You're wrong. HD-DVDs require a player for their proprietary DRM HD-DVD format. iPods are also a player for Apple's proprietary DRM AAC format. (not that AAC is proprietary, but at least the DRM is)
Thus, HD-DVD players = iPod HD-DVD format = Apple AAC...for the purposes of this debate.
iPod's success is due primarily (if not only) to the DRMed online music store, which the recording studios love. iPods are "backwards" compatible with open MP3s, just like HD-DVD players are backwards compatible with standard DVDs.
The point I'm trying to make is that as long as ANY studio still produces HD-DVDs (and as long as iTunes remains open for business, in contrast with the iPod), it doesn't matter that 2 or 3 big names have gone exclusively to the Blu-Ray format. There are just as many studios that have gone exclusively HD-DVD.
And... if Netflix and Blockbuster's rental statistics are any indicator, Blu-Ray will be gone sooner than later. HD-DVDs are being rented at a rate of 2.4 to 1 compared with Blu-Ray as of October.
Uhh... No it isn't.
"In a not-so-surprising turn, standalone HD DVD players have regained their lead on Blu-ray sales in September, giving the overall year-to-date figures (in which HD DVD has always been ahead) as 53% HD DVD, 44% Blu-ray, and 3% dual-format." (quoted from an article on Gizmodo, pointing to http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9202) These are "fresh" numbers too, less than 90 days old.
Anyway, if you can pull out your little protractor and draw me a diagram of how 53% is less than 44%, I'll concede.
That is... That is positively BRILLIANT!
I think that might be the one thing we could change here in the US that might actually get people off their asses and into the polls. I can see it now... We'd never have another democrat president! What FairTax, EndOfWelfare, DeportIllegals, MiddleEastGlassParkingLot bliss that would be! No more fear of universal healthcare and me having to pay for some crackhead's overdose treatment... Oh, to dream...
Sony has built up quite a base of hatred among consumers... I've never had good luck with Sony products, aside of a Trinitron TV I bought 15 years ago that is still kicking. My customer service experience with Sony Online Entertainment has led me to never purchase another Sony product ever again. A simple refusal of a refund for $150 cost Sony 4 customers for LIFE. They're not going to stay in business if they continue to behave that way, I don't care how big they are.
I don't want to turn this into a Sony bash-fest, but the bottom line is that history often repeats itself, and Sony has a rock-solid record of pumping out format failures and horrible customer service.
Betamax all over again is right... The Sony product will take the fall, just as it always has.
Betamax, miniDisc, MemoryStick, UMD.... All Sony creations, all worthless, all failures, all reduced to half of a 4-foot shelving unit at Wal Mart until their demise some short months later. Even the PS3 is washed up at this point (as the PS2 was still outselling the PS3 less than a year ago, which was the last time I cared to look).
Who was complaining about the data rate of the two formats a few posts back? What difference does that make? My very first CD-Rom was 300k/s. The one I use now is 7800k/s. Give it some time.
Soooo... If the iPod could only play mp3s and nothing more, we wouldn't have a problem?
I have a 30gb Archos which plays every format under the sun and has a DVR option, and I paid $50 than a comparable DRMed device. If people want to pay more for a more restrictive device just because it's available in pink rather than silver, so be it. That's capitalism, baby! I need iPod-buying morons to make my retirement account grow.;)
Yes, please do stay out of my country. Hopefully, "totalitarian" invasions of privacy like "looking at your face" will keep out more paranoid immigrants and make the highways a little safer to drive and cheeseburgers a little easier to order.
Yeahhhhhh good luck with suing someone over what is clearly (read: the very *definition* of) satire.
Satire is one of those things that has been so thoroughly proven to be protected, Chuck is a fool to file suit unless this book reaches the point of slander.
Are you suggesting that URLs posted in IRC topics are not intended to be public?
That's like... Streaking at the Super Bowl and expecting no one to see your wiener.
TV shows are generally (though not always) scripted. Scripts can be plagiarized. Toaster "over"s are generally planned production items, with a set of plans likely set to paper or some other information interchange medium, also susceptible to plagiarism, not to mention copyright infringement and the veritable gamut of "copy" law.
Any and all information can be plagiarized, plain and simple.
[quote]When you find out how a toaster over can be plagiarized, let me know.[/quote]
Glad I could help.
Now, let me go ahead and and save a couple of new thread items by predicting your forthcoming "nuh-uh!" and countering with a "yuh-huh!"
