"Atrac3 isn't a Sony proprietary format." (forestalling a flamefest) Well, yeah. It is a Sony format, but it's used by other companies, including RealPlayer8, which is beside the point anyhow becase, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's only storing music in the device, not for sharing, so the format is irrelevant as long as the quality is sufficient.
"- It doesn't use MP3, it uses some Sony proprietary format. " Atrac3 isn't a Sony proprietary format.
"- It's got nothing to do with radio. " Except that it does.
"- Since when has some proprietary crap been "long overdue"?" Since forever. Unless something has to be a completely open standard for you to use it or acknowledge that others do, then whether something is proprietary or not has nothing to do with its timeliness.
If you're going to claim a 'summary' of the article, it would be nice if you a) read the article and b) summarized it instead of editorializing it.
I had the good fortune to go to Gaiman's reading of Coraline last week in Berkeley (the day the book was released, he did a full 3-hour reading of the text to a packed cathedral of 800 people).
Before he began, he confirmed that Henry Selick (Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach, Monkeybone), who was in attendance, would be directing the movie version of Coraline, and that Michelle Pfeiffer was signed on to play the Mother/Other Mother roles.
It's a great story, and is sort of a shift for Gaiman, targeting a broader aged audience, while remaining dark but more polished (no footnotes, and a more constant narrative tone). The reading was fabulous, and I could totally visualize the movie version.
My concern is with the kind of transaction record companies are making with consumers. When you buy a CD, are you buying the physical product, or are you buying a license to listen to the music?
If we're buying the right to listen to the music, then we should be able to listen to in in other forms, MP3, etc.
If we're buying the physical product, then the RIAA shouldn't be trying to tax record stores on sales of used albums.
Basically, they can't have it both ways.
the mot disturbing thing though is the ambiguity. There's no EULA to clickthrough or read, and I doubt the average consumer knows whether they're buying a CD, or buying the music on the CD. It makes a big difference.
Piers, A Spell for Chameleon and the Source of Magic are two of the best sci-fi books I'd read up to that point.
In your copeous Author's Notes, you mention how you wrote these books with adults in mind, and were surprised to find that the Young Adult market was where you were selling most of your copies.
I'm curious why, upon learning this, you started pandering to that market? Each successive Xanth book became more pun-laden and slapstick, even when it got in the way of the actual story. Despite saying in nearly every Authors Note that you wouldn't accept any more reader-submitted puns, you go ahead and do it anyway, taking loose soap-operaesque plotlines and filling them with frivolous wordplay to tie them together.
Granted, the series seems to do okay, considering that you keep adding to it, but I wonder why you abandoned the style and quality of writing that won you the Nebula Award, in favor of Xanth installments like "Color of her Panties," irritating those readers who loved the Piers who wrote quality work?
Sadly, the decline of Xanth (around books 3 through 5 and on) can also be seen in most of your other series, including Incarnations of Immortality (after Being a Green Mother), and the brilliantly begun Apprentice Adept series (after the first trilogy).
Is the changeover to Linux and StarOffice responsible for this change in tone and direction?
Purly and simply, the IM services will become interoperable when AOL includews webcasting in their service. When the AOL-Time/Warner merger went through, there was a lot of push for the FTC to require AOL to open up their IM service. The compromise that was reached is that they are required to open it up, once their IM service incorporates video, be it webcastiing, integrated movie trailers or what have you.
It's likely that AOL will take this step and make this compormise around the end of the year. Both MSN and Yahoo's support of webcams is too much of an ongoing advantage for AOL to stay out of the market due to stubbornness.
When that happens, expect a lot more ongoing innovation for each service to make themselves unique. Things like Yahoo's IMVironments are there in part to keep customers loyal to a single IM client even after the platforms all become interoperable.
And it might not have been someone on your team at all. People use false data for setting up accounts all the time. Maybe they just thought this would be funny.
It seems much more likely that someone on the team was registering for something somewhere and, wanding to avoid stupid spam, put in the clever King persona instead.
Promptly forgotten, it was a surprise when Dell, seemingly unrelated to the registration account, sends email to that profile.
More than likely someone on your team remembers it now, but finds the alternative 'harvesting' explanation so funny he's keeping quiet.
The article was Apple-sanctioned, hence the pictures of Jobs and Ives lounging around with their new baby. The fact that it was turned into an expose due to Time Canada's blunder was not Apple sanctioned, hence my saying that they 'fucked up'.
