But what about us who hang out with pornographers and predators. They have great stories and then you can watch them being carted off by the undercover cops. Won't you think of the snitches?
First off Pirate bay gives free music, they make their money off ADVERTISING! You instead force people to over pay to buy your music which has 1 track they want 12 tracks they don't want.
Second Organized criminal gangs and terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs... But wait this is about file sharing? So instead of buying a counterfeit Cd, file share.
Illegal file-shares don't care about which work they distribute, so you should care, that way you're not illegal?
Reduce revenues for the record company means less money to take risks on "underground artists" but they'll still find a way to give huge salaries to the crappy teen pop that sells because of sex and exploitation rather than, you know? Good music?
The anti-copyright movement doesn't create jobs, but neither does fat cat record houses that only exists to make money for themselves, the managers and everyone but the artists. Rather independent labels creates jobs and money rather then hoarding it. Oh but it's ok because concerts are where they make the real money?
Piracy is not caused by poverty. No shit. Piracy is caused because of the over pricing of goods. If you're that poor you don't have a computer, but on the other hand even if you have a ton of money you're not going to pay 10 times the value of an object just because a corporation tells you to.
Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI. Ok I agree with this one. But at the same time I dont' feel any moral problem with me downloading a song that is made by a foreign group that's not available in america, namely Super Eurobeat's selection, or dancemania (if I ever find it). Why? Because I still can't get any of these CDs in america with out over paying some importer who likely will pocket the extra 20 a cd.
P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music? So wait if I never heard any of the other songs Britney put out and then I listened to them even though they are popular I didn't discover new music? Yeah I did. Just because THEY know of the music and they think of it as popular doesn't mean someone else has never heard it.
That's 8 of their "truthes" refuted. But let's be honest this is just an attempt for them to say "We're not the bad guys here" and you know what there are people out there trying to break the law just to get the most music. But every time I walk into a music store and hear the idol of the second I find myself wondering if it's wrong to file share? Why do I have to get tons of bad music or DRM pushed at me to get a song I care about? Like I said I can't buy a lot of the music I love in America, it's not available here, and until it is I'm going to be stuck bittorrenting the CDs. Would I buy their records if they were available here? Yeah I would, but I'd also just buy the "best of" instead of every CD and that way get a higher quality recording.
So they can transport data through thin air. Hmm, now it is my understanding that to perform the sort of transport that the Star Trek did, it would have to break our particles down to their base units, send it through space and atmosphere with an accuracy almost unheard of, especially with moving vessels, and then reform our matter into a solid.
Oh yeah, so we can send data over thin air now using quantum setups? We'll be able to do this next week then!!! Or not.
Seriously though, this is interesting and all on it's own but trying to make it sound like this is star trek level teleportation is a sad day, and just silly to boot, and from the sound of it an attempt to get rubes (like our lovely editors) to post the story because it's about star trek not about the very interesting and unique transfer system these physicists have created. +1 for their PR department, -1 for honest journalism.
OK let's first understand that the missile defense system is NOT a weapon, it's a defense system. Think of it as a giant shield. Imagine if you're in a gun fight and everyone is grabbing bigger guns. Then one guy grabs a riot shield, do you act like he's attacking you? So why is Russia?
This is just Geopolitics 105 "acting like a baby to get cool shit". Russia acts like an asshole about this until someone agrees to give them the missile defense system and then they act like they didn't do anything wrong. This is just standard politics. The fact that Putin is acting like the US is a "bad guy" because they figured out how to create a missile defense system just makes me sick. The other insinuation that the US is forcing a global arms race is just silly. If anything we still need disarmament and the defensive weapons is a step in the right direction. To me it sounds like Russia is looking for a reason to reacquire the former soviet republic's lands and is thinking this is it.
The threat that isn't getting enough attention is the fact that Iran is talking similarly about Israeli (claiming in pseudo vague terms that Israeli is going to be destroyed, then claiming they meant they will be disappear and it was a mistranslation). But that's a discussion for another time.
Simple, why actually fight the battle when you can look like the poor SOB, get popular support, get a fair price for the bandwidth, and get fair legislation for the bandwidth. Hell any of those last three results would be a huge win but all three would be devastating.
Same reason why google bought Itunes, they could fight the legal battle rather then watching Youtube get destroyed and legal precedent get made. Now there's a possible legal battle, popular support, and if anything more attention again, google is hero = RIAA is villian.
Google isn't just a great search engine, they are masters of PR, and their planning and legal staff doesn't sound half shabby either. They do a lot of shit that got Microsoft in trouble with consumers but notice the adoring fans? That's what their PR machine can get them in spades.
Their secret? Make the "other guys" evil. Don't fight good companies, but when you go up bastions of obvious corruption (Riaa, Microsoft, the phone companies) how can your fight be anything but "just".
No I care... I care because I want to know what to laugh at when I see idiots carrying them. Like the Nokia phones. Motorola, flips open flips close, dials numbers. Ipod next to Nokia phone plays music. Phone breaks? Listen to music. Ipod breaks, use phone to get it repaired.
But yeah you're right, this is just Apple's grass roots hype machine (get a few Diggs, get a few slashdotted stories. Sell billions no matter the price).
I'm not exactly sure what NIH means (not invented here?) but let's be honest here. Why does fujifilm use XD? NIH, why does Sony force memory stick pro? NIH. Ipod? NIH. And it's not really NIH, it's "no cash for us" syndrome. So a system like they are proposing will never work unless corporations get ungreedy. Let's take a moment to stop laughing.
That being said I hope this does work with all my hardware, but I have a feeling it won't and It'll just be another format (the only thing I use on a daily basis that takes MMC styled components is my Wii, everything else mostly works on proprietary formats and my SD camera's picture quality has dropped).
All this might do is make MMC and SD less popular in future developments from people who subscribe into the "all money flows through us" philosophy of business.
