I'll grant you that, but only a small subset of the tests compare the speed, and he didn't attempt any optimizations in that regard. In other words, he tried to eke out the maximum compression of each program (living up to the name of the site) but didn't try to do anything to compare the speed of the programs under various settings. Hence, for some people, it's of limited use. Which is what I said earlier. I'm not slamming the site, it's good for what its intended purpose is.
maximumcompression.com is an excellent site but it just compares compression ratio, not speed. Hence for some people, it's of limited use.
And of course, there are other factors that these types of comparisons rarely mention or that are harder to quantify: Memory footprint, compression speed while multitasking, both foreground and backgound, single anad dual core, OS/gui integration, cross-platform availability, availability of source code, cost (particularly for enterprise users), backup options (how quiet is quiet mode), processor load (to what extent will it interfere with the use of a multimedia app), spanning options, etc. Raw comparisons are fine, but once you've eliminated the ludicrously slow/inefficient programs, you need to actually try the remaining choices before committing to them.
Except for one tiny detail -- no CueCat. The ubiquity of personal cameras in modern society is what is making this feasible. Whether through MS or some other implementation, it's bound to happen eventually because it will enable advertisers to directly measure the effectiveness of individual print ads.
I think your analogy with "anyone" is mistaken. People do not think of "none" as "not one" in normal usage. They think of it as being part of a continuum with "all" and "some," hence the natural tendency to create a parallel construction. All of the water is blue -- none of it is blue. ("Not one" wouldn't even parse there.) All of you are friendly -- none of you are friendly. However, if you choose to use none (=not one) of you is friendly, you may do so as well.
Imus's firings represent the decision of Imus's employers and their advertisers, nothing more. It was an economic decision, not a moral one. From that, you can't deduce there is some rule of what people are allowed to do in general. And it's pointless for someone to resent an entire segment of society (liberals, blacks, nappy-headed hos, etc.) because of the business decisions of MSNBC and WFAN.
On top of that, outrage is not like trademark law. You don't have to vigorously defend every perceived infraction before you lose your right to be upset. My little brother doinked me on the back of the head the other day. I was not outraged, in fact, I laughed. Does it mean that I then lose my right get mad if some total stranger bops me upside my noggin? And, if (apparently) most black people have decided not to be upset when DMX and other rappers who they consider to be part of their extended community use black slang insults, that doesn't mean they forever give up their right to be angry at someone who's not a member of their community taking the same liberties.
Thirdly, rappers who insult women (which I don't condone, BTW, and in fact, I stopped buying rap a while back because of what it has become) are mostly spitting generalized insults to no woman in particular. That is hardly comparable to specifically targeting one team of women to humiliate and disparage. It's entirely different to say, "Slashdotters suck" than to say, "Slashdot member YrWrstNtmr sucks."
Fourth, this is NOT NOT NOT a "freedom of speech" issue. The government hasn't censored Imus. He's free to start a newsletter or webcast or even to get another mainstream job if someone will hire him. He just can't do it from MSNBC or WFAN any longer. My empoloyer won't let me insult the clients to their faces either. Since I'm actually working for a governmental agency at the moment, maybe my "free speech" rights are being violated there, but I don't think so.
The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.
True, but at least arguably, "information" is a form of property. At least, that's what the RIAA & MPAA have been trying to get us to accept for years, so if it's true for their "intellectual property", it ought to be true for mine. And in the alternative, then vice-versa.:P
Has the NY Times not noticed that they actually ARE suing a bunch of people?
It's not an investigative article by New York Times reporters. It's an op-ed opinion piece by two guys who owned a brick and mortar store that was published in the Times. So your beef is with Tony Sachs and Sal Nunziato, not with the fact-checkers at the Times.
Besides which, I think you're taking their tone too literally. The point of the statement isn't that it's funny that kids are being sued or threatened, it's that the RIAA's efforts are as ineffectual and third-rate as a carny sideshow. Would you say you disagree with that?
That was extremely thought provoking and deserves to be modded to the skies. It's been quite a while since I read something that might actually make me change my mind on a matter.
