppable)
Parent means sickipedia.org not .com
The map must be incorrect. That or I'm posting using imaginary interwebs.. maybe slashdot is all in my head.
I would say men's blurry vision is a result of women's blurry behavior. If we didn't have to just keep guessing, we'd be able to react to situations better. Fact of the matter is, we are expected to pick up on strange signals and look for clues where there shouldn't be. That is what women expect of us. So excuse us for doing our best trying to figure out women, but don't blame us when we misinterperate. If women wanted to be more direct and less ambiguous, men could stop trying to "read into" things, and fsck everything up.
In other words, I blame women.
Mod parent up- Fact is that "anonymous" means nobody knows who did it. So blaiming the people who are attacking scientology for an anonymous attack is the same as blaiming every crime whose perpetrator is unknown on the group protesting scientology.
It seems the only ones looking to benefit from making this connection would be the church of scientology itself, and this "article" just helps the scientology propaganda.
Forcing sexual abuse on a child will cause problems. Explaining sex to a child is natural. (however the actual sex talk probably should wait till around puberty).
I'm not saying treat them like adults, just don't baby them. The idea is simple: give them just a little more responsibility than they know so they have room to grow. Don't give them room to grow, and they won't.
But sometimes I confuse myself. I mean, sure, don't show children "adult" things, and make sure they don't swear... but why? Why exactly do we embrace an arbitrary concept of "innocence" in children? I believe being honest is the best way to raise children. Of course my child has already seen breasts, he was breast fed. Why deny their existance just months later? Why not explain how society works and give them the honest scoop?
"Sex is only for adults, but since you asked..."
Sometimes I hear a young kid swear in public and it always catches me off guard, thinking "geez, kids these days have no respect." But then I think- what is inherently bad about swear words anyhow? We're just safegarding them from things that we've deemed innapropriate in our society- that they don't even realize is inappropriate, because they're new to society. Why not be brutally honest with them instead?
"Son, Fuck is a bad word that people don't like. Try not to say it in public or around your teacher. Also, don't use it around your parents, it's disrespectful."
Treat them like children.. they'll act like children...
There are no nutrients in [rock]. Dragon kills you. You are dead. [Restart?]
Compare that with just watching fox news...
Boston to Manchester, NH has FIOS through verizon. Don't know what you're smoking.