I've tried a few versions of XBMC (and have 11 downloading in the background, just to take a look), and I never really understood the big deal about it.
With the original XBox, okay, cool, you had a fairly high-functionality networked media player running on a $99 console gaming system. Neat.
But on a modern PC? Running a variety of programs to handle each individual media type in a manner I prefer for them doesn't present any sort of burden to me or to the system. I have no real reason to stay within the context of a single program that can do-it-all - I just make a new desktop shortcut to my preferred handler of format-X, and bam, I have it always instantly available to me.
So tell me, Slashdot - What have I missed here that makes XBMC so impressive?
You're missing a wife. Because mine (despite having a masters in engineering and a CCIE) is completely unwilling to use a PC connected to our home theater. She wants to access media the same way she uses a DVR, and with the same remote. XBMC provides that experience. Plus it works with Airplay.
Question: What advantages do you see over Windows media center in Windows 7? Not having run XBMC since leaving XP in 09 I am curious as to what advantages you find over what is built into Win 7, is it better on resources? does it give you more Internet TV options? How is its hardware acceleration? Because while i can see the advantages clearly for something like the pi, where you are talking about a device that takes less power than your average cable box I just don't see offhand what advantages one could get from XBMC running on top of win 7.
Primarily it's format agnosticism and skin capabilities. 99% of my library is in MKV format, which WMC does not care for, and the Alaska Revisited skin is gorgeous.
HTC is headquartered in Taiwan, not mainland China. Does anyone know if they manufacture their phones in Taiwan or in China?
HTC manufactures in various countries, including mainland China. Foxconn is also headquartered in Taiwan, so there's really no correlation between where their CEO sits and where manufacturing happens.
I find it interesting that those most upset about Foxconn factory conditions have never been there, and those that have been there lied about what they saw.
It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM.
Really? So if you delete the digital copy, you actually lose more value than if you destroy the original?
What if you make a hundred digital copies, and then delete them? OH MY GOD, you've just lost, like, thousands of dollars!
Don't be inane. When you refer to the "original" you are really talking about the master studio copy of the performance. _Everything_ else is a copy.
Since you appear to need it spelled out, the value is in the entertainment and enjoyment provided by the copy. I think I can put this in simpler terms.
Two people wish to be entertained for two and a half minutes. They both inexplicably love Sanjaya. Person A buys a track from Google Music. Person B copies the track from person A. They both independently listen to the music and are entertained. They have both received _value_. Person A paid $1 to receive that value. Person B paid nothing. One of them is an entitled little shit. Guess which one?
I think the point is more along the lines of copies of an already purchased game should be worth as much as the copied currency.
I disagree. There is no technical way to make a digital copy worth anything, and the laws required to make people behave as if it were worth something are utterly destructive to freedom. Case in point, every single law we have passed or tried to pass to make digital copies worth something.
A movie DVD is nothing but a digital copy of the original film. Does a blank DVD has the same value as a movie DVD? Of course not, the movie DVD is more valuable because of the digital copy of the movie contained on it. The value of that movie to you is constant whether you get it on DVD, iTunes or TPB. Only the delivery mechanism has changed. Either they're all worth something, or they're all worth nothing; you can't have it both ways.
I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.
It's making a statement that by the way MPAA & RIAA considers virtual copies of a film/game/song to be worth as much as the original, you might as well put the same logic to currency. Which doesn't make sense the same way that virtual copies of a film/game/song being worth as much as the original.
I can get the same entertainment value from a copy of a movie or song as I can from the original. It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM. I didn't enjoy the movie or song any less because it was a copy since the quality of the experience was the same or better.
I can only use a photocopy of money to wipe my ass with since I cannot even buy toilet paper with it. I do not enjoy the copy at all because I couldn't use it as currency and all it did is hurt my ass.
I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.
Yes, it's genius. Clearly this is the same thing, because copies of money are identical to the original and can be used the same. Oh, wait... I just realized that this analogy is complete bullshit invented by a moron.
