When will people realize that an economy with ANY government intervention cannot be just?
So, what, you don't like safety regulations for cars? Or water safety standards for factories? That's government intervention, isn't it?
What about situations like with the airwaves: that's our public airspace the radio stations and wireless providers are using, should the government just let the companies do whatever they want with it, let them squabble over it and make it useless?
How about situations like the whole MS' forcing manufacturers to pay for a copy of Windows per machine they sold, even if they sold many of those machines without windows? Is that just?
The thing is, tributes/homages/ripoffs work from movie to games because everyone wants to be in those movies (a Jedi in Star Wars, a badass space marine, etc.). You can also excuse some level of poor writing in a game because the player is experiencing it, and the game reacts to what they do - for example, moves at the pace they play.
Movies aren't interactive, so if it drags or seems to simplistic, derivative or confusing, it ceases to work.
I'll go on record as saying I can't think of many games with plot, dialogue and characters as good as a four star movie. So when you make a movie that is inspired by games (which are often inspired by movies), it usually doesn't go over too well...
I think Square should have spent the money and hired a few good script doctors. They should have gotten William Goldman or someone in there to flesh it out, make it work better. It's crazy they spent the amount of money they spent on such a sub-par script. (Not that Hollywood doesn't do the same, but at least they have star power. Get Bruce Willis or someone in a clunker and at least it will open okay).
FF started out okay, I was into it for the first 10 or 15 minutes - and I was VERY skeptical going in. But after that, it just lost me... I was almost dozing by the end. My girlfriend wanted to go before it was over, and she was completely looking forward to it before we went to see it.
Actually, if the preface to the novelisations (it had Lucas discussing his ideas for all nine episodes, IIRC) I read years ago is to be believed, The first movie is young anakin, the second is anakin turning to the dark side, the third is him becoming the vader we know and love. So, the third movie should end with the birth of the twins and the creation of vader (Obi Wan knocks him into a volcano or something then the emperor has the cybernetics grafted onto him).
I imagine the third will have Anakin trying to take his kids (or the pregnant Natalie Portman) back to make them evil jedis, then end with a fight between obi wan and him which results in anakin getting maimed (in the volcano or something similar). The final scene will probably have Natalie Portman cradling her babies, and cut to Anakin getting turned into Vader.
I don't think most people cared about the Gaea theme. Most people cared that the dialogue was uninspired, that the plot was boring and predictable, and that the characters were one-dimensional (even though they were rendered well in three;).
GREAT graphics, TERRIBLE writing. And in a movie, a bad script kills a movie. It's not as big deal in a game, because you, to a certain extent make the story happen as you play.
I had no problems understanding the plot or themes of the film. It was the predictable (and boring) nature of the plot that killed it for me. I have no idea why they spent so much time making it look GREAT, but didn't make the story better... It had all the worst aspects of a bad Hollywood film... Except those movies make money because stars are in them and people will (usually) go see stars, even if the movie is stupid.
It is still encoded this way on film, though most theaters use DTS, SDDS or Dolby instead. The optical sound is a fall-back, if your good sound equipment fails for some reason.
Can search engines index information stored in a Flash movie? They don't seem to address this in the article, and if not, Flash will NEVER take off as something other than a tool for graphic design and animation oriented sites (along with ads and CBT). Why publish data that can't be searched for or indexed? Generally if something is not in Google, I'll probably never see it. It's my first place to look for information, as it is for many others.
From what I read, I guess the same tags that let disabled surfers see some content could be indexed by an engine, but does this basically mean that when you view a page, you have to load the flash movie of the information AND the plaintext version of the same information(which would be embedded for the disabled and the spiders)? That seems pretty pointless to me, as well as increasing loading time and bandwidth use.
The server could be configured to find out what browser you are using and send you a lowfi version, if it needed to, but that depends on the developer adding those disabled tags in the first place.
I can see this being used for some sites, but not replacing HTML. I can't think of one good reason why sites like Yahoo and Slashdot, which are about INFORMATION, would benefit from switching to this.
Maybe pay info sites, like gaming sites, would use this because it can make the subscriber seem to be getting a "cooler" experience for their subscription. And it could help keep other sites from just snagging the information and posting it for free.