Furthermore, you're asserting that Microsoft Windows is not to be considered a "single work" just because more than one person worked on it, which is hilarious. Damn, I would have hated to be your Biology partner!
The car analogy isn't a very good one... The car is a tangible thing that can be stolen and damaged, and there is only one car with which to operate. Radio waves are not at all tangible, and there is no limit to their number. The waves can be damaged, but it doesn't matter because they are more or less disposable and are renewed.
This is all really silly to begin with, in my opinion. If your wifi is open access, then it is implied that you are permitting open access. It's more like leaving a tray of donuts on your desk at work with a sign that says "FREE!", then getting mad when someone takes one.
There is no qualification of the participants. I'd wager a guess that these numbers include a large number of parents that don't play with their kids AT ALL.
Let's see some numbers on parents that actually have a history of interacting with their children to begin with, then I'll be more interested.
You would quote an encyclopedia as a primary source...?
an Encyclopedia by definition contains no original research it only has an explanation or summary of other works and has references to those works so you can use those as primary sources, the problem here is not plagiarised material but using the primary source not a secondary source?
Well, you're wrong. Again, it is perfectly acceptable to cite an encyclopedia as a primary source.
For your information Wikiepdia is an encyclopedia by definition, unless you want to dismiss it on a technicality? You may not agree with the way it is run, or it's contents, but the information on it is as useful as from a traditional encyclopedia, (I would trust the contents of wikipedia in a well written article as much as an article in Britannica i.e I would expect both to have mistakes)
Wanna see something funny? Here are some instructions on how to cite an encyclopedia in a Wikipedia article.
On a side note, I totally agree with how Wikipedia is run, and I also find it just as useful if not more useful than a hard-bound encyclopedia. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, and often cite its articles in reports I write. Please do not have the misconception that I dislike Wikipedia in any way. Quite the contrary, in fact. I am simply stating the fact, again, that it contains a lot of plagiarism.
I hear you, I really do... Unfortunately, not everyone who participates in the Wikipedia process is "academically honest." - Granted, I can't back that up, but your point is just as impossible to prove. Plus, it's a plain and simple fact that dishonesty is built into the human psyche, thus making it a much more logical assumption that people will tend to be more dishonest than honest when it comes to the editing of a public forum item like Wikipedia. Hell, I might be lying to you right now! But I digress, as this is not a moral debate.
The fact of the matter is, I have seen plagiarism on Wikipedia, and lots of it. Do I recall what it was? No. Do I feel like looking for it? It's tempting for the sake of this debate, but...not that tempting.
I am absolutely certain there are thousands, if not millions of instances where Wikipedia is the victim of infringement. I was merely pointing out that, for example, if someone were to copy something I wrote on a web site in my spare time that is open for the free world to see, and that text ended up in a book or newspaper without citing me as the source... Would I care? I very seriously doubt it....but just in case...
(C) PhearoX 2007 - All Rights Reserved.
My point was really that there is an excellent chance that the plagiarised text is not the original work of Wikipedia or the author of the article in question, thus making the point of similarity to the Wikipedia article moot.
Also, it is perfectly acceptable to cite an encyclopedia as a 'primary source' as, generally speaking, they do not contain plagiarised material. I don't think I would call Wikipedia an encyclopedia, if for no other reason than the fact that it contains so much plagiarised work.
You're the same guy that would have been crying, "Why didn't you see this coming?! The government failed us!" if we did nothing in Iraq, Saddam dug up his WMD from a mile underground, and tossed them into your back yard.
Personally, if someone LOOKS like they are going to punch me in the face, I punch them in the face first.
Bottom line, don't act like you're going to punch me unless you want to get punched. I'm not sure where people get lost in this logic.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong. HD-DVDs require a player for their proprietary DRM HD-DVD format. iPods are also a player for Apple's proprietary DRM AAC format. (not that AAC is proprietary, but at least the DRM is)
...for the purposes of this debate.
Thus,
HD-DVD players = iPod
HD-DVD format = Apple AAC
iPod's success is due primarily (if not only) to the DRMed online music store, which the recording studios love. iPods are "backwards" compatible with open MP3s, just like HD-DVD players are backwards compatible with standard DVDs.
The point I'm trying to make is that as long as ANY studio still produces HD-DVDs (and as long as iTunes remains open for business, in contrast with the iPod), it doesn't matter that 2 or 3 big names have gone exclusively to the Blu-Ray format. There are just as many studios that have gone exclusively HD-DVD.