I don't have an iPod, but from what I'm reading, you can purchase gift cards for cash for iTMS. Is that correct? In that case, if you're in paranoia mode, use gift cards only, and make your purchases on public Wi-Fi networks. Then, even if there's watermarking, they can't trace it back to you individually, only to some anonymous computer connected at an internet cafe's hotspot.
48% of Americans believe that God is a freakish sadist who created a fake fossil record, fake embryology, fake comparative anatomy, fake mitochondrial DNA and fake molecular genetics to deliberately mislead his creations and to confound our attempts to understand the world that we live in. Because that what good (heavenly) fathers do: They fuck with their kids' heads.
But follow your own link. You DO have to register your copyright to sue, and in order to receive statutory (as opposed to compensatory) damages, the registration must be within three months of publication, or prior to the infringement of the work.
So KinderStart's case was dismissed because they didn't have any evidence? All well and good, but I would've preferred a ruling that said even if they could substantiate their claims, that they were not entitled to any damages.
I mean, so what if Google skews their search results? They aren't under any obligation to link to the whole web or to do so in an objective manner.
I hate it when the editorial team tries to sound smart but totally messes it up. This has nothing to do specifically with "DSL Gateways." It's about videos coming through your cable or slingbox-like set top box (STB) being watermarked as they are being played or displayed. So that if you attempt to record said video, it will go out with your box's personal watermark on it. This is to discourage people from uploading TV shows or stuff they get off cable. It won't do jack shit to stop you from bittorrenting DVD rips or files you've gotten from other people.
Friend, you're insane -- Asperger's much? Of course the broken clock aphorism long predated electronic digital clocks, and canonically means a 12-hour clock upon which the hands don't move at all. But now that you mention it, such a clock, if launched into geosynchronous orbit, would be right all the time. Maybe Dvorak would benefit from a similar increase in potential energy.
Additionally, I'll grant that your talking clock analogy is both more accurate and less cliched. Nice.
That's vigilantism, pure and simple. Doesn't matter if the person was a pirate or not, you're not allowed to commit a crime to protect your "property."
What you say is true, but here's another, completely non-race-related analogy:
Perhaps my wife and I have a private joke: She calls me "Pimp" and I call her "Whore." No matter how many times my next door neighbor may hear me call my wife "whore" to her face, that doesn't give him the right to do the same thing. She lets me refer to her thusly by permission, and it would be disrespectful for anyone else to do the same thing.
(And, by the way, normally black people don't just automatically assume it's OK to call other black people "niggas" either, no matter what you may hear on street corners or in rap songs.)
Skype hasn't been awarded exclusive control over a portion of public spectrum. Ergo, no comparison. What you're calling the "Skype network" is in fact the internet itself, hence VoIP.
The US government deals with non-democratic states all the time. Not to mention that it might itself get accused of thuggish behavior for invading other nations on thin pretexts and for imprisoning hundreds of thousands of its own citizens for growing and selling...plants. From what I hear, the EU isn't innocent either, you can get imprisoned for simply expressing certain abhorrent political beliefs. Despite all the tyranny that takes place at the hands of the state everywhere, trade amongst powers still goes on -- the world still must try to get along. In Cuba's case, it is no worse than many other autocratic states that we support, thus the US embargo is not based on mere high principles, but additionally on calculated political concerns. That's the way things work, fine. But I don't see any reason why Stallman should be condemned because his personal principles aren't lockstep in total accord with the official party line of the US of A.
One reason, assuming that a game involves gaining levels, you have to start at some level. Regardless of what that level is, it's the absolute lowest level. I mean, you can't start at a higher level or else that would be the new absolute lowest level.