My point though is the same as yours: The matter was dropped, because they're Time Magazine. If it were a lesser mag or site that made that mistake, you would bet Apple would have a stronger reaction.
Does anyone else find it amusing that at the January Macworld Expo, not only did Apple goad users into rampant speculation with their 5 day home page teaser campaign (changing the home page tagline to "Way Beyond the Rumor Sites" and the like), but that, in the end, the night before the keynote, the story was leaked by Time Magazine, who let out pictures and an Apple-sanctioned expose of the new iMac and iPhoto?
The rumor sites had nothing on them in January, and for all Apple's teasing, it was their own media partners who fucked up, but you don't see Time or Newsweek getting their credentials pulled.
One has to wonder what the point of this action is. After all, the damage that a rumor site does is done by the time they would get anywhere that a media badge would get them, unless Apple's planning on showing the press something cool under an embargo date which, given the Time debacle, you'd think they'd be ever less likely to do.
IDG was directed by Apple to blacklist the sites. Nathalie Welch, from Apple's PR group, directed which sites were on the list. I don't know where she got her list from, but it's interesting to note that she herself worked at MacWEKK magazine before coming to Apple, so this is in no small way one person calling the kettle black.
Not having Showtime, I've been following SG-1 on Fox (with all their time-jumping and out-of-order episodes) and the last ep I saw was the cliffhanger when Chronos's (err, our) mothership, and Apophis's ship just came out of 'hyperspace' from running away from the star that Carter made go nova, propelling them entirely outside the galaxy (note that anyone who doesn't already watch SG-1 probably never will after reading that sentence, really, the show's not so contrived).
My question is, now that we're jumping from syndicationto first-run, how many seasons, if any, will I be skipping, and how will I be able to catch up, since apparently Fox is giving up the show (Are they?) and the DVDs are only out for season 1 so far. Anyone know?
I've actually found (and correct me if I'm wrong) that if a show is offered on multiple channels at the time the season pass is created, it's created only for the specific channel you specify, but, if it only appears on one channel at the time you make the season pass, the season pass is 'global' (because it doesn't need to be exclusionary at the time), and will capture shows on other channels whould they come up in the future.
Well, we'll see. I'm in the same boat, and won't be home until too late.
"Has it occured to Slashdot's staff that nobody in the real world owns a digital television?"
I'm not sure you understand the point. It's not about digital televisions; it's about digital recorders. A lot of people have ReplayTV, TiVo, or UltimateTV, and a lot more will soon.
The industry doesn't give a crap about whether people watch broadcasts in digital or analog form. They care about chains of perfect copies of content.
"If Archos tried to sue they would have to show copyright infringement before they could show damages."
Sorry, but you're wrong. There are all kinds of intellectual property infringements that have nothing to do with copyright. there are those having to do with patent, trademark, or trade secrets, none of which involve the direct copying of source code.
We're not talking about copying someone's book or CD. IP law is a little more complex than that.
"Reverse engineering is starting to take on a negative connotation, like "hacker" did. "
This is a good point. Most of science is 'reverse engineering' of the natural world. It'd be interesting if the scientist who supplied his own genetic material for the genome project turned around and sued the labs for reverce engineering him.
Even if they posted trade secrets, the DMCA wouldn't apply. Other intellectual property laws would apply, but not the DMCA. To be clear, reverse engineering is still legal, except where the intent of the referse engineering is to circumvent a copy protection or content access management control mechanism. Sunce Archos has nothing to do with e-books, SDMI, or any other access rights mechanism, anyone bandying about DMCA violations needs to learn the difference between the law and the latest meme.
Slashdot Mirror
p.s. What the heck does it have to do with radio?
Read the article. I tire of being your monkey.
"-320x320 screen"
Really? It looked like 160x160 to me... If Palm went 320^2 I'd be happier about that than the collapsing desing, though both are cool.
Okay, closer look, you're right. it's 320x, but the photo previews are at half-dpi so it looks skanky. Still, that's just software.
Finally a machine to replace me workhorse Palm V.
"Atrac3 isn't a Sony proprietary format."
(forestalling a flamefest) Well, yeah. It is a Sony format, but it's used by other companies, including RealPlayer8, which is beside the point anyhow becase, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's only storing music in the device, not for sharing, so the format is irrelevant as long as the quality is sufficient.