If we can start getting gigs of memories for dollars instead of hundreds I might get on board, but I'm sure I'm going to be paying through the nose for the cards, and I'd still have to reconvert all my existing architecture to their format.
So it's ok or not ok for them to put DRM on for their data? Then I'm assuming it's ok for you to access their software and make it so you can break their DRM?
Let's realize something here. If we allow them to protect content on the drives that are in their machine (note to the first responder to me) then they MUST have the ability to protect their protection systems, if we don't then what's the point.
Is Tivo's approach too aggressive? Ehhh maybe, but is the only other option force them to put themselves in a position where their data is vulnerable? From the sound of it, that's the proposal out there. Let's stop kidding ourselves. Linux is meant to be for everyone, not just who the GPLv3 says it's for. Linus Torvalds has come out against GPLv3 at a couple points, and even when he agrees with it he's left it at "it's best we have today" he's also mentioned the verbosity. I'm unsure of his final stance (I think even he is) but the point is GPLv3 isn't Linux's licensing agreement. It's Stallman's attempt at licensing Linux under his rules, if Microsoft tried that which they did we'd be outraged, but apparently it's OK when Stallman is trying to force this? We can pretend it's only GNU linux but the fact is if a majority of Linux development uses GPLv3 Stallman wins, if a majority does not and uses GPLv2 then Stallman loses and we're back with what everyone is calling "Substandard" protection. And of course at the heart of the battle, the thing that's getting trappled over is Linux. There's other OSS and they'll be in the middle of the battle too, but let's be honest, all OSS doesn't mean crap if Windows becomes the truly dominant OS around because we've seen what they do when they are the only OS for PCs.
You just don't see the problem you said. IBM negotiated a deal. If OSS is to remain free, and retain the corporate benefit (why code for OSS on the weekends when you can code for them as part of your job) then corporations need to have the access. IBM had to broker a deal. To my knowledge that allow IBM to work on mainframe, it doesn't allow Tivo to continue using the software or any others.
Essentially what we are seeing is Linux or GNU linux being brought under the FSF's control, and that's a scary idea because knowing Stallman's stances it won't be long until no business can use OSS unless Stallman personally approves. Granted there's still free Linux outside of FSF, but how long can that last if major development in tools are all done under GPLv3. Stallman wins, linux loses, business lose. Microsoft wins. Only no one will see it until we start realizing that Linux's market share is dropping again to Microsoft or another competitor.
Your so called "freedom to tinker" just means that no company will be allowed any kind of protection for protected content. Tivo is a major advocate for Linux, they've been running Linux boxes for years, however if they can't put DRM on there then they have no way to protect the content that you download.
Great you say, information deserves to be free. Well I hope you agree with that when Tivo closes it's doors because with out DRM they can't get support from the cable companies.
What Linux needs is MORE corporate sponsorship like Tivo and others, companies willing to share their source code, but the only way that can happen is if they can make any money off of their work. If we expect companies to give away all their secrets to the point where they can never use their GPL software with their propriety technology with out risk of outsiders backwards engineering it and linking into the system for free, then a great source of Linux development disappears.
But that's fine right? Because linux isn't about corporations? Who cares about them because companies can never produce as good code as individuals? Seriously, the anti-business side of Linux that worship Stallman as a great defender has made me detest Linux more, as one day that's the side of Linux that will effectively choke it to death.
Ok so I have SD cards for my camera, XD cards for a second camera, Memory stick duo pro for my PSP, My ipod has it's own propriety format, and my Wii can read SD cards.
So exactly why do we need another format? First off if this is a format to end all formats I'm going to have to go out and buy a version of everything I mention that uses this format, except they don't have a PSP, they don't have an Ipod and then don't have a Wii version of it and never will. Why is that? Why couldn't they just use Flash or SD? Those are two of the oldest?
The reason explains all this. You couldn't sell PSP memory at a premium if everyone was already making it. That fact alone tells why this format has a low longevity. Besides which we all already have SD cards/Flash memory/Xd/duo pro, this format just means not only do we have to convert our hardware but we'll have to shell out the money to convert our memory. And at an 8 gig initial offering that's likely going to be 200 bucks a stick at least. Toss in the fact that if you have 4 devices that use it, you need 4 sticks?
Sounds like someone's going to get a good profit if the format sticks, personally I'm going to have to say "no". If they want to sell the format make it interchangeable with all the other formats (you can't), make it extremely cheap (they won't) or go back in time and instead of SD and flash offer this, and make the feature set WORTH switching to it (they can't, they won't, and they are unable to).
How many versions of Matrix has come out so far? We got the Matrix, the super matrix, the trilogy edition, the complete edition, the trilogy HD-DVD, and the complete HD-DVD. (hell it should be required ownership)
Some people don't actually have pirates so there's a higher chance of even getting the DVD. But from what I've seen most people are seeing the facts. DVD is still pretty high resolution (not the same as HD-DVD but higher then what most dvd players are putting out, an upscaling dvd player works perfectly fine for most of us).
Personally even if I had a Blu-ray player I'd only be playing the dvds I had on my upscaler and only consider blu-ray for the newest releases (and then skip it after realizing it's around 10 bucks more per disc).
Exactly. Humans are analog creatures. We can't interpret digital signals in real time. Anything that is produced into a analogy copy will be capturable. Digital formats like Blue ray must be inevitably be converted into an analog form for our enjoyment. Trying to protect your product isn't going to change these facts. Want to sell more? Give us a reason to buy a new version of the product, and higher resolutions isn't selling it (uprezed DVDs still look amazing on my 50 inch TV).
"And as much as we dislike DRM, we just don't think DRM-free tracks alone are worth paying an extra 30 cents a track for.. It would be crazy to pay that premium if you're going to buy the entire album. We'd be more excited if Apple increased the bit rate even further, or--even better--if they used a lossless format."
