A better example is a P4 3.2ghz chip that clocks itself down when it gets too hot. They sold you a P4 3.2ghz chip. It's the fault of Intel and their design that makes it slower. You're absolutely right: the standard is the problem, since any of 3 different speeds can satisfy the standard.
For a non-computer analogy, try black jelly beans. Black jelly beans can be either licorice or grape (depending upon the brand). If I buy a bag of black jellybeans, I assume they will be licorice. If they're not, and they weren't advertised as licorice, then the manufacturer certainly isn't at fault. It may be devious, but as long as the jelly beans satisfy the requirement of being the color black, they could be any flavor at all and there's been no false advertising.
It's the same thing here. The USB 2.0 devices follow the USB 2.0 standard. That they aren't hi-speed has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I've never seen 8x -R media for sale anywhere in retail. I've only seen 4x a few times, and there are no truly official 2x discs anyway--2x is a hack. +R will win simply because of the media advantage.
My biggest gripe is how there's three different de-telecine filters, and each of them has some quirk that always fucks me up.
That's amazing. My biggest gripe is that TV is sent with incorrect telecining, making it difficult if sometimes impossible to recover the progressive frames.
IVTC (de-telecine) is nearly impossible to do perfectly in an algorithm. You can get good results, but you almost never get perfect results. There are a few guides out there for manual IVTC, but AFAIK they are Windows-only. I don't know of any Linux tools to do manual IVTC, which is unfortunate, because you can get beautiful results.
I was all set to buy a T2 not too long ago, but doing the requisite research, I discovered that it suffers from "digitizer drift" far worse than any other Palm handheld. Most people attribute this to the sliding case, also noting that the problem can be fixed by banging the Palm(!) in the opposite direction of the drift, as though some mechanism is getting out of whack and this will reset it to it's correct position. While I have dealt with digitizer drift on my Palm IIIxe, it's really annoying. If it's worse on the T2, I don't think I could handle it.
This particular problem was first discovered on the TT, and it really bugs me that it wasn't rectified on the T2. I won't even consider the T3 unless I hear that Palm's design flaws have been corrected and that the T3 doesn't have the massive drift problems that the rest of that series have.
Interestingly, the TE may not have such a problem since it does not open/close like the others in the line, however it doesn't have some of the features of them that I'd like either, so it's out.
And since DVDs themselves are 720x480 (NTSC) or 352x480 (Half-D1 NTSC) and similar resolutions for PAL, you're actually upsampling when you watch them in 1600x1200, causing blurring/loss of sharp image.
But overhyped is ever so slightly different from overrated. After Daikatana shipped (hell, even slightly before it shipped), it started getting negative reviews by the dozens. Everyone was talking about how much it sucked. It took much longer for Black and White to take its lumps. Even after it shipped, it was getting rave reviews about the ingenuity, the interface, etc. In fact, it took quite awhile for the negative reviews to start coming in, particularly ones that didn't involve actual bugs in the software.
Simply not true. "Broadband" can have much, much higher latency than dialup. Just look at satellite connections. It's simple physics that the signal has to go from earth to orbit and back, which takes time.
With all those lawsuits, there is a reasonable chance that any given defendant will die before being prosecuted! If everyone stays in for the duration, most people probably won't ever see court!
Copyright violations can be prosecuted selectively. All they have to do is hand the files over to someone legitimately and have them distribute for them. The distribution isn't legal, but they don't have to prosecute if they don't want to.
Also, anyone under subpoena might choose to cut a deal and turn over logs (if any of these filesharing services keep logs or anything) or even set up a honeypot in a similar vein as the above.
Because that's the monetary fine for copyright violation. They won't get thrown out of courts because it's in the lawbooks. If you don't like it, write your congressperson.
It doesn't say you've giving up any defense, it's saying that they reserve the right to sue you if you violate their copyrights in the future. In other words, the amnesty is only for past transgressions, not future ones.