But this is not mainstream, as far as I can see. At least not yet.
Re:Lay off the crack Apple Zealot
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 1
Oh. I don't watch TV. That explains it.
Re:Lay off the crack Apple Zealot
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 1
No, I don't know. What the hell are you talking about? Is this some sort of/. inside joke I've missed out on?
Re:Lay off the crack Apple Zealot
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, right. Tell that to Adobe, Microsoft, Aladdin Systems, et al.
I'll go out on a limb here and admit to having, while working in a Mac lab at my alma mater, copied Adobe Photoshop to ZIP disk so I could run it at a machine (Mac) that didn't have it installed. I copied it to my Zip, walked over to the other machine, launched it FROM THE ZIP DISK. It worked fine.
In fact, we used to do this ALL the time at this undisclosed University Mac lab, because there was software in the advanced room that wasn't in the beginner lab, and, of course, the advanced lab was always full. The beginner lab didn't have Photoshop for some reason, just some very basic paint programs and Pagemaker. You had to go to the advanced lab and wait for a machine to create graphics, then go back to the basic lab and lay out your project.
When there is a project due the next day and it's so easy to copy the software, it was pretty inevitable. I think they enventally stopped it for most software by installing a program that actually verified the licenses before allowing them to run... But that was towards the end of my exposure to the Mac lab, so I dunno. They should have just put the same software on every machine.
People also used to take programs and copy them to Zip disk to bring home... When Final Cut Pro 1.0 came out, it was a popular one to grab as I recall. I never had a Mac, so I never got into that action.
I had a friend who used to keep his favorite applications on a ZIP, and run them off of there, so he wouldn't have to change his preferences/reenter his FTP site settings into dreamweaver, etc. We all thought that was pretty lazy, but it seemed to work for him.
After I graduated, our college then passed a rule that required Graphic Design students to have iBooks or Powerbooks, and I think set up an airport network... Which I would imagine is a den of pirated software, how could it not be on a University campus?
Re:Mac Installation Still Works Like That???
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 1
Why don't you go to google and type in "MS Office OS X serialz" and see if you can't find a registration code...
Re:Lay off the crack Apple Zealot
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 1
He said "most". I would not say most PCs have firewire cables. I think only Sony has it as a standard on all their machines. I just got a new Dell last month and it doesn't have firewire. It may have USB 2.0, though, I can't remember.
This isn't _new_. People have been doing this for years at college Mac labs. Macs make it insanely easy to copy software. The iPod is just WAY more convienent.
I remeber people bringing in removable media drives to labs to get Photoshop off of machines in my college's media lab years ago... They must of had to install SCSI terminators and everything, because this was before USB/Firewire.
Use it to find your Senator's sites and send them an email. Both of my Seantors had form built into their site, so it was very easy for me do do so.
Below is the letter I wrote. It's not very well written, but I think the more important thing is that they know people don't like this sort of legislation.
Be sure to write YOUR senators, and include your address. They pay more attention to people in their state. Also, please be civil. I doubt they'll respond well to "tHiS 1Aw suXoRs!!!", or the like. If you don't feel like writing much, just a brief sentence about how you are oppossed to the law will do fine.
Senator Mikulski,
I just wanted to write a brief message to let you know that I, as someone who works in the Technology industry, oppose the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" (SSSCA), as proposed by Senate Commerce chairman Fritz Hollings.
This plan is, in my opinion, and MANY others, unworkable. It unfairly places the responsibility of protecting the content of the entertainment industry on the technology industry. It also restricts and unfairly places additional cost on the consumer.
The fact is, the bootleggers will still be able to make copies. This legislation actually does nothing to prevent them from copying discs or making discs with unreleased movies or audio. They have access to professional-grade or modified equipment that, by design or modification, will be unaffected by these new standards. Many of them operate in countries where these laws would not affect them, using equipment made outside of our zone of influence. (Proof of this is that many Hollywood movies are illegally available on DVD and Video CD in foreign countries within days, and sometimes even before, of their release to theaters in America.)
Also, the average user will still be able to find these items in digital format. All it takes is one user who is savvy enough to make a copy, then the information is available. Or, if one person is willing to upload an illegally purchased bootleg that does not have the protections encoded on it, then again, the information is available to those who want it.