In every major airport I've been through, the airport police are right there at the screening area. Many airports actually have their own police jurisdiction.
I have to say, I don't think I've ever seen Slashdot fail so spectacularly.
Authors of the most highly-modded posts upthread don't seem to realize that when a Tesla Roadster’s battery completely discharges the vehicle cannot be put into tow mode and the battery cannot be recharged, hence the the term "bricked". The second sentence of the article you link spells this out.
Unfortunately, that article is just a rehashed cut-and-paste of the original blog, which cites no specific sources and presents anecdotes as facts. I don't know if this is a real issue or not, but nothing in the link above helps make up my mind.
1972, Pong is released. Violent crime rate in the US (includes murder, rape, and aggravated assault) is 0.2%. 1993, Doom, the first 3rd-person shooter video game, is released. Violent crime rate in the US (includes murder, rape, and aggravated assault) is 0.4%. 2010. Video games, many of them violent and played by surly teenagers, are bigger than movies. Violent crime rate in the US (includes murder, rape, and aggravated assault) is 0.2%.
By the way, these are just about the only two movies he's made that don't have guns (or swords) in them. Not saying they don't, but they're his "cleanest" films for sure.
Kindergarten Cop. There were guns in the beginning and end, but not so much in the middle. Actually wasn't a bad comedy.
selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography, or letting cigarette companies target them with advertising. it primes them to support things like the Iraq War, or the coming Iran War, which will bankrupt this country and dehumanize the nation.
The first thing the US (and other First World nations) should be doing is getting tougher on China instead of being any bit friendly to them in commerce.
The only evidence these guys were in China were the sources of the IP addresses they were using. They never went any further than doing a whois. So they know the hackers were using systems in China, but it's a very large assumption that's where the attacks actually originated.
Why do you want to transfer the domain when you can just give him/her control of the web site? You can continue to own the services on the domain that matter to you (mail) and they'd own the HTTP service on the IP address you point the domain to. This could even be an intermediate step to full ownership transfer once you've moved your identity someplace else and are comfortable with the new owner of the domain taking more ownership over it.
Agreed, this is the best solution. Keep the domain, transfer the web service only.
Patent hold get to license the technology or not, based upon their own preferences. You can't FORCE a company to share it's patents.
The summary is misleading, which sort of goes without saying around here.
You don't seek (or not seek) licensing fees in court filings. You seek to enforce the validity of your patent(s), and then you're in a position to negotiate licensing.
Honeywell probably had discussions with Nest about their patents and they weren't able to come to an agreement, or Nest decided they could fight the patents. I seriously doubt this is the first Nest has heard from Honeywell on this topic.
Taiwan is either a Chinese province in rebellion or a Chinese government in exile, depending on who you're talking to. For all practical purposes the rest of the world treats them as two independent sovereign nations, but the Chinese, whether they be ROC or PROC, don't see themselves that way.
What if it were? Did you hit "submit" too early? What's your point?
We're left to infer that your position is that if sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex is a choice rather than a biological predisposition, then it is legitimate to create and enforce laws governing this activity.
Since this position is completely absurd, in absence of any further data I must conclude that you're a neanderthal.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm running it on an Intel Atom D525 Win7 64-bit system. Definitely not overpowered.
I've tried a few versions of XBMC (and have 11 downloading in the background, just to take a look), and I never really understood the big deal about it.
With the original XBox, okay, cool, you had a fairly high-functionality networked media player running on a $99 console gaming system. Neat.
But on a modern PC? Running a variety of programs to handle each individual media type in a manner I prefer for them doesn't present any sort of burden to me or to the system. I have no real reason to stay within the context of a single program that can do-it-all - I just make a new desktop shortcut to my preferred handler of format-X, and bam, I have it always instantly available to me.
So tell me, Slashdot - What have I missed here that makes XBMC so impressive?
