Comic companies already do this in the form of trade paperbacks, which is like getting a dozen back issues for $15.
But trade paperbacks are only available for select, highly-demanded storylines. I'm talking about entire runs of popular titles being available online.
I suspect there is not a lot of demand for eBook versions of comic books, it's not like there is a lot of comic book piracy out there on usenet (aside from some niche manga). Since the comic industry hasn't had to deal with piracy to the same degree as the music or book industry has, I assume most of the appeal of comics is the collectable aspect, which wouldn't be satisfied by selling by them in eBook format.
The main advantages of eBooks would be portability -- having the entire book in one file, instead of 22 files for 22 pages -- and scalability -- having the pages automatically change size to fit my screen. Printability would be an added bonus. Piracy isn't a concern, except in the sense that a publisher would want to prevent individuals from (easily) making their purchased copy available to countless others online for no cost.
7It's no secret that comic book publishers make zero profit on back-issue sales; that's entirely the realm of the collector. So why shouldn't Marvel, DC et.al. get into the business of providing their own back-issue archives in downloadable eBook format?
It's perfect, really. The publisher gets paid for books they otherwise wouldn't want to reprint. They could even include new advertisements between the pages, although I'd rather pay more for an ad-less eBook myself. Fans get the back issues they want to read at a fraction of the cost and hassle. Collectors will still get top dollar for the most collectible original, physical publication. Store owners don't have to worry as much about sealing their back issues in taped bags. And the entire industry gets a low-cost kick in the butt.
Of course, there are some losers. Store owners who earn money from non-collectible back issues will have more trouble selling those, even as the collectible back issues become more valuable to fans. Publishers may not make as much money from trade paperbacks collecting popular stories -- then again, there's really no substitute for the printed page, especially where several issues are concerned. But I think the potential increase is worth it. And, of course, the publishers themselves may have to buy back their own back issues in order to make them available online.
Still, it would be an excellent way for Marvel to cash in on the long-running popularity of the X-Men, or DC and Batman, or Dark Horse and Aliens. I can think of plenty of fans and even not-so-fans who'd happily pay $2 per back issue of a known hit when new paper issues of unknown ones are priced at $3 apiece.
Why do people think that having a law regarding exporting software/code is going to stop ANYONE from using it?
And laws against theft don't stop determined shoplifters, and laws against copyright infringement don't stop determined Napster users, et cetera, et cetera. But that's not the point. The point is to make it (a) difficult and (b) punishable if someone does it, in order to keep it to a minimum.
A better argument would be to point out that there are ways to circumvent the law without breaking it -- by simply creating the software/hardware in another country using the same mathematical principles, for instance. But for the love of Pete, people, stop using "laws can always be broken" as an argument against making laws.
the disadvantages - broken tracks, cancelled transfers - and a complete inability to stream or preview tracks.
The thing I hated about Napster, and which I still hate about its replacements (Morpheus et.al.), is the unreliability of it all. I can theoretically access an enormous library of files on Morpheus, but in practice, half of these files are undownloadable from other people's machines due to inaccurately-reported download times, spontaneous shut-downs or crashes on their end, and so forth. The ability to download a file from multiple users is only useful insofar as I can connect to their machines in the first place.
This is why the music label's efforts to put their own music online will eventually supplant peer-sharing -- provided they try to provide their entire library of songs. To typical consumers, it won't matter in the end what file format they offer or how open it is -- only whether they can find and download it reliably and quickly. In almost all cases, I can do this better from a central server or network of servers (Akamai could make a killing here) than I can by hitting some other user's cable modem.
I'd gladly pay $10-$15 a month if it meant I could download music online without having to constantly check and make sure it'll get to me by the end of the week.
Then they need to go after individule [sic] perpertrators, who are innocent until proven guilty, I might add.
That was pretty impulsive. The whole point of the article is that there aren't any perpetrators, yet, and Philips wants to introduce technology to prevent it from becoming a problem at all. I mean, it's not like they're under obligation to let you access the technology over the shelf at all, is it?
"Fair use," you say -- but how do you apply it to this example? Fair permission to extract a sample for use in an news article? Fair backups in case your original gets damaged? Neither situation is really a factor where wireless re-transmission of someone else's broadcasts or media are concerned, unless you can make a rock-solid argument that Wi-Fi'ing your DVD player to your PC is the only practical way to make a legitimate backup.