I don't play MMORPGs, so I don't know what the state of the art is, but it seems conceivable to me at least that the game could start you off at an easy level which demands little skill on your part, or a hard level, which ranks you higher at the outset but requires you to exhibit much more skill. The problem with a lot of games, though (at least the ones that I used to play) is that often they don't really require more *skill* at higher levels, that is, once you get over the mechanics of the game your increased "skill" is just in having more potions, armor and weaponry on hand. And so the game becomes an exercise in passing time, and not in perfecting your abilities. Compare that with FPS games, which are sometimes derided as brainless, but in fact require your actual abilities to progress (such that a highly skilled player can do more damage with a handgun than a newbie can do with a machine gun.)
video game developers should get away with selling whatever they feel makes them the most money while totally ignoring the consequences. They have responsibilities as well.
there is so very little room left for meaningful discussion of such topics.
Such topics are discussed ENDLESSLY. Ad freaking nauseam. The problem is this: One side has decided, arbitrarily, without any compelling evidence whatsoever, that videogames are harmful to children. The other side says, okay, before you go claiming I have "responsibilities" and abridging my rights to self-expression, show me your evidence that what I'm doing is harmful. And that's where things lie. The first side wants to pretend that the "evidence" step (and that whole little issue of parental responsibility) should be skipped over and we should move directly on to imposing restrictions. So when you say "discussion," if you mean "discussion of how far we should restrict video game manufacturers based upon a mere gut feeling that what they're doing is bad," that's not the discussion that the software industry wants to have.
However, if forced, they will have the "let's enact a useless self-imposed 'rating' system to keep the think-of-the-children crowd at bay" discussion.
Makes me wonder just how much trouble the US or international financial community would be in if an adversarial organization cracked a major security encryption and didn't politely announce it, but instead kept their achievement secret. And then either cracked mountains of banking/military data at a leisurely pace, selling it piecemeal to finance rogue networks OR timed a widespread release of the crack algorithm for a catastrophic hit upon (inter)national security. What steps are being taken to combat this from eventually occurring?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll grant you that, but only a small subset of the tests compare the speed, and he didn't attempt any optimizations in that regard. In other words, he tried to eke out the maximum compression of each program (living up to the name of the site) but didn't try to do anything to compare the speed of the programs under various settings. Hence, for some people, it's of limited use. Which is what I said earlier. I'm not slamming the site, it's good for what its intended purpose is.
maximumcompression.com is an excellent site but it just compares compression ratio, not speed. Hence for some people, it's of limited use.
And of course, there are other factors that these types of comparisons rarely mention or that are harder to quantify: Memory footprint, compression speed while multitasking, both foreground and backgound, single anad dual core, OS/gui integration, cross-platform availability, availability of source code, cost (particularly for enterprise users), backup options (how quiet is quiet mode), processor load (to what extent will it interfere with the use of a multimedia app), spanning options, etc. Raw comparisons are fine, but once you've eliminated the ludicrously slow/inefficient programs, you need to actually try the remaining choices before committing to them.
Sounds exactly like the CueCat.
Except for one tiny detail -- no CueCat. The ubiquity of personal cameras in modern society is what is making this feasible. Whether through MS or some other implementation, it's bound to happen eventually because it will enable advertisers to directly measure the effectiveness of individual print ads.
Interesting but alt.usage.english disagrees with you in part, as does Strunk & White.
I think your analogy with "anyone" is mistaken. People do not think of "none" as "not one" in normal usage. They think of it as being part of a continuum with "all" and "some," hence the natural tendency to create a parallel construction. All of the water is blue -- none of it is blue. ("Not one" wouldn't even parse there.) All of you are friendly -- none of you are friendly. However, if you choose to use none (=not one) of you is friendly, you may do so as well.
Imus's firings represent the decision of Imus's employers and their advertisers, nothing more. It was an economic decision, not a moral one. From that, you can't deduce there is some rule of what people are allowed to do in general. And it's pointless for someone to resent an entire segment of society (liberals, blacks, nappy-headed hos, etc.) because of the business decisions of MSNBC and WFAN.
On top of that, outrage is not like trademark law. You don't have to vigorously defend every perceived infraction before you lose your right to be upset. My little brother doinked me on the back of the head the other day. I was not outraged, in fact, I laughed. Does it mean that I then lose my right get mad if some total stranger bops me upside my noggin? And, if (apparently) most black people have decided not to be upset when DMX and other rappers who they consider to be part of their extended community use black slang insults, that doesn't mean they forever give up their right to be angry at someone who's not a member of their community taking the same liberties.