This legislation will force excess cost and restriction on both the consumers and the technology industry, as well as stifling innovation. If every technological innovation had to be designed to that it would make piracy impossible, we would not have cassette tapes, VCRS, the internet or even the printing press. Many of these inventions were followed by predictions of doom for copyright holders, but that has yet to come to pass.
If every company has to consider how a new invention will relate to the intellectual property of another industry before deciding to develop that technology it will, at the least, slow down technological development.
These rules will also present a significant barrier of entry to new, smaller firms who wish to try and compete in the technological arena. It is difficult and expensive to develop a technological product or piece of software as it is. If companies have to build various artifical safeguards into their products to protect the work of other companies from activities that are already illegal, then it may become to costly for them to compete effectively with the other, larger, companies in their field.
Beyond these factors is the fact that citizens and consumers should not be faced with these restrictions, as they will not effectively prevent piracy, only fair use.
Piracy is a bad thing, yes, but the fact is, piracy is already illegal. Please don't force the consumer and the technology industry to pay through the nose AND accept heavy restrictions on their activities and business to fight this impossible fight to stamp out piracy.
Sony, AOL-Time/Warner, Viacom and Disney are all MPAA members... I doubt many companies in the computer industry make more than just those four combined. Maybe Intel? Anyone have figures?
I guess you didn't hear about the CPU identifier Intel put in their Pentiums.
I guess you didn't hear about AMD? They make processors, too.
The thing is PCs are an open platform.
Today. What will they be like in ten years?
History has shown that platforms that choose to operate more constrictively in terms of licenses (apple, for example) have fallen to the wayside compared to more open platforms (x86 PC, which is a loose collection of standards). If a single (or a couple) companies try to create restrictive, proprietary hardware, the other companies won't include it and will be able to sell their stuff cheaper, since it doesn't include the extranous parts. Intel, particularly, isn't going to do anything to alienate customers, because they are fighting tooth and nail against AMD.
And my Dell laptop has something in there, I think in the BIOS, that carries a Dell ID. I don't know if that's hackable or not.
Buy a different computer? That's precisely my point. You can get a different computer that doesn't have those features. Or maybe even flash the BIOS to remove them.
The stupid thing is, it's not like they are going to go out of business, even if people can download movies online - because, unless I can also download stadium seating, huge speakers, a 100' wide screen and a high school kid to sell me overpriced popcorn, I'm still going to the movies.
Even if I can download a movie, I'll still rent because at the video store I don't have to wait to download, wait to burn it to a cd, etc.
Even if I can download a DiVX, I'll still buy DVDs I really like to get all the extras.
I think he meant that those numbers fail to include video rentals/sales, cable/ppv revenue, tv revenue, etc. - as well as revenue from overseas viewing of hollywood product. Also things like toy spinoffs, etc.
These days video/DVD sales are more lucrative for many movies than the theatrical release.
What if IBM, Sony, Dell, Microsoft, you-name-it got together and said "these movie people are a pain in the ass -- rather than build copy protection into our hardware/software for THEM, we'll just BUY THEM OUT and give away loads of free movies to our customers!"???
The problem with your theory is that many movie companies are owned by larger companies- companies like Time-Warner (Warner Brothers, New Line), Viacom (I think they own Fox, but I could be wrong) and, yes, Sony does own movie studios(Sony Pictures/Columbia Pictures and I believe Revolution pictures), so it's unlikely they'd be a part of your plan. There is also Disney (who own Disney Pictures, Buena Vista, Miramax and maybe others), who may be partnered with another large company as well, I forget.
I find it unlikely any company could mount a hostile takeover of any of these studios. And if they did, they wouldn't be giving away any free movies- they'd be squeezing consumers for profits to offset the huge aquisition costs.
The thing is PCs are an open platform. They might be able to add something into a specific hardware component, but not directly into the motheboard... Because many companies make motherboards, and it's not a heavily restricted standard as is DVD.
Slashdot Mirror
powerful commands and no ads... what a concept!
Okay, I'll bite : how do you expect them to stay in business without ad revenue?
When will people realize that an economy with ANY government intervention cannot be just?