I was puzzled by this concept, myself -- surely I have the right to broadcast my cable TV signal to as many televisions or computers in my own house as I see fit?
But if we're talking about Wi-Fi, then the problem isn't just inside my house. I'm essentially empowering any Wi-Fi receiver within my broadcast range to see what I'm watching on my own system -- whether it's television, cable TV, pay-per-view, or pre-recorded home video.
Think of the potential problems. A student in a dorm room could broadcast a rented DVD to every other student in their building, a clear violation of the big "at-home use" FBI warning you see at the start of the movie. A pay-per-view sports broadcast could be sent to everyone in my apartment building. My next-door neighbor could pirate my cable TV feed just by tuning into/cracking my Wi-Fi frequency. It's not a problem if we're talking about broadcast television signals, but anything else is a major violation of copyright, essentially turning my home system into a small pirate broadcast station.
What could be more simple than the same connector used on 99% of the world's personal computers?
How about not using any connector at all, and simply sticking with the flat panel display that comes with the iMac and iBook?
There's no good reason for Apple to waste space on a computer designed to be as small as possible to hook a second monitor up to what's supposed to be, and this is important, a consumer PC. Pros and developers need second monitors. Consumers almost never do.
I'm a little fascinated by Slashdot's ongoing fixation on this device. I mean, it is Apple-only at this point (Mediafour's PC-compatability efforts notwithstanding) and no one seems to be talking about Linux interactivity at all, aside from suggestions on how to basically hack into the hard drive. People keep saying it's expensive, that nobody will want it, and yet the local nerds keep bringing it up.
My only theory as to why is because it may not be Linux-y, but it's still a fascinating device. Aside from the technical challenges involved in accessing it from Linux, it's still a totally unique approach to MP3 players, from the interface to the controls to the expandability to the super-high-speed FireWire. It's Apple, which means it's about as proprietary as they come, but the geeks keep wanting to take it apart and make it work for them.
And I don't think it's because they want to break the proprietariness. Apple does that for convenience (theirs), not to lock people out, and anyone with a FireWire port on their Linux box and enough software-writing experience can eventually get it to sync with their favorite MP3 player. Microsoft locks down their software and people hack it because they don't like being told "no." Apple does it to sell iMacs, and people hack it because they don't want an iMac.
But what that means is they do want the iPod. If it weren't so expensive, I don't doubt it'd be Linux-ized already. Hopefully next year it'll be $100 less with a 10GB model replacing it, and we'll see a little more hacking going on.
But to me, this sounds like a success story for Apple. Yes, we all know its pricey and proprietary, but Slashdotters just can't seem to keep their eyes off of it. And if Apple can draw that much drool from the free software community, I think it's proof positive they know what they're doing.
Existing compression technologies are currently dependent upon the mapping and encoding of redundantly occurring mathematical structures, which are limited in application to single or several pass reduction. ZeoSync's approach to the encoding of practically random sequences is expected to evolve into the reduction of already reduced information across many reduction iterations, producing a previously unattainable reduction capability. ZeoSync intentionally randomizes naturally occurring patterns to form entropy-like random sequences through its patent pending technology known as Zero Space Tuner?. Once randomized, ZeoSync's BinaryAccelerator? encodes these singular-bit-variance strings within complex combinatorial series to result in massively reduced BitPerfect? equivalents. The combined TunerAccelerator? is expected to be commercially available during 2003.
Now, I'm not as geeky as some, but this looks suspiciously like technobabble designed to impress a bunch of investors and provide long-term promises which can easily be evaded by the end of the next fiscal year. I mean, if they really did have such a technology available today, why is it going to take them an entire twelve months to integrate it into a piece of commercial software?
Compression, after all, is removing all redundancy from the original data.
Of course, that's only the definition of lossless compression. Lossy compression also exists, with better compression rates and the obligatory sacrifice of detail, and that's what multimedia often relies on.
The average lifespan is only that long thanks to modern advances in medicine, disease cures, etc. Without them, the average human could expect to live maybe 50 years, although menopause might also come a little earlier.
But you can't think of those years as being wasted. After all, if a woman has children as late as 40, she'd certainly like to raise them to adulthood (and then help them learn to raise their own children) before she dies.
As a matter of fact, "The Rescuers Down Under" (1990) was Disney's first "computer-generated" movie in the sense that every cel was painted on computer, instead of by hand. Movies like "The Lion King" and "Beauty and the Beast" have also used CGI characters (wildebeasts and dancing spoons) that look very much like hand-drawn animations.