Thirdly, rappers who insult women (which I don't condone, BTW, and in fact, I stopped buying rap a while back because of what it has become) are mostly spitting generalized insults to no woman in particular. That is hardly comparable to specifically targeting one team of women to humiliate and disparage. It's entirely different to say, "Slashdotters suck" than to say, "Slashdot member YrWrstNtmr sucks."
Fourth, this is NOT NOT NOT a "freedom of speech" issue. The government hasn't censored Imus. He's free to start a newsletter or webcast or even to get another mainstream job if someone will hire him. He just can't do it from MSNBC or WFAN any longer. My empoloyer won't let me insult the clients to their faces either. Since I'm actually working for a governmental agency at the moment, maybe my "free speech" rights are being violated there, but I don't think so.
The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.
:P
True, but at least arguably, "information" is a form of property. At least, that's what the RIAA & MPAA have been trying to get us to accept for years, so if it's true for their "intellectual property", it ought to be true for mine. And in the alternative, then vice-versa.
Here's a scholarly article on the subject
Pretexting is essentially a form of fraud, which is generally covered by state laws.
You mean, pretexting is essentially a form of wire fraud, which falls under interstate commerce, and therefore covered by Federal law.
Has the NY Times not noticed that they actually ARE suing a bunch of people?
It's not an investigative article by New York Times reporters. It's an op-ed opinion piece by two guys who owned a brick and mortar store that was published in the Times. So your beef is with Tony Sachs and Sal Nunziato, not with the fact-checkers at the Times.
Besides which, I think you're taking their tone too literally. The point of the statement isn't that it's funny that kids are being sued or threatened, it's that the RIAA's efforts are as ineffectual and third-rate as a carny sideshow. Would you say you disagree with that?
That was extremely thought provoking and deserves to be modded to the skies. It's been quite a while since I read something that might actually make me change my mind on a matter.
I don't have an iPod, but from what I'm reading, you can purchase gift cards for cash for iTMS. Is that correct? In that case, if you're in paranoia mode, use gift cards only, and make your purchases on public Wi-Fi networks. Then, even if there's watermarking, they can't trace it back to you individually, only to some anonymous computer connected at an internet cafe's hotspot.
48% of Americans believe that God is a freakish sadist who created a fake fossil record, fake embryology, fake comparative anatomy, fake mitochondrial DNA and fake molecular genetics to deliberately mislead his creations and to confound our attempts to understand the world that we live in. Because that what good (heavenly) fathers do: They fuck with their kids' heads.
But follow your own link. You DO have to register your copyright to sue, and in order to receive statutory (as opposed to compensatory) damages, the registration must be within three months of publication, or prior to the infringement of the work.
"I'm OS/2, and I used to be the next operating system of your PC."
So KinderStart's case was dismissed because they didn't have any evidence? All well and good, but I would've preferred a ruling that said even if they could substantiate their claims, that they were not entitled to any damages.
I mean, so what if Google skews their search results? They aren't under any obligation to link to the whole web or to do so in an objective manner.
I hate it when the editorial team tries to sound smart but totally messes it up. This has nothing to do specifically with "DSL Gateways." It's about videos coming through your cable or slingbox-like set top box (STB) being watermarked as they are being played or displayed. So that if you attempt to record said video, it will go out with your box's personal watermark on it. This is to discourage people from uploading TV shows or stuff they get off cable. It won't do jack shit to stop you from bittorrenting DVD rips or files you've gotten from other people.
Friend, you're insane -- Asperger's much? Of course the broken clock aphorism long predated electronic digital clocks, and canonically means a 12-hour clock upon which the hands don't move at all. But now that you mention it, such a clock, if launched into geosynchronous orbit, would be right all the time. Maybe Dvorak would benefit from a similar increase in potential energy.
