Change 'bedroom' to 'bathroom', where it's not unreasonable for the plumber to have gone (he might be caught short), and you've got the essence of the case.
Your defence now, just like in this case, is the possibility that the plumber/technician planted the evidence, since without Police involvement from the outset the chain of evidence is incomplete.
You're not allowed to sell a loss leader at less than the physical component cost. But the reason the 360 sells at a loss isn't component costs, it's R&D, infrastructure and those legendary repairs.
Which is curious, because Medic is my favourite class. I'm rubbish at precision aiming, so I'd much rather run around helping the heavies lay waste to everyone.
Oh do fuck off, you tedious little man. Telling me to re-read a document that states that Fox make their discs region-locked won't make them region-free.
1) Name some Fox titles that aren't locked, or point to where the site owner has corrected the quote he made.
2) Combo discs can't be made for BluRay, because (a) the DVD CCA won't license them, and (b) it's technically a nightmare, due to the fact BluRay is manufactured in such a different way to DVD.
3) You're right, for a change; I'm getting thoroughly bored of this.
HD-DVD is "big enough" in the sense that you can get a Lord Of The Rings film on a single disc. Rarity does not affect how well a product works. I am not denying that BluRay sells in higher numbers than HD-DVD, because I'm capable of reading the numbers. I'm sure you'll let me know when I'm actually doing so.
Obviously there was a load of childish nonsense about how BluRay is "pwning" HD-DVD, but ignoring that stuff and moving to substantive claims:
1) Xest: BluRay contains a Region Coding flag, but HD-DVD doesn't. 2) Troed: "Practically all Blu-ray movies are region free" (and also claims that DVD/HD-DVD combo discs don't exist, but we'll ignore that for now, unless you wish to further embarrass yourself). 3) iainl: I point out that Fox use region locking for just about every release, and both Sony and Buena Vista use it for most first-run titles (i.e. films that were in the cinema a couple of months earlier). 4) Troed: You point me to a list. Which states, and I quote:
"All reported FOX discs are region marked and not playable in non-matching region players. I will not continue to report titles from FOX until someone confirms a title as Region Free."
It also lists films like the US (though not the more expensive European) release of Casino Royale, Volver, Stranger Than Fiction, The Queen etc. 5) iainl: I pointed out that the list largely agrees with my statement. 6) Troed: You ask me to look again. So I did.
As for "Maybe you don't know that "HD DVD" only titles also appear on Blu-ray in countries where the existing distributors for those companies also have deep Blu-ray connections?", yes I am. Which is how you can get Fantastic Four on HD-DVD from Germany, for example.
What all this has to do with the health of HD-DVD I have no idea. Nor do I particularly care, since both formats work just as well in my eyes.
I looked. And saw a swathe of stop signs against Fox titles.
The only reason someone would choose BluRay over HD-DVD is because they want to watch a film from Sony, Disney or Fox. The only reason someone would choose HD-DVD over BluRay is because they want to watch a film from Universal or Paramount.
Just get both. The existence of the two formats in competition has already forced prices down to where buying both costs less than you could have expected to pay for a BluRay player without any HD-DVD around.
Oh, I agree that there's money to be had on the downloads. But for films they don't offer a permanent purchase option on them. If you want to actually own the movie to watch when you want, you still need a disc of some kind.
So I can understand them wanting to hurt Blockbuster. And in turn, I can understand this having an effect on the way Blockbuster decided not to stock HD-DVD. But it's not going to kill the formats for purchases.
That's what I deserve for being vague, I suppose. The "ill-specced" thing is all about the fact that there are multiple specifications that players are allowed to support, so disc designers have to include multiple versions of the code to handle the different specs. In fact, I heard from one particular designer that they were having to include a seperate jar per player, and not even just the one per spec level.
Sure, HD-DVD has had its fair share of software bugs, but they're bugs, not a limitation of the way the spec is designed.
a) Sony is a member of that neutral forum, and so gets a hefty cut of the profits it makes.
b) Microsoft have many political reasons to dislike Java, but BD-J being a messy, ill-specced pile of slowness in comparison to iHD is a valid technical one.
One thing that doesn't get covered much, though, is that BOTH formats support Microsoft's VC-1 codec, and so they get a cut of the money whichever format you buy. So they're probably not too desperately keen to see them kill each other leaving DVD to win regardless.
It's a registry update, if I remember correctly, though I might have just associated the filetype. Google should know.
Certainly, my usual route of dropping the.mp4s on a DVD and putting that straight in the 360 works perfectly. As at least 90% of my files in that format are big HD ones taken from the Apple or Yahoo sites with a bit of help from Dave's Trailer Page, streaming them over my wireless network isn't that reliable for me, in any case. Also, you can sneakily rename the extension to.wmv (or.mov, possibly) and fool the 360 into noticing it's on the PC if all else fails.