But then you come across games with a very nearly impossible segment of the game...it's always nice to be able to get through just that portion with quicksaves, because spending those 3 hours to get to that point just for the slim chance of beating the level... well it sucks. One game that suffers from this (and doesn't allow saving, either) is Super Monkey Ball 2 on the Gamecube. There are many levels where whether or not you complete the level is based entirely on luck or cheese. For example, there's one flat level where the goal bounces around, much faster than you can move. You basically have to run around and hope that the goal runs into you. Levels like that simply are not fun.
As a solution to the original problem, however, I've seen many games that implemented a "save anywhere" feature, but you immediately quit when you save and you can only restore from a given save one time. This means that you can stop your game and continue it anywhere you want, but if you die, you can't just restore the save again.
I suppose I should have said "granting copyright rights". Copyright law is just a bunch of rights that an author of a unique work has. This author may grant you any of those rights, however there is the implicit right to use the product (if it's a book, you don't have to be explicitly granted the right to read it, for example). Without the GPL, all you can do with source code you download (that doesn't come with any mention of rights) is compile it and run the executable. You may be able to modify it (given fair use). Your argument was that if a corporation decided to use these tactics on the GPL to insert their code into it and redistribute it, that we'd all be up in arms. Sure we would. They'd be violating copyright. Even if the GPL was determined to be not binding, they'd be violating copyright.
EULAs, on the other hand, are solely restricting rights. Remember you don't have to be explicitly granted to use the copyrighted work in the intended manner (reading books, listening to CDs, watching DVDs, running software) so the EULA is actually restricting your right to run the software, not granting you additional rights under copyright law.
Just playing devils advocate here but by the same token, if M$ (or maybe even SCO) decided to hijack some GPL'ed code and claim the license invalid because they don't agree to it, there would be a major uproar in the OS community.
But the GPL is granting rights, not restricting them. If Microsoft or SCO "hijacks" some GPL'd code and claims the license was invalid, they were still bound by copyright law to not copy the code or the binaries, outside of the consent given by the author of the code. That means they couldn't (re)distribute it (only the copyright holder could), they couldn't modify it (except where fair use applies) and they certainly could not incorporate that code into their own product.
Licenses like the some of the ones discussed are more restrictive. They prevent you from, for example, using your software to create a word processor. This may or may not be legal, but you can see how this is very different from the GPL. If EULAs were determined by law to be unenforceable, you've gained rights rather than lost them, but you still aren't allowed to copy the software (the EULA tells you this, too, but copyright law would kick in if the EULA were declared invalid).
Declaring it invalid because you don't agree but still want to use the software is not the answer. How about instead, finding an open alternative.
How about declaring it invalid because it isn't legal? I'm really waiting for a case to pop up declaring them non-binding.
This is one of the reasons I've always been hesitant to play MMORPGs. Lots of times I like to break out old games and play them for, if nothing else, nostalgia's sake. With a MMORPG, unless there are fan-based servers, this isn't possible.
Simply not true. I'm using your software without compensating you, but I'm not depriving you of money (the money in my pocket was never yours in the first place).
Tighten up the firewall....to prevent outgoing email? or maybe port 80? It's not like you can't send just about any sort of information using any of a number of standard services that you simply don't want to disable on your firewall (due to being overly restrictive of your own use of the computer)
LoJack is a bad example. It's installed by the person who bought the car, intentionally, to make sure that they aren't deprived of the use of their car. No one is deprived of anything when you copy software illegally.
This is a tough question/topic. I mean, it "sends the administrator email"...what precisely does that mean? The ISP? A corporate administrator? The ISP has no real business knowing this unless/until the company decides to subpoena the user's information. The administrator certainly could know, but what about individual users? Unless they inform you of this possibility, I'd rather them just use product activation and be up-front about their piracy prevention measures. Why? Because software has bugs, and I don't want to have the hassle of software phoning home, claiming that I'm doing something illegal, when in actuality there is a bug in the software (or a virus causing a different checksum) that is causing the issue. Bug in their software causes a problem, they sue me, I have to deal with the legal hassle, but laws like UCITA mean that I can't countersue for the bug that initiated their response in the first place.