"- It doesn't use MP3, it uses some Sony proprietary format. "
Atrac3 isn't a Sony proprietary format.
"- It's got nothing to do with radio. "
Except that it does.
"- Since when has some proprietary crap been "long overdue"?"
Since forever. Unless something has to be a completely open standard for you to use it or acknowledge that others do, then whether something is proprietary or not has nothing to do with its timeliness.
If you're going to claim a 'summary' of the article, it would be nice if you a) read the article and b) summarized it instead of editorializing it.
Yeah I have a 50 karma cap too, so what?
I had the good fortune to go to Gaiman's reading of Coraline last week in Berkeley (the day the book was released, he did a full 3-hour reading of the text to a packed cathedral of 800 people).
Before he began, he confirmed that Henry Selick (Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach, Monkeybone), who was in attendance, would be directing the movie version of Coraline, and that Michelle Pfeiffer was signed on to play the Mother/Other Mother roles.
It's a great story, and is sort of a shift for Gaiman, targeting a broader aged audience, while remaining dark but more polished (no footnotes, and a more constant narrative tone). The reading was fabulous, and I could totally visualize the movie version.
A friend of mine did a more thorough write-up of the reading for those interseted.
I'd rather see Batman v. Buffy
Or Superman v. Evil Willow...
My concern is with the kind of transaction record companies are making with consumers. When you buy a CD, are you buying the physical product, or are you buying a license to listen to the music?
If we're buying the right to listen to the music, then we should be able to listen to in in other forms, MP3, etc.
If we're buying the physical product, then the RIAA shouldn't be trying to tax record stores on sales of used albums.
Basically, they can't have it both ways.
the mot disturbing thing though is the ambiguity. There's no EULA to clickthrough or read, and I doubt the average consumer knows whether they're buying a CD, or buying the music on the CD. It makes a big difference.
Piers, A Spell for Chameleon and the Source of Magic are two of the best sci-fi books I'd read up to that point.
In your copeous Author's Notes, you mention how you wrote these books with adults in mind, and were surprised to find that the Young Adult market was where you were selling most of your copies.
I'm curious why, upon learning this, you started pandering to that market? Each successive Xanth book became more pun-laden and slapstick, even when it got in the way of the actual story. Despite saying in nearly every Authors Note that you wouldn't accept any more reader-submitted puns, you go ahead and do it anyway, taking loose soap-operaesque plotlines and filling them with frivolous wordplay to tie them together.
Granted, the series seems to do okay, considering that you keep adding to it, but I wonder why you abandoned the style and quality of writing that won you the Nebula Award, in favor of Xanth installments like "Color of her Panties," irritating those readers who loved the Piers who wrote quality work?
Sadly, the decline of Xanth (around books 3 through 5 and on) can also be seen in most of your other series, including Incarnations of Immortality (after Being a Green Mother), and the brilliantly begun Apprentice Adept series (after the first trilogy).
Is the changeover to Linux and StarOffice responsible for this change in tone and direction?
Purly and simply, the IM services will become interoperable when AOL includews webcasting in their service. When the AOL-Time/Warner merger went through, there was a lot of push for the FTC to require AOL to open up their IM service. The compromise that was reached is that they are required to open it up, once their IM service incorporates video, be it webcastiing, integrated movie trailers or what have you.
It's likely that AOL will take this step and make this compormise around the end of the year. Both MSN and Yahoo's support of webcams is too much of an ongoing advantage for AOL to stay out of the market due to stubbornness.
When that happens, expect a lot more ongoing innovation for each service to make themselves unique. Things like Yahoo's IMVironments are there in part to keep customers loyal to a single IM client even after the platforms all become interoperable.
In short, it'll all be about the innovation.
I actually find it more irritating when people blatantly label others as 'pseudo-intellectuals' for using terms they personally don't like.
Since your post is ambiguous, are you against the term 'Occam's Razor' or the underlying principle of complexity theory? Can you elaborate why?
Thanks much,
'sends email to that profile'
Err, snail mail, rather.
And it might not have been someone on your team at all. People use false data for setting up accounts all the time. Maybe they just thought this would be funny.
Heck, they were apparently right.
It seems much more likely that someone on the team was registering for something somewhere and, wanding to avoid stupid spam, put in the clever King persona instead.
Promptly forgotten, it was a surprise when Dell, seemingly unrelated to the registration account, sends email to that profile.