First off, I've yet to see a lossless formula that WORKS. And by works I mean is easily convertible into mp3/aac so I can use it on a portable player I already own, able to be used. I've seen APE and FLAC, both are too much hassle, and the APE files I got were in japanese. Here's a little fact, Ape doesn't necessarily know how to correctly encode Japanese into ID3, end result? Buffer overflow, bad data. Oh and if they work? They are larger than mp3s and AAC. Lossless codec means all the data has to remain, trust me, that's not a good thing when coupled with all the other little hassles it has.
Second. It'd be crazy to spend 99 cents just to license your files so that you can only use as Apple approves. Paying money to crack the music so I can use it as I want is illegal according to them so why am I paying the money to get locked into their plan. However DRM free music is easily worth 1 dollar and 30 cents because it's mine (It AAC but I can live with that). I don't have to ask permission to use it in another player, I don't have to ask permission to convert it to a data format I choose. Personally I'm fine with 192 for most recordings, I'm not an audiophile, I'm just a listener. If you want the highest grade data, or are an audiophile you'll be buying CDs or fully lossless data, you're not going to fuck with iTunes anyways.
Btw their other idea is to get rid of the apple iBuds and get quality recievers. Hint, This is what got the less interchangable results? I don't exactly see why getting a "higher quality" headset would be desirable if it creates less of a difference instead of more of a difference between two bit rates. Higher quality means I should hear everything. If you are asking people "can you hear the difference" they already should be listening as hard as they can. The theory they try to explain it with doesn't make much sense. They are telling us 30 cents doesn't make a difference but they are trying to sell us on dropping 400 bucks on noise reducing headsets you can get for around 100 if you're clever. Hell they are EARBUDS!!! So far I've notice two things about earbuds. They are uncomfortable, and they are worthless compared to my headphones. If you're talking about noise reducing earbuds just be smart buy a good set of headphones.
Overall a throw away article, I'm still only going to buy DRM less music (I expect you out there to do the same, I'm assuming 30 cents won't kill you, but that's your choice) and hope to soon if Apple ever put the DRMless music out, and had the music I listen to (so far not really). I'm assuming you all are STILL buying music like you are going to. The only mind's this article changes is the cavemen hiding under the rock who still scream "ahhh cds bad", and he's still trying to figure out our compooters, so showing him the internet might not be smart just yet.
First iPod came out, ignored it, second, third, nano, shuffle, 5G... and the rest of their apple crap...
I then purchased an ipod last year at 20 GB for 100 bucks, works fine. It's 3rd gen with the click wheel and at about 1/3 the price plus it works PERFECTLY.
iPhone? I think I'm going to be waiting again until the 4th generation and all the other versions come out to pick up a cheap one. Apple does make great products but all these generations and additions just make the intelligent consumer have to wait until the design and feature set gets locked down.
See there's the exact problem. People think working with corporations are a bad thing and a contradiction. And that's why Linux will die. Because you can't see any benefits from working with corporations. Not every corporation is Microsoft. They want to do business and make money. That doesn't mean they don't want you to make money also, but their goals are their own company's growth. What Linux needs to do is work with companies that are willing to build up Linux as well. The doesn't mean open it up for someone to make a product for it, it means working with them.
If Linux users want Linux to be any more popular they have to open it up a little more and make the system work. OpenOffice is a great step, but let's be honest. It's still not acceptable for corporations because Microsoft is willing to cut deals to get THEIR OS, THEIR office suite, and THEIR mail program as well as IE, and all the other bells and whistles. It still costs them a bit but a license gives them instant technical support and it's friendly and welcoming in it's UI. That's what matters to business, not the fact it's open and expendable.
Linux as a whole will never win against the big M with out getting some help and that help will be in the form of corporations or Linux will continue to spin it's wheels, and the fact the market share's stagnation is what's slowing new development. But instead of trying to work with corporations GPL v3, as well as the general consensuse is "fuck corporations" and I still can't find a way to see that work when you're dealing with an OS that needs programs on it. Why are we pushing aways corporations who might be willing to support us with those programs?
Or are we just going to assume Windows emulation is going to get us through the day? Oh yeah because running Linux and emulating windows is really different than just running windows? That's what we do while gaining support to run all sorts of programs, that's not a viable end game.
Linux itself can continue to be free and open while programs are running on it that are closed. People CAN make money off programs for Linux. Linux doesn't have to be all about free to use, or else we're just going to keep running into the same hurdles we have been. These aren't contradictions, these are possible alliances and ways to open up Linux to a larger group.
I gotta amend this too, it's about securing freedom according to one person or one group. Any law or license will restrict the freedoms of one person to hopefully give freedom to another. A lot of the stuff over the last year that Linux users have done has hurt Linux's reputation and Linux itself rather then help it.
Allow me to point out one issue, one of the biggest problem Linux has is it's not a true corporation or doesn't present itself like that, and it has no true corporation backing. GPLv3 is scaring off corporations interested in working with it, the response from the Novell deal has done the same.
Let me swap this up a little why is Windows so popular. Because IBM picked Dos, Dos lead to Windows, and everyone offers Window's options. Scaring off those who might offer Linux options (not Microsoft and Novell, but others) can only hurt linux as a whole.
It's great that some people are keeping "Linux as it was", an underground market, but then bitching about how Microsoft wins the market share has nothing to do with their tactics, it's more about the outreach of the group, or lack of it. Linux's growth was really strong at a point when it was really easy to get involved in it, With the new GPLs, the new distros, and the infighting it's never been harder, and that's what's currently choking Linux.
Wait for an autopsy then, wait for any shred of proof, but you won't of course, you've shown that. Even though it'll be obvious if he's drunk if they test the blood alcohol, that will take too long. You want to use the death of a poor man you didn't even know to try to push your agenda of getting rid of alcohol, and that is just distasteful.