In Texas (and in other places, I just don't know if there's one where you live) we have a store called Hastings. Hastings tends to sell CDs at anywhere from $11 to $15 with occasional spikes or dips depending up on the CD. The other thing the store does is video rentals, books, and a very small computer game section. Their music selection is larger than Best Buy and generally considered one of their main sources of income. At the prices you're quoting, there is no way they could be making money. Books are big, videos certainly are, but the using music as a draw for people to buy other items simply wouldn't work in a store where the average "other item" probably costs around $5 (combined books and video rentals).
I beg to differ. There is a free, non-adware DivX encoder, however it does not have all the same features as the Pro version. Specifically (and most importantly, imo) it doesn't include support for encoding B-Frames.
You can see from DivX.com that the free, non-ad supported codec is:
"all the playback and encoding functionality necessary to watch and create DivX videos."
And having used it to create DivX 5 AVI files (albeit without B-Frames) and being an avid user of ad-aware, I can verify that it does work and it does not contain adware.
My problem with this is that the Pro versions (which I'd gladly pay for) have similar copy protection schemes as Windows XP. I refuse to support software that requires internet registration and where, if I add a new hard drive to my computer, decides to stop working. I hesitate to say that it/might/ be ok from a company like Microsoft, whom we assume will be around for some time, but who knows if DivX is going to up and fold, leaving us high and dry with software we've paid for but can't use?
Nope, if the free codec ever goes away, that will mark the end of DivX ever being installed on my system. It's ok, XVid is really coming along nicely anyway.
Excellent filter for decoding movies, but it has no encoding capabilities. As much as I like DVD, DivX gives me more bang for my buck when it comes to encoding home movies, captured TV shows for archival, etc.
I suggest the XVid codec for this. Ogg just isn't there yet.
Slashdot Mirror
A better example is a P4 3.2ghz chip that clocks itself down when it gets too hot. They sold you a P4 3.2ghz chip. It's the fault of Intel and their design that makes it slower. You're absolutely right: the standard is the problem, since any of 3 different speeds can satisfy the standard.
For a non-computer analogy, try black jelly beans. Black jelly beans can be either licorice or grape (depending upon the brand). If I buy a bag of black jellybeans, I assume they will be licorice. If they're not, and they weren't advertised as licorice, then the manufacturer certainly isn't at fault. It may be devious, but as long as the jelly beans satisfy the requirement of being the color black, they could be any flavor at all and there's been no false advertising.
It's the same thing here. The USB 2.0 devices follow the USB 2.0 standard. That they aren't hi-speed has nothing to do with it.
I dunno, I think the emoticons are worse than an abbreviation like LOL.
Of course, I've never seen 8x -R media for sale anywhere in retail. I've only seen 4x a few times, and there are no truly official 2x discs anyway--2x is a hack. +R will win simply because of the media advantage.
My biggest gripe is how there's three different de-telecine filters, and each of them has some quirk that always fucks me up.
That's amazing. My biggest gripe is that TV is sent with incorrect telecining, making it difficult if sometimes impossible to recover the progressive frames.
IVTC (de-telecine) is nearly impossible to do perfectly in an algorithm. You can get good results, but you almost never get perfect results. There are a few guides out there for manual IVTC, but AFAIK they are Windows-only. I don't know of any Linux tools to do manual IVTC, which is unfortunate, because you can get beautiful results.
I was all set to buy a T2 not too long ago, but doing the requisite research, I discovered that it suffers from "digitizer drift" far worse than any other Palm handheld. Most people attribute this to the sliding case, also noting that the problem can be fixed by banging the Palm(!) in the opposite direction of the drift, as though some mechanism is getting out of whack and this will reset it to it's correct position. While I have dealt with digitizer drift on my Palm IIIxe, it's really annoying. If it's worse on the T2, I don't think I could handle it.
This particular problem was first discovered on the TT, and it really bugs me that it wasn't rectified on the T2. I won't even consider the T3 unless I hear that Palm's design flaws have been corrected and that the T3 doesn't have the massive drift problems that the rest of that series have.