So, what, you don't like safety regulations for cars? Or water safety standards for factories? That's government intervention, isn't it?
What about situations like with the airwaves: that's our public airspace the radio stations and wireless providers are using, should the government just let the companies do whatever they want with it, let them squabble over it and make it useless?
How about situations like the whole MS' forcing manufacturers to pay for a copy of Windows per machine they sold, even if they sold many of those machines without windows? Is that just?
The thing is, tributes/homages/ripoffs work from movie to games because everyone wants to be in those movies (a Jedi in Star Wars, a badass space marine, etc.). You can also excuse some level of poor writing in a game because the player is experiencing it, and the game reacts to what they do - for example, moves at the pace they play.
Movies aren't interactive, so if it drags or seems to simplistic, derivative or confusing, it ceases to work.
I'll go on record as saying I can't think of many games with plot, dialogue and characters as good as a four star movie. So when you make a movie that is inspired by games (which are often inspired by movies), it usually doesn't go over too well...
I think Square should have spent the money and hired a few good script doctors. They should have gotten William Goldman or someone in there to flesh it out, make it work better. It's crazy they spent the amount of money they spent on such a sub-par script. (Not that Hollywood doesn't do the same, but at least they have star power. Get Bruce Willis or someone in a clunker and at least it will open okay).
FF started out okay, I was into it for the first 10 or 15 minutes - and I was VERY skeptical going in. But after that, it just lost me... I was almost dozing by the end. My girlfriend wanted to go before it was over, and she was completely looking forward to it before we went to see it.
Thus my comment "(or the pregnant Natalie Portman)".
I always took it as the huge war caused a "dark age".
Actually, if the preface to the novelisations (it had Lucas discussing his ideas for all nine episodes, IIRC) I read years ago is to be believed, The first movie is young anakin, the second is anakin turning to the dark side, the third is him becoming the vader we know and love. So, the third movie should end with the birth of the twins and the creation of vader (Obi Wan knocks him into a volcano or something then the emperor has the cybernetics grafted onto him).
I imagine the third will have Anakin trying to take his kids (or the pregnant Natalie Portman) back to make them evil jedis, then end with a fight between obi wan and him which results in anakin getting maimed (in the volcano or something similar). The final scene will probably have Natalie Portman cradling her babies, and cut to Anakin getting turned into Vader.
I don't think most people cared about the Gaea theme. Most people cared that the dialogue was uninspired, that the plot was boring and predictable, and that the characters were one-dimensional (even though they were rendered well in three ;).
GREAT graphics, TERRIBLE writing. And in a movie, a bad script kills a movie. It's not as big deal in a game, because you, to a certain extent make the story happen as you play.
I had no problems understanding the plot or themes of the film. It was the predictable (and boring) nature of the plot that killed it for me. I have no idea why they spent so much time making it look GREAT, but didn't make the story better... It had all the worst aspects of a bad Hollywood film... Except those movies make money because stars are in them and people will (usually) go see stars, even if the movie is stupid.
It is still encoded this way on film, though most theaters use DTS, SDDS or Dolby instead. The optical sound is a fall-back, if your good sound equipment fails for some reason.
Can search engines index information stored in a Flash movie? They don't seem to address this in the article, and if not, Flash will NEVER take off as something other than a tool for graphic design and animation oriented sites (along with ads and CBT). Why publish data that can't be searched for or indexed? Generally if something is not in Google, I'll probably never see it. It's my first place to look for information, as it is for many others.
From what I read, I guess the same tags that let disabled surfers see some content could be indexed by an engine, but does this basically mean that when you view a page, you have to load the flash movie of the information AND the plaintext version of the same information(which would be embedded for the disabled and the spiders)? That seems pretty pointless to me, as well as increasing loading time and bandwidth use.
The server could be configured to find out what browser you are using and send you a lowfi version, if it needed to, but that depends on the developer adding those disabled tags in the first place.
I can see this being used for some sites, but not replacing HTML. I can't think of one good reason why sites like Yahoo and Slashdot, which are about INFORMATION, would benefit from switching to this.
Maybe pay info sites, like gaming sites, would use this because it can make the subscriber seem to be getting a "cooler" experience for their subscription. And it could help keep other sites from just snagging the information and posting it for free.