If fire was fire, then we'd never have cars that ran on multiple fuel sources, Diesal would work for all. Fire can be a VERY different thing, If you don't know anything about aircraft or it that's fine but don't act like it's the same thing, small prop planes use a significantly higher grade of fuel than is available at pumps. Jets require even more power. The type of fuel put into a jet on average is greatly more powerful than "diesel" that people consider.
Funny it's a well known paper it's a reasonably well respected and from a quick look at the other parts of the article I find these facts that the story presented refuted. So why should I expect the other 24 to be so highly correct when this one is blatant falsehoods that have already been disproven.
I've read as far as the guy trying to prove 9/11 didn't happen (actually went to 20 or 21 which is a couple after it) and I gotta say every single one reminds me a bit of global warming, and not in a good way.
First let's set two ground rules. A. Everyone has a stance on global warming. (obviously this is not true, but if you are at all involved in the media than you probably formed an opinion, we're talking about those people as this is an article on the Media.) B. There's liberal biased in the media except for Fox news which is a conservative bias.
If you don't believe either of those facts grow up and come back when you figure this out. Claiming there's not a bias or that you haven't made up your mind isn't about the fact that you're comment is right, it's just that your not actually admitting what you know (or that you're not able to make an opinion, which is a bigger problem).
So why arn't these stories getting more air time? Well let's look at the biggest two (the two haliburton/cheney stories, ok I read to 25, where as 24 is the cheney story). Why are the outlets not ripping our vice president to shreds over this? Well let's assume there's a problem with the story, then reporting on it could be seen as non factual and possibly libel? or maybe instead the news media has grown morals and actually aren't willing to insult our presidential office?
I know I know impossible, so there's gotta be either a problem with the story, or the fact that there's no evidence, or maybe the fact that no one has told the major news outlets, what ever the reason is, we gotta realize it's likely that these stories are similar to FUD.
Or maybe simple on a few of these people don't give a shit. Net neutrality pisses me off, not because it's not important but because the title we've used for it (net neutrality) is annoying and unwieldy. If someone came up with a different name (Internet freedom) people would love to talk about it but Net Neutrality is so distasteful most Americans who watch the news would zone out just after hearing "There's new developments in Net neutrality today"
Remember when the world was all interested in the oceans of the world? Yeah I do too, back in the 90s, but since then people realized "I'm never going to see the ocean, I'm not going scuba diving, there's 75 percent of the world is ocean, so what? ) and they tuned out, Global warming is the "hot topic" of environmentalists and that's what gets the money until people stop caring about it which is happening more and more (like I said people made up their minds and those switching from open stances to closed stances isn't going to make for millions of dollars of funding after a couple more years).
Let me mention the 9/11 issues because that illustrates a third point. The conspiracy of none, aka what happened shortly after 9/11 where people were asking questions about if there really was an attack on the pentagon and so on. People wanted to believe it, however physists and flight experts proved that it could happen exactly as it did. People might not like it but it did. So reading his facts I noticed a problem, the simple fact is that this wasn't "fire" this was a jet's fuel supply burning. It was an jet, not "diesel fuel" I'm not a physicist but I don't see conclusive proof on either of the scholars for 9/11 sites. Oh yeah that's right the entire group has 2 sites. Hmmm.
And so on, is it censorship for most of this stuff, or just poorly set up stories that have factual problems, no scientific basis or just the fact that no one cared after the first announcement of the problem? Who knows maybe some of the 25 stories are worth a second airing, but I have a feeling that we find that a higher percentage are just not as interesting as they sound?
Ahh I knew this would come up, someone takes an accident and a death as an opportunity to push their agenda on everyone. Let's ignore the fact that millions of people drink and get home safely every day.
And let's ignore the fact we don't know anything about the driver in this situation or what is going on. Even the person before him posting that the man used to have seizures is irrelevant because we got an agenda today.
Thank you. This is very show, Jericho jumped before it was on the air. The reason for this is it tried to be a political, no wait it tried to have good family value.... no wait, Love triangles.... no, show how similar post apocalyptic society is like present day...
The thing that really drove me up the wall is they took mini potshots at the president and then changed the meaning of it so it's sort of like a "we were just kidding back then" so if you don't watch the whole episode you just get the political commentary. The only really interesting character was the black guy, and his story turned out to be a real dud. The town was interesting but even Skeet Ulrich who I like turned out to be a dud. I'm glad it's off so i don't have to decide if I wanted to continue to watch it.
Now if someone makes a new Post-apocalyptic show, maybe fallout (the game) based, I'm in.
Oil out of supply in 1999, Global warming killing everyone in 2005, P2P piracy ends with Napster, Limewire, Kazaa.
Seriously it's all just FUD, There's an expiration date, but 2010? What happens when we make a few Class As into Class Bs? oh that's right, more time. I think the key is to figure out how to make the best "IPv6" and a way to make it so my old commodore 64 is willing to work with it (whether that be ISP level conversion or a inexpensive hub, note INEXPENSIVE)
Do I have a commodore 64? Not any more but the point remains there's literally a million devices out there only able to communicate with IPv4. There's actually a million people out there not willing to go through the hassle of going to IPv6 (and probably about that many who are unwilling to change) and if the way they are pushing to get people to switch with FUD like this, I'm guessing it's more than a couple million who don't want IPv6, so it's time to ask ourselves, how can we make IPv6 more attractive than staying with IPv4, and implement these ideas. IPv6 will likely overtake v4 one day, but come on, let's find a way to make people switch rather then just wait for it to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
But what about us who hang out with pornographers and predators. They have great stories and then you can watch them being carted off by the undercover cops. Won't you think of the snitches?