You're missing a wife. Because mine (despite having a masters in engineering and a CCIE) is completely unwilling to use a PC connected to our home theater. She wants to access media the same way she uses a DVR, and with the same remote. XBMC provides that experience. Plus it works with Airplay.
Question: What advantages do you see over Windows media center in Windows 7? Not having run XBMC since leaving XP in 09 I am curious as to what advantages you find over what is built into Win 7, is it better on resources? does it give you more Internet TV options? How is its hardware acceleration? Because while i can see the advantages clearly for something like the pi, where you are talking about a device that takes less power than your average cable box I just don't see offhand what advantages one could get from XBMC running on top of win 7.
Primarily it's format agnosticism and skin capabilities. 99% of my library is in MKV format, which WMC does not care for, and the Alaska Revisited skin is gorgeous.
It does take advantage of hardware acceleration.
It's eating up a lot more CPU than 10.1 did, and it's causing stutter in the same 1080p content that v10.1 played with no problem.
XBMC FAIL.
I'm not having these issues at all. Anonymous Coward FAIL?
Is that some faded-out version of Pascal, perhaps?
I imagine it was, since he's talking about what happened in 1984.
HTC is headquartered in Taiwan, not mainland China. Does anyone know if they manufacture their phones in Taiwan or in China?
HTC manufactures in various countries, including mainland China. Foxconn is also headquartered in Taiwan, so there's really no correlation between where their CEO sits and where manufacturing happens.
I find it interesting that those most upset about Foxconn factory conditions have never been there, and those that have been there lied about what they saw.
It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM.
Really? So if you delete the digital copy, you actually lose more value than if you destroy the original?
What if you make a hundred digital copies, and then delete them? OH MY GOD, you've just lost, like, thousands of dollars!
Don't be inane. When you refer to the "original" you are really talking about the master studio copy of the performance. _Everything_ else is a copy.
Since you appear to need it spelled out, the value is in the entertainment and enjoyment provided by the copy. I think I can put this in simpler terms.
Two people wish to be entertained for two and a half minutes. They both inexplicably love Sanjaya. Person A buys a track from Google Music. Person B copies the track from person A. They both independently listen to the music and are entertained. They have both received _value_. Person A paid $1 to receive that value. Person B paid nothing. One of them is an entitled little shit. Guess which one?
I think the point is more along the lines of copies of an already purchased game should be worth as much as the copied currency.
I disagree. There is no technical way to make a digital copy worth anything, and the laws required to make people behave as if it were worth something are utterly destructive to freedom. Case in point, every single law we have passed or tried to pass to make digital copies worth something.
A movie DVD is nothing but a digital copy of the original film. Does a blank DVD has the same value as a movie DVD? Of course not, the movie DVD is more valuable because of the digital copy of the movie contained on it. The value of that movie to you is constant whether you get it on DVD, iTunes or TPB. Only the delivery mechanism has changed. Either they're all worth something, or they're all worth nothing; you can't have it both ways.
DRM is a different issue, and it sucks.
That's kinda the point.
That you missed.
Now who's the moron?
I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.
It's making a statement that by the way MPAA & RIAA considers virtual copies of a film/game/song to be worth as much as the original, you might as well put the same logic to currency. Which doesn't make sense the same way that virtual copies of a film/game/song being worth as much as the original.
I can get the same entertainment value from a copy of a movie or song as I can from the original. It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM. I didn't enjoy the movie or song any less because it was a copy since the quality of the experience was the same or better.
I can only use a photocopy of money to wipe my ass with since I cannot even buy toilet paper with it. I do not enjoy the copy at all because I couldn't use it as currency and all it did is hurt my ass.
How are those two things at all similar?
That's kinda the point.
That you missed.
Now who's the moron?
I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.
I think I might do the same.
Yes, it's genius. Clearly this is the same thing, because copies of money are identical to the original and can be used the same. Oh, wait... I just realized that this analogy is complete bullshit invented by a moron.