Additionally, I'll grant that your talking clock analogy is both more accurate and less cliched. Nice.
Cool archive
Check out that 4th photo caption. Damn Microsoft and their interplanetary advertising campaign!!!
I think he's accidentally right. Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.
(More than that and it'll cost ya. $4K to be precise.)
That's vigilantism, pure and simple. Doesn't matter if the person was a pirate or not, you're not allowed to commit a crime to protect your "property."
What you say is true, but here's another, completely non-race-related analogy:
Perhaps my wife and I have a private joke: She calls me "Pimp" and I call her "Whore." No matter how many times my next door neighbor may hear me call my wife "whore" to her face, that doesn't give him the right to do the same thing. She lets me refer to her thusly by permission, and it would be disrespectful for anyone else to do the same thing.
(And, by the way, normally black people don't just automatically assume it's OK to call other black people "niggas" either, no matter what you may hear on street corners or in rap songs.)
Skype hasn't been awarded exclusive control over a portion of public spectrum. Ergo, no comparison. What you're calling the "Skype network" is in fact the internet itself, hence VoIP.
The US government deals with non-democratic states all the time. Not to mention that it might itself get accused of thuggish behavior for invading other nations on thin pretexts and for imprisoning hundreds of thousands of its own citizens for growing and selling...plants. From what I hear, the EU isn't innocent either, you can get imprisoned for simply expressing certain abhorrent political beliefs. Despite all the tyranny that takes place at the hands of the state everywhere, trade amongst powers still goes on -- the world still must try to get along. In Cuba's case, it is no worse than many other autocratic states that we support, thus the US embargo is not based on mere high principles, but additionally on calculated political concerns. That's the way things work, fine. But I don't see any reason why Stallman should be condemned because his personal principles aren't lockstep in total accord with the official party line of the US of A.
One reason, assuming that a game involves gaining levels, you have to start at some level. Regardless of what that level is, it's the absolute lowest level. I mean, you can't start at a higher level or else that would be the new absolute lowest level.
I don't play MMORPGs, so I don't know what the state of the art is, but it seems conceivable to me at least that the game could start you off at an easy level which demands little skill on your part, or a hard level, which ranks you higher at the outset but requires you to exhibit much more skill. The problem with a lot of games, though (at least the ones that I used to play) is that often they don't really require more *skill* at higher levels, that is, once you get over the mechanics of the game your increased "skill" is just in having more potions, armor and weaponry on hand. And so the game becomes an exercise in passing time, and not in perfecting your abilities. Compare that with FPS games, which are sometimes derided as brainless, but in fact require your actual abilities to progress (such that a highly skilled player can do more damage with a handgun than a newbie can do with a machine gun.)
video game developers should get away with selling whatever they feel makes them the most money while totally ignoring the consequences. They have responsibilities as well.
there is so very little room left for meaningful discussion of such topics.
Such topics are discussed ENDLESSLY. Ad freaking nauseam. The problem is this: One side has decided, arbitrarily, without any compelling evidence whatsoever, that videogames are harmful to children. The other side says, okay, before you go claiming I have "responsibilities" and abridging my rights to self-expression, show me your evidence that what I'm doing is harmful. And that's where things lie. The first side wants to pretend that the "evidence" step (and that whole little issue of parental responsibility) should be skipped over and we should move directly on to imposing restrictions. So when you say "discussion," if you mean "discussion of how far we should restrict video game manufacturers based upon a mere gut feeling that what they're doing is bad," that's not the discussion that the software industry wants to have.
However, if forced, they will have the "let's enact a useless self-imposed 'rating' system to keep the think-of-the-children crowd at bay" discussion.
Makes me wonder just how much trouble the US or international financial community would be in if an adversarial organization cracked a major security encryption and didn't politely announce it, but instead kept their achievement secret. And then either cracked mountains of banking/military data at a leisurely pace, selling it piecemeal to finance rogue networks OR timed a widespread release of the crack algorithm for a catastrophic hit upon (inter)national security. What steps are being taken to combat this from eventually occurring?