Beware when doing it that you've also got to get Quicktime (or whatever) to re-encode the audio to stereo AAC, as the codec in the 360 won't handle 5.1 AAC streams - it only exists at all for the iPod support, and they couldn't be bothered (or spend the money, possibly) to get a 5.1-capable version.
For some reason I haven't quite got my head around yet, when you come to try out the Divx streaming, be sure to do it via the WMP sharing and the "videos" option of the media tab. Not through Media Centre Extender. According to the docs, it doesn't work there.
Which is a bit strange, but the same goes for.mp4 files already, so there you go. I'm looking forward to not using Transcode360, as it's a bit flaky on my network, and my ageing PC isn't up to doing HD in realtime.
It goes like this, basically - the real problem is that they're used to the idea of spending so much on marketing (and/or exec salaries) that 'Gold record' is barely breaking even. Sometimes, not even that.
Given that only the other week Sony announced they were putting the PS2 power brick back inside the main machine _as a cost saving measure_ I fail to see why they would put it outside on the PS3.
But bring it on; I'd quite like a $200 BluRay player.
Actually, that's very insightful indeed - Activision were at the head of the queue of publishers pushing for the $60 pricetag on 360 games come launch time. They were also at the head of the queue labelled "people responsible for lazy PS2 ports", oddly enough.
True, but I was really just trying to counter the claim that you would need to watch the entire area with webcams to gather info. Just watching the area around a chosen rock for a long enough period to catch it moving would do the job.
Sharp and Carey were tracking the movements of rocks at regular intervals, but they didn't see them in the process of moving - otherwise we'd know the conditions that cause it.
Still, we do know that they move in winter not summer, so that's bringing the monitoring requirements down further.
One camera actually pointed at an existing rock would suffice for a first estimate, I'd have thought. The area is huge, but the rocks don't just run off while you're setting the cameras up.
Slashdot Mirror
God mode is all very well for you personally. But how do you plan on saving the rest of us by shooting down an asteroid when you can't look up?
Change 'bedroom' to 'bathroom', where it's not unreasonable for the plumber to have gone (he might be caught short), and you've got the essence of the case.
Your defence now, just like in this case, is the possibility that the plumber/technician planted the evidence, since without Police involvement from the outset the chain of evidence is incomplete.
The other 5% of 'people' are dogs and squirrels; I doubt Apple cares too much about them because they don't have credit cards.
You're not allowed to sell a loss leader at less than the physical component cost. But the reason the 360 sells at a loss isn't component costs, it's R&D, infrastructure and those legendary repairs.
Which is curious, because Medic is my favourite class. I'm rubbish at precision aiming, so I'd much rather run around helping the heavies lay waste to everyone.
Oh do fuck off, you tedious little man. Telling me to re-read a document that states that Fox make their discs region-locked won't make them region-free.
As far as I can tell, the HD-DVD and BluRay boxes have every cut in 1080p. So they've definitely been re-scanned, at the very least.
If you're really worried, my copy is in the post over from the US, so hopefully I'll be able to confirm that for you in a week or so.
1) Name some Fox titles that aren't locked, or point to where the site owner has corrected the quote he made.
2) Combo discs can't be made for BluRay, because (a) the DVD CCA won't license them, and (b) it's technically a nightmare, due to the fact BluRay is manufactured in such a different way to DVD.
3) You're right, for a change; I'm getting thoroughly bored of this.
HD-DVD is "big enough" in the sense that you can get a Lord Of The Rings film on a single disc. Rarity does not affect how well a product works. I am not denying that BluRay sells in higher numbers than HD-DVD, because I'm capable of reading the numbers. I'm sure you'll let me know when I'm actually doing so.
Yawn.
Then lets try this again.
Obviously there was a load of childish nonsense about how BluRay is "pwning" HD-DVD, but ignoring that stuff and moving to substantive claims:
1) Xest: BluRay contains a Region Coding flag, but HD-DVD doesn't.
2) Troed: "Practically all Blu-ray movies are region free" (and also claims that DVD/HD-DVD combo discs don't exist, but we'll ignore that for now, unless you wish to further embarrass yourself).
3) iainl: I point out that Fox use region locking for just about every release, and both Sony and Buena Vista use it for most first-run titles (i.e. films that were in the cinema a couple of months earlier).
4) Troed: You point me to a list. Which states, and I quote:
"All reported FOX discs are region marked and not playable in non-matching region players. I will not continue to report titles from FOX until someone confirms a title as Region Free."
It also lists films like the US (though not the more expensive European) release of Casino Royale, Volver, Stranger Than Fiction, The Queen etc.
5) iainl: I pointed out that the list largely agrees with my statement.
6) Troed: You ask me to look again. So I did.
As for "Maybe you don't know that "HD DVD" only titles also appear on Blu-ray in countries where the existing distributors for those companies also have deep Blu-ray connections?", yes I am. Which is how you can get Fantastic Four on HD-DVD from Germany, for example.