Interestingly, the TE may not have such a problem since it does not open/close like the others in the line, however it doesn't have some of the features of them that I'd like either, so it's out.
And since DVDs themselves are 720x480 (NTSC) or 352x480 (Half-D1 NTSC) and similar resolutions for PAL, you're actually upsampling when you watch them in 1600x1200, causing blurring/loss of sharp image.
But overhyped is ever so slightly different from overrated. After Daikatana shipped (hell, even slightly before it shipped), it started getting negative reviews by the dozens. Everyone was talking about how much it sucked. It took much longer for Black and White to take its lumps. Even after it shipped, it was getting rave reviews about the ingenuity, the interface, etc. In fact, it took quite awhile for the negative reviews to start coming in, particularly ones that didn't involve actual bugs in the software.
Simply not true. "Broadband" can have much, much higher latency than dialup. Just look at satellite connections. It's simple physics that the signal has to go from earth to orbit and back, which takes time.
With all those lawsuits, there is a reasonable chance that any given defendant will die before being prosecuted! If everyone stays in for the duration, most people probably won't ever see court!
Copyright violations can be prosecuted selectively. All they have to do is hand the files over to someone legitimately and have them distribute for them. The distribution isn't legal, but they don't have to prosecute if they don't want to.
Also, anyone under subpoena might choose to cut a deal and turn over logs (if any of these filesharing services keep logs or anything) or even set up a honeypot in a similar vein as the above.
Because that's the monetary fine for copyright violation. They won't get thrown out of courts because it's in the lawbooks. If you don't like it, write your congressperson.
It doesn't say you've giving up any defense, it's saying that they reserve the right to sue you if you violate their copyrights in the future. In other words, the amnesty is only for past transgressions, not future ones.
But then you come across games with a very nearly impossible segment of the game...it's always nice to be able to get through just that portion with quicksaves, because spending those 3 hours to get to that point just for the slim chance of beating the level... well it sucks.
One game that suffers from this (and doesn't allow saving, either) is Super Monkey Ball 2 on the Gamecube. There are many levels where whether or not you complete the level is based entirely on luck or cheese. For example, there's one flat level where the goal bounces around, much faster than you can move. You basically have to run around and hope that the goal runs into you. Levels like that simply are not fun.
As a solution to the original problem, however, I've seen many games that implemented a "save anywhere" feature, but you immediately quit when you save and you can only restore from a given save one time. This means that you can stop your game and continue it anywhere you want, but if you die, you can't just restore the save again.
Make the software trivial to crack, but put in a bit of code that detects the crack and removes vital system files from the cracker's system.
Hey, as long as it's in your EULA, it's ok, right?
I suppose I should have said "granting copyright rights". Copyright law is just a bunch of rights that an author of a unique work has. This author may grant you any of those rights, however there is the implicit right to use the product (if it's a book, you don't have to be explicitly granted the right to read it, for example). Without the GPL, all you can do with source code you download (that doesn't come with any mention of rights) is compile it and run the executable. You may be able to modify it (given fair use). Your argument was that if a corporation decided to use these tactics on the GPL to insert their code into it and redistribute it, that we'd all be up in arms. Sure we would. They'd be violating copyright. Even if the GPL was determined to be not binding, they'd be violating copyright.
EULAs, on the other hand, are solely restricting rights. Remember you don't have to be explicitly granted to use the copyrighted work in the intended manner (reading books, listening to CDs, watching DVDs, running software) so the EULA is actually restricting your right to run the software, not granting you additional rights under copyright law.
Just playing devils advocate here but by the same token, if M$ (or maybe even SCO) decided to hijack some GPL'ed code and claim the license invalid because they don't agree to it, there would be a major uproar in the OS community.