But this is not mainstream, as far as I can see. At least not yet.
Oh. I don't watch TV. That explains it.
No, I don't know. What the hell are you talking about? Is this some sort of /. inside joke I've missed out on?
Steven?
Yeah, right. Tell that to Adobe, Microsoft, Aladdin Systems, et al.
I'll go out on a limb here and admit to having, while working in a Mac lab at my alma mater, copied Adobe Photoshop to ZIP disk so I could run it at a machine (Mac) that didn't have it installed. I copied it to my Zip, walked over to the other machine, launched it FROM THE ZIP DISK. It worked fine.
In fact, we used to do this ALL the time at this undisclosed University Mac lab, because there was software in the advanced room that wasn't in the beginner lab, and, of course, the advanced lab was always full. The beginner lab didn't have Photoshop for some reason, just some very basic paint programs and Pagemaker. You had to go to the advanced lab and wait for a machine to create graphics, then go back to the basic lab and lay out your project.
When there is a project due the next day and it's so easy to copy the software, it was pretty inevitable. I think they enventally stopped it for most software by installing a program that actually verified the licenses before allowing them to run... But that was towards the end of my exposure to the Mac lab, so I dunno. They should have just put the same software on every machine.
People also used to take programs and copy them to Zip disk to bring home... When Final Cut Pro 1.0 came out, it was a popular one to grab as I recall. I never had a Mac, so I never got into that action.
I had a friend who used to keep his favorite applications on a ZIP, and run them off of there, so he wouldn't have to change his preferences/reenter his FTP site settings into dreamweaver, etc. We all thought that was pretty lazy, but it seemed to work for him.
After I graduated, our college then passed a rule that required Graphic Design students to have iBooks or Powerbooks, and I think set up an airport network... Which I would imagine is a den of pirated software, how could it not be on a University campus?
Why don't you go to google and type in "MS Office OS X serialz" and see if you can't find a registration code...
He said "most". I would not say most PCs have firewire cables. I think only Sony has it as a standard on all their machines. I just got a new Dell last month and it doesn't have firewire. It may have USB 2.0, though, I can't remember.
This isn't _new_. People have been doing this for years at college Mac labs. Macs make it insanely easy to copy software. The iPod is just WAY more convienent.
I remeber people bringing in removable media drives to labs to get Photoshop off of machines in my college's media lab years ago... They must of had to install SCSI terminators and everything, because this was before USB/Firewire.
www.senate.gov
Use it to find your Senator's sites and send them an email. Both of my Seantors had form built into their site, so it was very easy for me do do so.
Below is the letter I wrote. It's not very well written, but I think the more important thing is that they know people don't like this sort of legislation.
Be sure to write YOUR senators, and include your address. They pay more attention to people in their state. Also, please be civil. I doubt they'll respond well to "tHiS 1Aw suXoRs!!!", or the like. If you don't feel like writing much, just a brief sentence about how you are oppossed to the law will do fine.
Senator Mikulski,
I just wanted to write a brief message to let you know that I, as someone who works in the Technology industry, oppose the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" (SSSCA), as proposed by Senate Commerce chairman Fritz Hollings.
This plan is, in my opinion, and MANY others, unworkable. It unfairly places the responsibility of protecting the content of the entertainment industry on the technology industry. It also restricts and unfairly places additional cost on the consumer.
The fact is, the bootleggers will still be able to make copies. This legislation actually does nothing to prevent them from copying discs or making discs with unreleased movies or audio. They have access to professional-grade or modified equipment that, by design or modification, will be unaffected by these new standards. Many of them operate in countries where these laws would not affect them, using equipment made outside of our zone of influence. (Proof of this is that many Hollywood movies are illegally available on DVD and Video CD in foreign countries within days, and sometimes even before, of their release to theaters in America.)
Also, the average user will still be able to find these items in digital format. All it takes is one user who is savvy enough to make a copy, then the information is available. Or, if one person is willing to upload an illegally purchased bootleg that does not have the protections encoded on it, then again, the information is available to those who want it.