First off Pirate bay gives free music, they make their money off ADVERTISING! You instead force people to over pay to buy your music which has 1 track they want 12 tracks they don't want.
Second Organized criminal gangs and terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs... But wait this is about file sharing? So instead of buying a counterfeit Cd, file share.
Illegal file-shares don't care about which work they distribute, so you should care, that way you're not illegal?
Reduce revenues for the record company means less money to take risks on "underground artists" but they'll still find a way to give huge salaries to the crappy teen pop that sells because of sex and exploitation rather than, you know? Good music?
The anti-copyright movement doesn't create jobs, but neither does fat cat record houses that only exists to make money for themselves, the managers and everyone but the artists. Rather independent labels creates jobs and money rather then hoarding it. Oh but it's ok because concerts are where they make the real money?
Piracy is not caused by poverty. No shit. Piracy is caused because of the over pricing of goods. If you're that poor you don't have a computer, but on the other hand even if you have a ton of money you're not going to pay 10 times the value of an object just because a corporation tells you to.
Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI. Ok I agree with this one. But at the same time I dont' feel any moral problem with me downloading a song that is made by a foreign group that's not available in america, namely Super Eurobeat's selection, or dancemania (if I ever find it). Why? Because I still can't get any of these CDs in america with out over paying some importer who likely will pocket the extra 20 a cd.
P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music? So wait if I never heard any of the other songs Britney put out and then I listened to them even though they are popular I didn't discover new music? Yeah I did. Just because THEY know of the music and they think of it as popular doesn't mean someone else has never heard it.
That's 8 of their "truthes" refuted. But let's be honest this is just an attempt for them to say "We're not the bad guys here" and you know what there are people out there trying to break the law just to get the most music. But every time I walk into a music store and hear the idol of the second I find myself wondering if it's wrong to file share? Why do I have to get tons of bad music or DRM pushed at me to get a song I care about? Like I said I can't buy a lot of the music I love in America, it's not available here, and until it is I'm going to be stuck bittorrenting the CDs. Would I buy their records if they were available here? Yeah I would, but I'd also just buy the "best of" instead of every CD and that way get a higher quality recording.
Keep us updated on this. It's interesting to hear that at least Dell is listening to you.
So they can transport data through thin air. Hmm, now it is my understanding that to perform the sort of transport that the Star Trek did, it would have to break our particles down to their base units, send it through space and atmosphere with an accuracy almost unheard of, especially with moving vessels, and then reform our matter into a solid.
Oh yeah, so we can send data over thin air now using quantum setups? We'll be able to do this next week then!!! Or not.
Seriously though, this is interesting and all on it's own but trying to make it sound like this is star trek level teleportation is a sad day, and just silly to boot, and from the sound of it an attempt to get rubes (like our lovely editors) to post the story because it's about star trek not about the very interesting and unique transfer system these physicists have created. +1 for their PR department, -1 for honest journalism.
OK let's first understand that the missile defense system is NOT a weapon, it's a defense system. Think of it as a giant shield. Imagine if you're in a gun fight and everyone is grabbing bigger guns. Then one guy grabs a riot shield, do you act like he's attacking you? So why is Russia?
This is just Geopolitics 105 "acting like a baby to get cool shit". Russia acts like an asshole about this until someone agrees to give them the missile defense system and then they act like they didn't do anything wrong. This is just standard politics. The fact that Putin is acting like the US is a "bad guy" because they figured out how to create a missile defense system just makes me sick. The other insinuation that the US is forcing a global arms race is just silly. If anything we still need disarmament and the defensive weapons is a step in the right direction. To me it sounds like Russia is looking for a reason to reacquire the former soviet republic's lands and is thinking this is it.
The threat that isn't getting enough attention is the fact that Iran is talking similarly about Israeli (claiming in pseudo vague terms that Israeli is going to be destroyed, then claiming they meant they will be disappear and it was a mistranslation). But that's a discussion for another time.
Simple, why actually fight the battle when you can look like the poor SOB, get popular support, get a fair price for the bandwidth, and get fair legislation for the bandwidth. Hell any of those last three results would be a huge win but all three would be devastating.
Same reason why google bought Itunes, they could fight the legal battle rather then watching Youtube get destroyed and legal precedent get made. Now there's a possible legal battle, popular support, and if anything more attention again, google is hero = RIAA is villian.
Google isn't just a great search engine, they are masters of PR, and their planning and legal staff doesn't sound half shabby either. They do a lot of shit that got Microsoft in trouble with consumers but notice the adoring fans? That's what their PR machine can get them in spades.
Their secret? Make the "other guys" evil. Don't fight good companies, but when you go up bastions of obvious corruption (Riaa, Microsoft, the phone companies) how can your fight be anything but "just".
No I care... I care because I want to know what to laugh at when I see idiots carrying them. Like the Nokia phones. Motorola, flips open flips close, dials numbers. Ipod next to Nokia phone plays music. Phone breaks? Listen to music. Ipod breaks, use phone to get it repaired.
But yeah you're right, this is just Apple's grass roots hype machine (get a few Diggs, get a few slashdotted stories. Sell billions no matter the price).
I'm not exactly sure what NIH means (not invented here?) but let's be honest here. Why does fujifilm use XD? NIH, why does Sony force memory stick pro? NIH. Ipod? NIH. And it's not really NIH, it's "no cash for us" syndrome. So a system like they are proposing will never work unless corporations get ungreedy. Let's take a moment to stop laughing.
That being said I hope this does work with all my hardware, but I have a feeling it won't and It'll just be another format (the only thing I use on a daily basis that takes MMC styled components is my Wii, everything else mostly works on proprietary formats and my SD camera's picture quality has dropped).
All this might do is make MMC and SD less popular in future developments from people who subscribe into the "all money flows through us" philosophy of business.