But the GPL is granting rights, not restricting them. If Microsoft or SCO "hijacks" some GPL'd code and claims the license was invalid, they were still bound by copyright law to not copy the code or the binaries, outside of the consent given by the author of the code. That means they couldn't (re)distribute it (only the copyright holder could), they couldn't modify it (except where fair use applies) and they certainly could not incorporate that code into their own product.
Licenses like the some of the ones discussed are more restrictive. They prevent you from, for example, using your software to create a word processor. This may or may not be legal, but you can see how this is very different from the GPL. If EULAs were determined by law to be unenforceable, you've gained rights rather than lost them, but you still aren't allowed to copy the software (the EULA tells you this, too, but copyright law would kick in if the EULA were declared invalid).
Declaring it invalid because you don't agree but still want to use the software is not the answer. How about instead, finding an open alternative.
How about declaring it invalid because it isn't legal? I'm really waiting for a case to pop up declaring them non-binding.
This is one of the reasons I've always been hesitant to play MMORPGs. Lots of times I like to break out old games and play them for, if nothing else, nostalgia's sake. With a MMORPG, unless there are fan-based servers, this isn't possible.
Simply not true. I'm using your software without compensating you, but I'm not depriving you of money (the money in my pocket was never yours in the first place).
Semantics? Sure, but accurate.
Tighten up the firewall....to prevent outgoing email? or maybe port 80? It's not like you can't send just about any sort of information using any of a number of standard services that you simply don't want to disable on your firewall (due to being overly restrictive of your own use of the computer)
LoJack is a bad example. It's installed by the person who bought the car, intentionally, to make sure that they aren't deprived of the use of their car. No one is deprived of anything when you copy software illegally.
This is a tough question/topic. I mean, it "sends the administrator email"...what precisely does that mean? The ISP? A corporate administrator? The ISP has no real business knowing this unless/until the company decides to subpoena the user's information. The administrator certainly could know, but what about individual users?
Unless they inform you of this possibility, I'd rather them just use product activation and be up-front about their piracy prevention measures. Why? Because software has bugs, and I don't want to have the hassle of software phoning home, claiming that I'm doing something illegal, when in actuality there is a bug in the software (or a virus causing a different checksum) that is causing the issue. Bug in their software causes a problem, they sue me, I have to deal with the legal hassle, but laws like UCITA mean that I can't countersue for the bug that initiated their response in the first place.
I really can't buy this.
In Texas (and in other places, I just don't know if there's one where you live) we have a store called Hastings. Hastings tends to sell CDs at anywhere from $11 to $15 with occasional spikes or dips depending up on the CD. The other thing the store does is video rentals, books, and a very small computer game section. Their music selection is larger than Best Buy and generally considered one of their main sources of income. At the prices you're quoting, there is no way they could be making money. Books are big, videos certainly are, but the using music as a draw for people to buy other items simply wouldn't work in a store where the average "other item" probably costs around $5 (combined books and video rentals).
I beg to differ. There is a free, non-adware DivX encoder, however it does not have all the same features as the Pro version. Specifically (and most importantly, imo) it doesn't include support for encoding B-Frames.
You can see from DivX.com that the free, non-ad supported codec is:
"all the playback and encoding functionality necessary to watch and create DivX videos."
And having used it to create DivX 5 AVI files (albeit without B-Frames) and being an avid user of ad-aware, I can verify that it does work and it does not contain adware.
My problem with this is that the Pro versions (which I'd gladly pay for) have similar copy protection schemes as Windows XP. I refuse to support software that requires internet registration and where, if I add a new hard drive to my computer, decides to stop working. I hesitate to say that it /might/ be ok from a company like Microsoft, whom we assume will be around for some time, but who knows if DivX is going to up and fold, leaving us high and dry with software we've paid for but can't use?
Nope, if the free codec ever goes away, that will mark the end of DivX ever being installed on my system. It's ok, XVid is really coming along nicely anyway.
Excellent filter for decoding movies, but it has no encoding capabilities. As much as I like DVD, DivX gives me more bang for my buck when it comes to encoding home movies, captured TV shows for archival, etc.
I suggest the XVid codec for this. Ogg just isn't there yet.