This legislation will force excess cost and restriction on both the consumers and the technology industry, as well as stifling innovation. If every technological innovation had to be designed to that it would make piracy impossible, we would not have cassette tapes, VCRS, the internet or even the printing press. Many of these inventions were followed by predictions of doom for copyright holders, but that has yet to come to pass.
If every company has to consider how a new invention will relate to the intellectual property of another industry before deciding to develop that technology it will, at the least, slow down technological development.
These rules will also present a significant barrier of entry to new, smaller firms who wish to try and compete in the technological arena. It is difficult and expensive to develop a technological product or piece of software as it is. If companies have to build various artifical safeguards into their products to protect the work of other companies from activities that are already illegal, then it may become to costly for them to compete effectively with the other, larger, companies in their field.
Beyond these factors is the fact that citizens and consumers should not be faced with these restrictions, as they will not effectively prevent piracy, only fair use.
Piracy is a bad thing, yes, but the fact is, piracy is already illegal. Please don't force the consumer and the technology industry to pay through the nose AND accept heavy restrictions on their activities and business to fight this impossible fight to stamp out piracy.
Thank you for your time,
Joshua A Sisk
DVD was them thinking ahead. Whatever they do, there will be holes.
Besides, even if they can make a specific thing copy-protected, but not PCs in general - which is what the story seems to threaten.
I agree that we should all write our Representatives and tell them we think this is a BAD IDEA, but I wouldn't get too worried about it if I were you.
Sony, AOL-Time/Warner, Viacom and Disney are all MPAA members... I doubt many companies in the computer industry make more than just those four combined. Maybe Intel? Anyone have figures?
I guess you didn't hear about the CPU identifier Intel put in their Pentiums.
I guess you didn't hear about AMD? They make processors, too.
The thing is PCs are an open platform.
Today. What will they be like in ten years?
History has shown that platforms that choose to operate more constrictively in terms of licenses (apple, for example) have fallen to the wayside compared to more open platforms (x86 PC, which is a loose collection of standards). If a single (or a couple) companies try to create restrictive, proprietary hardware, the other companies won't include it and will be able to sell their stuff cheaper, since it doesn't include the extranous parts. Intel, particularly, isn't going to do anything to alienate customers, because they are fighting tooth and nail against AMD.
And my Dell laptop has something in there, I think in the BIOS, that carries a Dell ID. I don't know if that's hackable or not.
Buy a different computer? That's precisely my point. You can get a different computer that doesn't have those features. Or maybe even flash the BIOS to remove them.
The stupid thing is, it's not like they are going to go out of business, even if people can download movies online - because, unless I can also download stadium seating, huge speakers, a 100' wide screen and a high school kid to sell me overpriced popcorn, I'm still going to the movies.
Even if I can download a movie, I'll still rent because at the video store I don't have to wait to download, wait to burn it to a cd, etc.
Even if I can download a DiVX, I'll still buy DVDs I really like to get all the extras.
I think he meant that those numbers fail to include video rentals/sales, cable/ppv revenue, tv revenue, etc. - as well as revenue from overseas viewing of hollywood product. Also things like toy spinoffs, etc.
These days video/DVD sales are more lucrative for many movies than the theatrical release.
What if IBM, Sony, Dell, Microsoft, you-name-it got together and said "these movie people are a pain in the ass -- rather than build copy protection into our hardware/software for THEM, we'll just BUY THEM OUT and give away loads of free movies to our customers!"???
The problem with your theory is that many movie companies are owned by larger companies- companies like Time-Warner (Warner Brothers, New Line), Viacom (I think they own Fox, but I could be wrong) and, yes, Sony does own movie studios(Sony Pictures/Columbia Pictures and I believe Revolution pictures), so it's unlikely they'd be a part of your plan. There is also Disney (who own Disney Pictures, Buena Vista, Miramax and maybe others), who may be partnered with another large company as well, I forget.
I find it unlikely any company could mount a hostile takeover of any of these studios. And if they did, they wouldn't be giving away any free movies- they'd be squeezing consumers for profits to offset the huge aquisition costs.
The thing is PCs are an open platform. They might be able to add something into a specific hardware component, but not directly into the motheboard... Because many companies make motherboards, and it's not a heavily restricted standard as is DVD.