If we can start getting gigs of memories for dollars instead of hundreds I might get on board, but I'm sure I'm going to be paying through the nose for the cards, and I'd still have to reconvert all my existing architecture to their format.
So it's ok or not ok for them to put DRM on for their data? Then I'm assuming it's ok for you to access their software and make it so you can break their DRM?
Let's realize something here. If we allow them to protect content on the drives that are in their machine (note to the first responder to me) then they MUST have the ability to protect their protection systems, if we don't then what's the point.
Is Tivo's approach too aggressive? Ehhh maybe, but is the only other option force them to put themselves in a position where their data is vulnerable? From the sound of it, that's the proposal out there. Let's stop kidding ourselves. Linux is meant to be for everyone, not just who the GPLv3 says it's for. Linus Torvalds has come out against GPLv3 at a couple points, and even when he agrees with it he's left it at "it's best we have today" he's also mentioned the verbosity. I'm unsure of his final stance (I think even he is) but the point is GPLv3 isn't Linux's licensing agreement. It's Stallman's attempt at licensing Linux under his rules, if Microsoft tried that which they did we'd be outraged, but apparently it's OK when Stallman is trying to force this? We can pretend it's only GNU linux but the fact is if a majority of Linux development uses GPLv3 Stallman wins, if a majority does not and uses GPLv2 then Stallman loses and we're back with what everyone is calling "Substandard" protection. And of course at the heart of the battle, the thing that's getting trappled over is Linux. There's other OSS and they'll be in the middle of the battle too, but let's be honest, all OSS doesn't mean crap if Windows becomes the truly dominant OS around because we've seen what they do when they are the only OS for PCs.
You just don't see the problem you said. IBM negotiated a deal. If OSS is to remain free, and retain the corporate benefit (why code for OSS on the weekends when you can code for them as part of your job) then corporations need to have the access. IBM had to broker a deal. To my knowledge that allow IBM to work on mainframe, it doesn't allow Tivo to continue using the software or any others.
Essentially what we are seeing is Linux or GNU linux being brought under the FSF's control, and that's a scary idea because knowing Stallman's stances it won't be long until no business can use OSS unless Stallman personally approves. Granted there's still free Linux outside of FSF, but how long can that last if major development in tools are all done under GPLv3. Stallman wins, linux loses, business lose. Microsoft wins. Only no one will see it until we start realizing that Linux's market share is dropping again to Microsoft or another competitor.
Welcome to the destruction of OSS.
Your so called "freedom to tinker" just means that no company will be allowed any kind of protection for protected content. Tivo is a major advocate for Linux, they've been running Linux boxes for years, however if they can't put DRM on there then they have no way to protect the content that you download.
Great you say, information deserves to be free. Well I hope you agree with that when Tivo closes it's doors because with out DRM they can't get support from the cable companies.
What Linux needs is MORE corporate sponsorship like Tivo and others, companies willing to share their source code, but the only way that can happen is if they can make any money off of their work. If we expect companies to give away all their secrets to the point where they can never use their GPL software with their propriety technology with out risk of outsiders backwards engineering it and linking into the system for free, then a great source of Linux development disappears.
But that's fine right? Because linux isn't about corporations? Who cares about them because companies can never produce as good code as individuals? Seriously, the anti-business side of Linux that worship Stallman as a great defender has made me detest Linux more, as one day that's the side of Linux that will effectively choke it to death.
Ok so I have SD cards for my camera, XD cards for a second camera, Memory stick duo pro for my PSP, My ipod has it's own propriety format, and my Wii can read SD cards.
So exactly why do we need another format? First off if this is a format to end all formats I'm going to have to go out and buy a version of everything I mention that uses this format, except they don't have a PSP, they don't have an Ipod and then don't have a Wii version of it and never will. Why is that? Why couldn't they just use Flash or SD? Those are two of the oldest?
The reason explains all this. You couldn't sell PSP memory at a premium if everyone was already making it. That fact alone tells why this format has a low longevity. Besides which we all already have SD cards/Flash memory/Xd/duo pro, this format just means not only do we have to convert our hardware but we'll have to shell out the money to convert our memory. And at an 8 gig initial offering that's likely going to be 200 bucks a stick at least. Toss in the fact that if you have 4 devices that use it, you need 4 sticks?
Sounds like someone's going to get a good profit if the format sticks, personally I'm going to have to say "no". If they want to sell the format make it interchangeable with all the other formats (you can't), make it extremely cheap (they won't) or go back in time and instead of SD and flash offer this, and make the feature set WORTH switching to it (they can't, they won't, and they are unable to).
How many versions of Matrix has come out so far? We got the Matrix, the super matrix, the trilogy edition, the complete edition, the trilogy HD-DVD, and the complete HD-DVD. (hell it should be required ownership)
Some people don't actually have pirates so there's a higher chance of even getting the DVD. But from what I've seen most people are seeing the facts. DVD is still pretty high resolution (not the same as HD-DVD but higher then what most dvd players are putting out, an upscaling dvd player works perfectly fine for most of us).
Personally even if I had a Blu-ray player I'd only be playing the dvds I had on my upscaler and only consider blu-ray for the newest releases (and then skip it after realizing it's around 10 bucks more per disc).
Exactly. Humans are analog creatures. We can't interpret digital signals in real time. Anything that is produced into a analogy copy will be capturable. Digital formats like Blue ray must be inevitably be converted into an analog form for our enjoyment. Trying to protect your product isn't going to change these facts. Want to sell more? Give us a reason to buy a new version of the product, and higher resolutions isn't selling it (uprezed DVDs still look amazing on my 50 inch TV).
"And as much as we dislike DRM, we just don't think DRM-free tracks alone are worth paying an extra 30 cents a track for.. It would be crazy to pay that premium if you're going to buy the entire album. We'd be more excited if Apple increased the bit rate even further, or--even better--if they used a lossless format."