In every major airport I've been through, the airport police are right there at the screening area. Many airports actually have their own police jurisdiction.
Doom is not a 3rd-person shooter video game, nor was it the first. (Wolfenstein 3d preceded it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_shooter
It's a typo. I meant 1st-person. And I played the first Wolfenstein on an Apple ][e. "Halt! Kom en zie!"
Thanks for this, AC.
I have to say, I don't think I've ever seen Slashdot fail so spectacularly.
Authors of the most highly-modded posts upthread don't seem to realize that when a Tesla Roadster’s battery completely discharges the vehicle cannot be put into tow mode and the battery cannot be recharged, hence the the term "bricked". The second sentence of the article you link spells this out.
Unfortunately, that article is just a rehashed cut-and-paste of the original blog, which cites no specific sources and presents anecdotes as facts. I don't know if this is a real issue or not, but nothing in the link above helps make up my mind.
1972, Pong is released. Violent crime rate in the US (includes murder, rape, and aggravated assault) is 0.2%.
1993, Doom, the first 3rd-person shooter video game, is released. Violent crime rate in the US (includes murder, rape, and aggravated assault) is 0.4%.
2010. Video games, many of them violent and played by surly teenagers, are bigger than movies. Violent crime rate in the US (includes murder, rape, and aggravated assault) is 0.2%.
Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
By the way, these are just about the only two movies he's made that don't have guns (or swords) in them. Not saying they don't, but they're his "cleanest" films for sure.
Kindergarten Cop. There were guns in the beginning and end, but not so much in the middle. Actually wasn't a bad comedy.
Jack, that IS you! So happy to see you here. What are you doing for work these days since the disbarment?
selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography, or letting cigarette companies target them with advertising. it primes them to support things like the Iraq War, or the coming Iran War, which will bankrupt this country and dehumanize the nation.
Jack Thompson, is that you?
The first thing the US (and other First World nations) should be doing is getting tougher on China instead of being any bit friendly to them in commerce.
The only evidence these guys were in China were the sources of the IP addresses they were using. They never went any further than doing a whois. So they know the hackers were using systems in China, but it's a very large assumption that's where the attacks actually originated.
Where were all thier network security experts at?
Cisco and Juniper, mostly.
Why do you want to transfer the domain when you can just give him/her control of the web site? You can continue to own the services on the domain that matter to you (mail) and they'd own the HTTP service on the IP address you point the domain to. This could even be an intermediate step to full ownership transfer once you've moved your identity someplace else and are comfortable with the new owner of the domain taking more ownership over it.
Agreed, this is the best solution. Keep the domain, transfer the web service only.
Require the buyer to forward all of your email addresses for 24 months. Help the person set up the forwarding if they don't know how to do it.
Not a good idea, unless you're ok with them reading your email, too.
Patent hold get to license the technology or not, based upon their own preferences. You can't FORCE a company to share it's patents.
The summary is misleading, which sort of goes without saying around here.
You don't seek (or not seek) licensing fees in court filings. You seek to enforce the validity of your patent(s), and then you're in a position to negotiate licensing.
Honeywell probably had discussions with Nest about their patents and they weren't able to come to an agreement, or Nest decided they could fight the patents. I seriously doubt this is the first Nest has heard from Honeywell on this topic.
In what way are they the same country?
Taiwan is either a Chinese province in rebellion or a Chinese government in exile, depending on who you're talking to. For all practical purposes the rest of the world treats them as two independent sovereign nations, but the Chinese, whether they be ROC or PROC, don't see themselves that way.
So what if it were a choice?
What if it were? Did you hit "submit" too early? What's your point?
We're left to infer that your position is that if sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex is a choice rather than a biological predisposition, then it is legitimate to create and enforce laws governing this activity.
Since this position is completely absurd, in absence of any further data I must conclude that you're a neanderthal.