And... if Netflix and Blockbuster's rental statistics are any indicator, Blu-Ray will be gone sooner than later. HD-DVDs are being rented at a rate of 2.4 to 1 compared with Blu-Ray as of October.
Really? Someone better let Apple know... They won't be happy that the iPod is going under because it's the only one that uses AAC...
The CD was invented in the late 1960s by James T. Russell. Sony had nothing to do with it.
Your xbox vs. PS3 sales figures (er... lack thereof) are also incorrect.
The minidisc was a *colossal* failure. They didn't even last as long as the BetaMax format...
Walkman and Trinitron are both end user devices or the technology within, not an actual distribution format, which is the focus of this discussion.
Uhh... No it isn't. "In a not-so-surprising turn, standalone HD DVD players have regained their lead on Blu-ray sales in September, giving the overall year-to-date figures (in which HD DVD has always been ahead) as 53% HD DVD, 44% Blu-ray, and 3% dual-format." (quoted from an article on Gizmodo, pointing to http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9202) These are "fresh" numbers too, less than 90 days old. Anyway, if you can pull out your little protractor and draw me a diagram of how 53% is less than 44%, I'll concede.
That is... That is positively BRILLIANT! I think that might be the one thing we could change here in the US that might actually get people off their asses and into the polls. I can see it now... We'd never have another democrat president! What FairTax, EndOfWelfare, DeportIllegals, MiddleEastGlassParkingLot bliss that would be! No more fear of universal healthcare and me having to pay for some crackhead's overdose treatment... Oh, to dream...
Sony has built up quite a base of hatred among consumers... I've never had good luck with Sony products, aside of a Trinitron TV I bought 15 years ago that is still kicking. My customer service experience with Sony Online Entertainment has led me to never purchase another Sony product ever again. A simple refusal of a refund for $150 cost Sony 4 customers for LIFE. They're not going to stay in business if they continue to behave that way, I don't care how big they are. I don't want to turn this into a Sony bash-fest, but the bottom line is that history often repeats itself, and Sony has a rock-solid record of pumping out format failures and horrible customer service.
Betamax all over again is right... The Sony product will take the fall, just as it always has.
Betamax, miniDisc, MemoryStick, UMD.... All Sony creations, all worthless, all failures, all reduced to half of a 4-foot shelving unit at Wal Mart until their demise some short months later. Even the PS3 is washed up at this point (as the PS2 was still outselling the PS3 less than a year ago, which was the last time I cared to look).
Who was complaining about the data rate of the two formats a few posts back? What difference does that make? My very first CD-Rom was 300k/s. The one I use now is 7800k/s. Give it some time.
Soooo... If the iPod could only play mp3s and nothing more, we wouldn't have a problem?
;)
I have a 30gb Archos which plays every format under the sun and has a DVR option, and I paid $50 than a comparable DRMed device. If people want to pay more for a more restrictive device just because it's available in pink rather than silver, so be it. That's capitalism, baby! I need iPod-buying morons to make my retirement account grow.
Odd... The new discussion thread system does not show all posts even with the filter completely open. The old one shows them all just fine.
Duly noted.
Haha... Someone deleted every single reply thread to this post. Gee, no bias there.
QEF
Yes, please do stay out of my country. Hopefully, "totalitarian" invasions of privacy like "looking at your face" will keep out more paranoid immigrants and make the highways a little safer to drive and cheeseburgers a little easier to order.
Yeahhhhhh good luck with suing someone over what is clearly (read: the very *definition* of) satire.
Satire is one of those things that has been so thoroughly proven to be protected, Chuck is a fool to file suit unless this book reaches the point of slander.
Are you suggesting that URLs posted in IRC topics are not intended to be public? That's like... Streaking at the Super Bowl and expecting no one to see your wiener.
Public statements made in public chatrooms are being made publicly available!? Oh noes!
Yeah! I can't wait for Team Fortress 2 to come out! I saw some screenshots back in 1999 and they look pretty incredible.
;)
Errr Orange Box? WTF is Orange Box?
TV shows are generally (though not always) scripted. Scripts can be plagiarized. Toaster "over"s are generally planned production items, with a set of plans likely set to paper or some other information interchange medium, also susceptible to plagiarism, not to mention copyright infringement and the veritable gamut of "copy" law.