First off, I've yet to see a lossless formula that WORKS. And by works I mean is easily convertible into mp3/aac so I can use it on a portable player I already own, able to be used. I've seen APE and FLAC, both are too much hassle, and the APE files I got were in japanese. Here's a little fact, Ape doesn't necessarily know how to correctly encode Japanese into ID3, end result? Buffer overflow, bad data. Oh and if they work? They are larger than mp3s and AAC. Lossless codec means all the data has to remain, trust me, that's not a good thing when coupled with all the other little hassles it has.
Second. It'd be crazy to spend 99 cents just to license your files so that you can only use as Apple approves. Paying money to crack the music so I can use it as I want is illegal according to them so why am I paying the money to get locked into their plan. However DRM free music is easily worth 1 dollar and 30 cents because it's mine (It AAC but I can live with that). I don't have to ask permission to use it in another player, I don't have to ask permission to convert it to a data format I choose. Personally I'm fine with 192 for most recordings, I'm not an audiophile, I'm just a listener. If you want the highest grade data, or are an audiophile you'll be buying CDs or fully lossless data, you're not going to fuck with iTunes anyways.
Btw their other idea is to get rid of the apple iBuds and get quality recievers. Hint, This is what got the less interchangable results? I don't exactly see why getting a "higher quality" headset would be desirable if it creates less of a difference instead of more of a difference between two bit rates. Higher quality means I should hear everything. If you are asking people "can you hear the difference" they already should be listening as hard as they can. The theory they try to explain it with doesn't make much sense. They are telling us 30 cents doesn't make a difference but they are trying to sell us on dropping 400 bucks on noise reducing headsets you can get for around 100 if you're clever. Hell they are EARBUDS!!! So far I've notice two things about earbuds. They are uncomfortable, and they are worthless compared to my headphones. If you're talking about noise reducing earbuds just be smart buy a good set of headphones.
Overall a throw away article, I'm still only going to buy DRM less music (I expect you out there to do the same, I'm assuming 30 cents won't kill you, but that's your choice) and hope to soon if Apple ever put the DRMless music out, and had the music I listen to (so far not really). I'm assuming you all are STILL buying music like you are going to. The only mind's this article changes is the cavemen hiding under the rock who still scream "ahhh cds bad", and he's still trying to figure out our compooters, so showing him the internet might not be smart just yet.
First iPod came out, ignored it, second, third, nano, shuffle, 5G... and the rest of their apple crap...
I then purchased an ipod last year at 20 GB for 100 bucks, works fine. It's 3rd gen with the click wheel and at about 1/3 the price plus it works PERFECTLY.
iPhone? I think I'm going to be waiting again until the 4th generation and all the other versions come out to pick up a cheap one. Apple does make great products but all these generations and additions just make the intelligent consumer have to wait until the design and feature set gets locked down.
See there's the exact problem. People think working with corporations are a bad thing and a contradiction. And that's why Linux will die. Because you can't see any benefits from working with corporations. Not every corporation is Microsoft. They want to do business and make money. That doesn't mean they don't want you to make money also, but their goals are their own company's growth. What Linux needs to do is work with companies that are willing to build up Linux as well. The doesn't mean open it up for someone to make a product for it, it means working with them.
If Linux users want Linux to be any more popular they have to open it up a little more and make the system work. OpenOffice is a great step, but let's be honest. It's still not acceptable for corporations because Microsoft is willing to cut deals to get THEIR OS, THEIR office suite, and THEIR mail program as well as IE, and all the other bells and whistles. It still costs them a bit but a license gives them instant technical support and it's friendly and welcoming in it's UI. That's what matters to business, not the fact it's open and expendable.
Linux as a whole will never win against the big M with out getting some help and that help will be in the form of corporations or Linux will continue to spin it's wheels, and the fact the market share's stagnation is what's slowing new development. But instead of trying to work with corporations GPL v3, as well as the general consensuse is "fuck corporations" and I still can't find a way to see that work when you're dealing with an OS that needs programs on it. Why are we pushing aways corporations who might be willing to support us with those programs?
Or are we just going to assume Windows emulation is going to get us through the day? Oh yeah because running Linux and emulating windows is really different than just running windows? That's what we do while gaining support to run all sorts of programs, that's not a viable end game.
Linux itself can continue to be free and open while programs are running on it that are closed. People CAN make money off programs for Linux. Linux doesn't have to be all about free to use, or else we're just going to keep running into the same hurdles we have been. These aren't contradictions, these are possible alliances and ways to open up Linux to a larger group.
I gotta amend this too, it's about securing freedom according to one person or one group. Any law or license will restrict the freedoms of one person to hopefully give freedom to another. A lot of the stuff over the last year that Linux users have done has hurt Linux's reputation and Linux itself rather then help it.
Allow me to point out one issue, one of the biggest problem Linux has is it's not a true corporation or doesn't present itself like that, and it has no true corporation backing. GPLv3 is scaring off corporations interested in working with it, the response from the Novell deal has done the same.
Let me swap this up a little why is Windows so popular. Because IBM picked Dos, Dos lead to Windows, and everyone offers Window's options. Scaring off those who might offer Linux options (not Microsoft and Novell, but others) can only hurt linux as a whole.
It's great that some people are keeping "Linux as it was", an underground market, but then bitching about how Microsoft wins the market share has nothing to do with their tactics, it's more about the outreach of the group, or lack of it. Linux's growth was really strong at a point when it was really easy to get involved in it, With the new GPLs, the new distros, and the infighting it's never been harder, and that's what's currently choking Linux.
Wait for an autopsy then, wait for any shred of proof, but you won't of course, you've shown that. Even though it'll be obvious if he's drunk if they test the blood alcohol, that will take too long. You want to use the death of a poor man you didn't even know to try to push your agenda of getting rid of alcohol, and that is just distasteful.