More than likely someone on your team remembers it now, but finds the alternative 'harvesting' explanation so funny he's keeping quiet.
The article was Apple-sanctioned, hence the pictures of Jobs and Ives lounging around with their new baby. The fact that it was turned into an expose due to Time Canada's blunder was not Apple sanctioned, hence my saying that they 'fucked up'.
My point though is the same as yours: The matter was dropped, because they're Time Magazine. If it were a lesser mag or site that made that mistake, you would bet Apple would have a stronger reaction.
Does anyone else find it amusing that at the January Macworld Expo, not only did Apple goad users into rampant speculation with their 5 day home page teaser campaign (changing the home page tagline to "Way Beyond the Rumor Sites" and the like), but that, in the end, the night before the keynote, the story was leaked by Time Magazine, who let out pictures and an Apple-sanctioned expose of the new iMac and iPhoto?
The rumor sites had nothing on them in January, and for all Apple's teasing, it was their own media partners who fucked up, but you don't see Time or Newsweek getting their credentials pulled.
One has to wonder what the point of this action is. After all, the damage that a rumor site does is done by the time they would get anywhere that a media badge would get them, unless Apple's planning on showing the press something cool under an embargo date which, given the Time debacle, you'd think they'd be ever less likely to do.
IDG was directed by Apple to blacklist the sites. Nathalie Welch, from Apple's PR group, directed which sites were on the list. I don't know where she got her list from, but it's interesting to note that she herself worked at MacWEKK magazine before coming to Apple, so this is in no small way one person calling the kettle black.
My guess is that Jobs told her to do it.
but the pentium is made by the evil intel, remember? Got to be on a home rollded carusoe"
Or, you know, a Mac.
Mod both those up. Obscure Douglas Adams references always win.
(Profect or Prefect?)
If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you can jacuzziteleconference with.
Jesus needs one of these.
Not having Showtime, I've been following SG-1 on Fox (with all their time-jumping and out-of-order episodes) and the last ep I saw was the cliffhanger when Chronos's (err, our) mothership, and Apophis's ship just came out of 'hyperspace' from running away from the star that Carter made go nova, propelling them entirely outside the galaxy (note that anyone who doesn't already watch SG-1 probably never will after reading that sentence, really, the show's not so contrived).
My question is, now that we're jumping from syndicationto first-run, how many seasons, if any, will I be skipping, and how will I be able to catch up, since apparently Fox is giving up the show (Are they?) and the DVDs are only out for season 1 so far. Anyone know?
Thanks,
"SPs don't migrate from one channel to the next."
I've actually found (and correct me if I'm wrong) that if a show is offered on multiple channels at the time the season pass is created, it's created only for the specific channel you specify, but, if it only appears on one channel at the time you make the season pass, the season pass is 'global' (because it doesn't need to be exclusionary at the time), and will capture shows on other channels whould they come up in the future.
Well, we'll see. I'm in the same boat, and won't be home until too late.
And Simpsons.
"Has it occured to Slashdot's staff that nobody in the real world owns a digital television?"
I'm not sure you understand the point. It's not about digital televisions; it's about digital recorders. A lot of people have ReplayTV, TiVo, or UltimateTV, and a lot more will soon.
The industry doesn't give a crap about whether people watch broadcasts in digital or analog form. They care about chains of perfect copies of content.
"If Archos tried to sue they would have to show copyright infringement before they could show damages."
Sorry, but you're wrong. There are all kinds of intellectual property infringements that have nothing to do with copyright. there are those having to do with patent, trademark, or trade secrets, none of which involve the direct copying of source code.
We're not talking about copying someone's book or CD. IP law is a little more complex than that.
"Reverse engineering is starting to take on a negative connotation, like "hacker" did. "
This is a good point. Most of science is 'reverse engineering' of the natural world. It'd be interesting if the scientist who supplied his own genetic material for the genome project turned around and sued the labs for reverce engineering him.
Even if they posted trade secrets, the DMCA wouldn't apply. Other intellectual property laws would apply, but not the DMCA. To be clear, reverse engineering is still legal, except where the intent of the referse engineering is to circumvent a copy protection or content access management control mechanism. Sunce Archos has nothing to do with e-books, SDMI, or any other access rights mechanism, anyone bandying about DMCA violations needs to learn the difference between the law and the latest meme.