Any and all information can be plagiarized, plain and simple.
[quote]When you find out how a toaster over can be plagiarized, let me know.[/quote]
Glad I could help.
Now, let me go ahead and and save a couple of new thread items by predicting your forthcoming "nuh-uh!" and countering with a "yuh-huh!"
Furthermore, you're asserting that Microsoft Windows is not to be considered a "single work" just because more than one person worked on it, which is hilarious. Damn, I would have hated to be your Biology partner!
The car analogy isn't a very good one... The car is a tangible thing that can be stolen and damaged, and there is only one car with which to operate. Radio waves are not at all tangible, and there is no limit to their number. The waves can be damaged, but it doesn't matter because they are more or less disposable and are renewed.
This is all really silly to begin with, in my opinion. If your wifi is open access, then it is implied that you are permitting open access. It's more like leaving a tray of donuts on your desk at work with a sign that says "FREE!", then getting mad when someone takes one.
Gimme a break.
There is no qualification of the participants. I'd wager a guess that these numbers include a large number of parents that don't play with their kids AT ALL.
Let's see some numbers on parents that actually have a history of interacting with their children to begin with, then I'll be more interested.
an Encyclopedia by definition contains no original research it only has an explanation or summary of other works and has references to those works so you can use those as primary sources, the problem here is not plagiarised material but using the primary source not a secondary source?
Well, you're wrong. Again, it is perfectly acceptable to cite an encyclopedia as a primary source.
For your information Wikiepdia is an encyclopedia by definition, unless you want to dismiss it on a technicality? You may not agree with the way it is run, or it's contents, but the information on it is as useful as from a traditional encyclopedia, (I would trust the contents of wikipedia in a well written article as much as an article in Britannica i.e I would expect both to have mistakes)
Wanna see something funny? Here are some instructions on how to cite an encyclopedia in a Wikipedia article.
On a side note, I totally agree with how Wikipedia is run, and I also find it just as useful if not more useful than a hard-bound encyclopedia. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, and often cite its articles in reports I write. Please do not have the misconception that I dislike Wikipedia in any way. Quite the contrary, in fact. I am simply stating the fact, again, that it contains a lot of plagiarism.
Also, a helpful list of things that Wikipedia is NOT (direct link to 'NOT a paper encyclopedia' heading).
I hear you, I really do... Unfortunately, not everyone who participates in the Wikipedia process is "academically honest." - Granted, I can't back that up, but your point is just as impossible to prove. Plus, it's a plain and simple fact that dishonesty is built into the human psyche, thus making it a much more logical assumption that people will tend to be more dishonest than honest when it comes to the editing of a public forum item like Wikipedia. Hell, I might be lying to you right now! But I digress, as this is not a moral debate.
...but just in case...
(C) PhearoX 2007 - All Rights Reserved.
The fact of the matter is, I have seen plagiarism on Wikipedia, and lots of it. Do I recall what it was? No. Do I feel like looking for it? It's tempting for the sake of this debate, but...not that tempting.
I am absolutely certain there are thousands, if not millions of instances where Wikipedia is the victim of infringement. I was merely pointing out that, for example, if someone were to copy something I wrote on a web site in my spare time that is open for the free world to see, and that text ended up in a book or newspaper without citing me as the source... Would I care? I very seriously doubt it.
Yes, a very large number of singular works (whether it be a TV show, an encyclopedia, or a toaster oven), have multiple creators / authors.
My point was really that there is an excellent chance that the plagiarised text is not the original work of Wikipedia or the author of the article in question, thus making the point of similarity to the Wikipedia article moot.
Also, it is perfectly acceptable to cite an encyclopedia as a 'primary source' as, generally speaking, they do not contain plagiarised material. I don't think I would call Wikipedia an encyclopedia, if for no other reason than the fact that it contains so much plagiarised work.
Wikipedia is more of a... Well... Wikipedia.
I would submit that Wikipedia contains more plagarism than any one textual work ever created.
So someone copied Wikipedia?
Meh.
You're the same guy that would have been crying, "Why didn't you see this coming?! The government failed us!" if we did nothing in Iraq, Saddam dug up his WMD from a mile underground, and tossed them into your back yard.
Personally, if someone LOOKS like they are going to punch me in the face, I punch them in the face first.
Bottom line, don't act like you're going to punch me unless you want to get punched. I'm not sure where people get lost in this logic.