What all this has to do with the health of HD-DVD I have no idea. Nor do I particularly care, since both formats work just as well in my eyes.
I looked. And saw a swathe of stop signs against Fox titles.
The only reason someone would choose BluRay over HD-DVD is because they want to watch a film from Sony, Disney or Fox. The only reason someone would choose HD-DVD over BluRay is because they want to watch a film from Universal or Paramount.
Just get both. The existence of the two formats in competition has already forced prices down to where buying both costs less than you could have expected to pay for a BluRay player without any HD-DVD around.
Well, there's just about every Fox title. And most non-catalogue Sony, Disney/Buena Vista or Lions Gate titles.
But you're fine with Warners and Paramount. Who release the discs on HD-DVD anyway, but don't let that disturb your sense of childish superiority.
Oh, I agree that there's money to be had on the downloads. But for films they don't offer a permanent purchase option on them. If you want to actually own the movie to watch when you want, you still need a disc of some kind.
So I can understand them wanting to hurt Blockbuster. And in turn, I can understand this having an effect on the way Blockbuster decided not to stock HD-DVD. But it's not going to kill the formats for purchases.
That's what I deserve for being vague, I suppose. The "ill-specced" thing is all about the fact that there are multiple specifications that players are allowed to support, so disc designers have to include multiple versions of the code to handle the different specs. In fact, I heard from one particular designer that they were having to include a seperate jar per player, and not even just the one per spec level.
Sure, HD-DVD has had its fair share of software bugs, but they're bugs, not a limitation of the way the spec is designed.
Two little things:
a) Sony is a member of that neutral forum, and so gets a hefty cut of the profits it makes.
b) Microsoft have many political reasons to dislike Java, but BD-J being a messy, ill-specced pile of slowness in comparison to iHD is a valid technical one.
One thing that doesn't get covered much, though, is that BOTH formats support Microsoft's VC-1 codec, and so they get a cut of the money whichever format you buy. So they're probably not too desperately keen to see them kill each other leaving DVD to win regardless.
I wonder how much of the money I spent on a Sony TV went on propping up the loss their Playstation and BluRay divisions filed this year?
It's pretty pointless discussing why Microsoft might give Paramount $100M in advertising assistance if it's actually Toshiba that did it instead.
This rant from Bay is about as logical as the plots to his movies.
It's a registry update, if I remember correctly, though I might have just associated the filetype. Google should know.
.mp4s on a DVD and putting that straight in the 360 works perfectly. As at least 90% of my files in that format are big HD ones taken from the Apple or Yahoo sites with a bit of help from Dave's Trailer Page, streaming them over my wireless network isn't that reliable for me, in any case. Also, you can sneakily rename the extension to .wmv (or .mov, possibly) and fool the 360 into noticing it's on the PC if all else fails.
Certainly, my usual route of dropping the
Beware when doing it that you've also got to get Quicktime (or whatever) to re-encode the audio to stereo AAC, as the codec in the 360 won't handle 5.1 AAC streams - it only exists at all for the iPod support, and they couldn't be bothered (or spend the money, possibly) to get a 5.1-capable version.
For some reason I haven't quite got my head around yet, when you come to try out the Divx streaming, be sure to do it via the WMP sharing and the "videos" option of the media tab. Not through Media Centre Extender. According to the docs, it doesn't work there.
.mp4 files already, so there you go. I'm looking forward to not using Transcode360, as it's a bit flaky on my network, and my ageing PC isn't up to doing HD in realtime.
Which is a bit strange, but the same goes for
It goes like this, basically - the real problem is that they're used to the idea of spending so much on marketing (and/or exec salaries) that 'Gold record' is barely breaking even. Sometimes, not even that.
Yes, they've got something far better to do. Whine about stuff on Slashdot.
Given that only the other week Sony announced they were putting the PS2 power brick back inside the main machine _as a cost saving measure_ I fail to see why they would put it outside on the PS3.
But bring it on; I'd quite like a $200 BluRay player.
Actually, that's very insightful indeed - Activision were at the head of the queue of publishers pushing for the $60 pricetag on 360 games come launch time. They were also at the head of the queue labelled "people responsible for lazy PS2 ports", oddly enough.
True, but I was really just trying to counter the claim that you would need to watch the entire area with webcams to gather info. Just watching the area around a chosen rock for a long enough period to catch it moving would do the job.
Sharp and Carey were tracking the movements of rocks at regular intervals, but they didn't see them in the process of moving - otherwise we'd know the conditions that cause it.
Still, we do know that they move in winter not summer, so that's bringing the monitoring requirements down further.
One camera actually pointed at an existing rock would suffice for a first estimate, I'd have thought. The area is huge, but the rocks don't just run off while you're setting the cameras up.
What's the date on the patent, though? This sounds no different to what the Sinclair Spectrum was doing with its multiple shift keys 25 years ago.