What the article means, of course, is using fully 3D-rendered CGI with textures and shadows that would be nearly impossible to create using traditional animation. The distance between digital painting and 3D modelling is absolutely night and day.
For simplicity's sake, let's think about quadratic equations for a second. You can solve them easily, but if you want to use them in a larger program, you could create a QuadEq object in OOP with the following properties:
coef_A, coef_B, and coef_C as the three coefficients
root_1 and root_2 as the two roots of the equation
deriv_1 and deriv_2 as the first and second derivatives of the equation
An OO programmer would then add methods to set, retrieve, and calculate those properties based on what's been entered. And the QuadEq object would be entirely portable and easily amplified for future equations.
I don't think choosing OOP is a matter of being the only tool to solve certain problems. However, it is often the most efficient way to solve large, rapidly-changing problems. But like you said, other problems (like many of the ones I encounter in web development) will be small and uncomplicated enough that the overhead of OOP isn't worth the trouble.
Re:Because it's only special effects?
on
Attack of the Clones
·
· Score: 5, Funny
There will be some unrestricted files in MP3 format, but when the rights holder requests it, we'll wrap their music files in a security format that defines how the file can be used.
In other words: we've been legally required to implement a security layer on most MP3 files. But it's just a code wrapper, and if you're persistent enough, you can strip it right back off. Just don't mention our name on your "Downloads" page.
Slashdot just linked to the story; they didn't originate it. They would've had no way to report the information (at least not in Slashdot's usual manner) without pointing people to the actual discoverer of the problem, unless AOL has an article on it somewhere.
It is very irresponsible of the original writer to post an explicit method to exploit the crack, however. At least there's one redeeming feature: the article also tells readers how to protect themselves from the crack by altering their preferences, and also that AOL is fixing the problem server-side.
The crack was/is already out there, for people who enjoy using that sort of thing. Don't blame this site for pointing people to it just because Slashdot has a higher readership.
Eagle Scout, the highest rank in Boy Scouts, has to be achieved by the age of 18. To get there, you need to accomplish every other rank before it, some twenty-one merit badges in various subjects, and a self-designed project to benefit the community and demonstrate leadership. Only 2% of American Scouts achieve it, and colleges and jobs actually recognize it -- not because they like Scouting (note: this isn't nearly as impressive after age 25) but because it shows you possess initiative, leadership, and determination, and that you can finish a difficult task set before you.
College degrees have a similar effect. Besides showing that a major university considers you qualified and educated in your field, it proves that you're willing and able to achieve a difficult and long-term goal set before you by yourself. The goal isn't to prove you know your stuff, but to prove you can prove it, and hang in there long enough to impress someone much bigger than your corporate boss.
...for a long time, that they were getting paid by the advertisers themselves for hosting their commercials. It seemed a perfect scheme. I was honestly surprised when I learned they weren't (and yet the advertisers weren't protesting; why complain about free advertising which they normally had to pay for?)
If they'd just established a revenue model that way, no doubt they'd still be afloat. Ah well, so goes the market.
It doesn't seem to be discussed in this article, but there is much progress being made on "3D copiers," computerized machines that will build complicated 3-dimensional objects one layer at a time out of ice or plastics. Because of how these objects are constructed, shapes that would be impossible to carve from a solid mass can be "molded" from the bottom up or from the inside-out.
If 3D chip design proliferates, I predict that these two technologies will eventually merge. Sophisticated chips will be assembled one layer at a time, perhaps one layer of atoms at a time, with electronic pathways twisting and turning through a three-dimensional block of material designed to ferry heat away from the core of the device. The main advantage, of course, would be enabling shorter pathways from one part of the chip to another, improving further as design improves. Perhaps in time motherboards would be replaced by "motherblocks" and the entire computer will become far more portable.
Slashdot Mirror
Comic companies already do this in the form of trade paperbacks, which is like getting a dozen back issues for $15.
But trade paperbacks are only available for select, highly-demanded storylines. I'm talking about entire runs of popular titles being available online.
I suspect there is not a lot of demand for eBook versions of comic books, it's not like there is a lot of comic book piracy out there on usenet (aside from some niche manga). Since the comic industry hasn't had to deal with piracy to the same degree as the music or book industry has, I assume most of the appeal of comics is the collectable aspect, which wouldn't be satisfied by selling by them in eBook format.