If fire was fire, then we'd never have cars that ran on multiple fuel sources, Diesal would work for all. Fire can be a VERY different thing, If you don't know anything about aircraft or it that's fine but don't act like it's the same thing, small prop planes use a significantly higher grade of fuel than is available at pumps. Jets require even more power. The type of fuel put into a jet on average is greatly more powerful than "diesel" that people consider.
r y_law/1227842.html?page=4
So I could be wrong.. I really could, so I did a 5 minute search on the internet for "jet fuel temperatures" and I found this site. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/milita
Funny it's a well known paper it's a reasonably well respected and from a quick look at the other parts of the article I find these facts that the story presented refuted. So why should I expect the other 24 to be so highly correct when this one is blatant falsehoods that have already been disproven.
I've read as far as the guy trying to prove 9/11 didn't happen (actually went to 20 or 21 which is a couple after it) and I gotta say every single one reminds me a bit of global warming, and not in a good way.
First let's set two ground rules. A. Everyone has a stance on global warming. (obviously this is not true, but if you are at all involved in the media than you probably formed an opinion, we're talking about those people as this is an article on the Media.) B. There's liberal biased in the media except for Fox news which is a conservative bias.
If you don't believe either of those facts grow up and come back when you figure this out. Claiming there's not a bias or that you haven't made up your mind isn't about the fact that you're comment is right, it's just that your not actually admitting what you know (or that you're not able to make an opinion, which is a bigger problem).
So why arn't these stories getting more air time? Well let's look at the biggest two (the two haliburton/cheney stories, ok I read to 25, where as 24 is the cheney story). Why are the outlets not ripping our vice president to shreds over this? Well let's assume there's a problem with the story, then reporting on it could be seen as non factual and possibly libel? or maybe instead the news media has grown morals and actually aren't willing to insult our presidential office?
I know I know impossible, so there's gotta be either a problem with the story, or the fact that there's no evidence, or maybe the fact that no one has told the major news outlets, what ever the reason is, we gotta realize it's likely that these stories are similar to FUD.
Or maybe simple on a few of these people don't give a shit. Net neutrality pisses me off, not because it's not important but because the title we've used for it (net neutrality) is annoying and unwieldy. If someone came up with a different name (Internet freedom) people would love to talk about it but Net Neutrality is so distasteful most Americans who watch the news would zone out just after hearing "There's new developments in Net neutrality today"
Remember when the world was all interested in the oceans of the world? Yeah I do too, back in the 90s, but since then people realized "I'm never going to see the ocean, I'm not going scuba diving, there's 75 percent of the world is ocean, so what? ) and they tuned out, Global warming is the "hot topic" of environmentalists and that's what gets the money until people stop caring about it which is happening more and more (like I said people made up their minds and those switching from open stances to closed stances isn't going to make for millions of dollars of funding after a couple more years).
Let me mention the 9/11 issues because that illustrates a third point. The conspiracy of none, aka what happened shortly after 9/11 where people were asking questions about if there really was an attack on the pentagon and so on. People wanted to believe it, however physists and flight experts proved that it could happen exactly as it did. People might not like it but it did. So reading his facts I noticed a problem, the simple fact is that this wasn't "fire" this was a jet's fuel supply burning. It was an jet, not "diesel fuel" I'm not a physicist but I don't see conclusive proof on either of the scholars for 9/11 sites. Oh yeah that's right the entire group has 2 sites. Hmmm.
And so on, is it censorship for most of this stuff, or just poorly set up stories that have factual problems, no scientific basis or just the fact that no one cared after the first announcement of the problem? Who knows maybe some of the 25 stories are worth a second airing, but I have a feeling that we find that a higher percentage are just not as interesting as they sound?
Well that's why it's 1400 dollars instead of 5 bucks for the pringle can 20 for the antenna. Someone already found out.
Ahh I knew this would come up, someone takes an accident and a death as an opportunity to push their agenda on everyone. Let's ignore the fact that millions of people drink and get home safely every day.
And let's ignore the fact we don't know anything about the driver in this situation or what is going on. Even the person before him posting that the man used to have seizures is irrelevant because we got an agenda today.
Thank you. This is very show, Jericho jumped before it was on the air. The reason for this is it tried to be a political, no wait it tried to have good family value.... no wait, Love triangles.... no, show how similar post apocalyptic society is like present day...
The thing that really drove me up the wall is they took mini potshots at the president and then changed the meaning of it so it's sort of like a "we were just kidding back then" so if you don't watch the whole episode you just get the political commentary. The only really interesting character was the black guy, and his story turned out to be a real dud. The town was interesting but even Skeet Ulrich who I like turned out to be a dud. I'm glad it's off so i don't have to decide if I wanted to continue to watch it.
Now if someone makes a new Post-apocalyptic show, maybe fallout (the game) based, I'm in.
Oil out of supply in 1999, Global warming killing everyone in 2005, P2P piracy ends with Napster, Limewire, Kazaa.
Seriously it's all just FUD, There's an expiration date, but 2010? What happens when we make a few Class As into Class Bs? oh that's right, more time. I think the key is to figure out how to make the best "IPv6" and a way to make it so my old commodore 64 is willing to work with it (whether that be ISP level conversion or a inexpensive hub, note INEXPENSIVE)
Do I have a commodore 64? Not any more but the point remains there's literally a million devices out there only able to communicate with IPv4. There's actually a million people out there not willing to go through the hassle of going to IPv6 (and probably about that many who are unwilling to change) and if the way they are pushing to get people to switch with FUD like this, I'm guessing it's more than a couple million who don't want IPv6, so it's time to ask ourselves, how can we make IPv6 more attractive than staying with IPv4, and implement these ideas. IPv6 will likely overtake v4 one day, but come on, let's find a way to make people switch rather then just wait for it to happen.