The main advantages of eBooks would be portability -- having the entire book in one file, instead of 22 files for 22 pages -- and scalability -- having the pages automatically change size to fit my screen. Printability would be an added bonus. Piracy isn't a concern, except in the sense that a publisher would want to prevent individuals from (easily) making their purchased copy available to countless others online for no cost.
7It's no secret that comic book publishers make zero profit on back-issue sales; that's entirely the realm of the collector. So why shouldn't Marvel, DC et.al. get into the business of providing their own back-issue archives in downloadable eBook format?
It's perfect, really. The publisher gets paid for books they otherwise wouldn't want to reprint. They could even include new advertisements between the pages, although I'd rather pay more for an ad-less eBook myself. Fans get the back issues they want to read at a fraction of the cost and hassle. Collectors will still get top dollar for the most collectible original, physical publication. Store owners don't have to worry as much about sealing their back issues in taped bags. And the entire industry gets a low-cost kick in the butt.
Of course, there are some losers. Store owners who earn money from non-collectible back issues will have more trouble selling those, even as the collectible back issues become more valuable to fans. Publishers may not make as much money from trade paperbacks collecting popular stories -- then again, there's really no substitute for the printed page, especially where several issues are concerned. But I think the potential increase is worth it. And, of course, the publishers themselves may have to buy back their own back issues in order to make them available online.
Still, it would be an excellent way for Marvel to cash in on the long-running popularity of the X-Men, or DC and Batman, or Dark Horse and Aliens. I can think of plenty of fans and even not-so-fans who'd happily pay $2 per back issue of a known hit when new paper issues of unknown ones are priced at $3 apiece.
Why do people think that having a law regarding exporting software/code is going to stop ANYONE from using it?
And laws against theft don't stop determined shoplifters, and laws against copyright infringement don't stop determined Napster users, et cetera, et cetera. But that's not the point. The point is to make it (a) difficult and (b) punishable if someone does it, in order to keep it to a minimum.
A better argument would be to point out that there are ways to circumvent the law without breaking it -- by simply creating the software/hardware in another country using the same mathematical principles, for instance. But for the love of Pete, people, stop using "laws can always be broken" as an argument against making laws.
A software company said to the public, "Our product is unbreakable." The public replied, "No, you are not unbreakable."
Another software company said to the public, "Our product is not unbreakable." And the public replied, "You're right, you are not unbreakable."
the disadvantages - broken tracks, cancelled transfers - and a complete inability to stream or preview tracks.
The thing I hated about Napster, and which I still hate about its replacements (Morpheus et.al.), is the unreliability of it all. I can theoretically access an enormous library of files on Morpheus, but in practice, half of these files are undownloadable from other people's machines due to inaccurately-reported download times, spontaneous shut-downs or crashes on their end, and so forth. The ability to download a file from multiple users is only useful insofar as I can connect to their machines in the first place.
This is why the music label's efforts to put their own music online will eventually supplant peer-sharing -- provided they try to provide their entire library of songs. To typical consumers, it won't matter in the end what file format they offer or how open it is -- only whether they can find and download it reliably and quickly. In almost all cases, I can do this better from a central server or network of servers (Akamai could make a killing here) than I can by hitting some other user's cable modem.
I'd gladly pay $10-$15 a month if it meant I could download music online without having to constantly check and make sure it'll get to me by the end of the week.
Then they need to go after individule [sic] perpertrators, who are innocent until proven guilty, I might add.
That was pretty impulsive. The whole point of the article is that there aren't any perpetrators, yet, and Philips wants to introduce technology to prevent it from becoming a problem at all. I mean, it's not like they're under obligation to let you access the technology over the shelf at all, is it?
"Fair use," you say -- but how do you apply it to this example? Fair permission to extract a sample for use in an news article? Fair backups in case your original gets damaged? Neither situation is really a factor where wireless re-transmission of someone else's broadcasts or media are concerned, unless you can make a rock-solid argument that Wi-Fi'ing your DVD player to your PC is the only practical way to make a legitimate backup.
I was puzzled by this concept, myself -- surely I have the right to broadcast my cable TV signal to as many televisions or computers in my own house as I see fit?
But if we're talking about Wi-Fi, then the problem isn't just inside my house. I'm essentially empowering any Wi-Fi receiver within my broadcast range to see what I'm watching on my own system -- whether it's television, cable TV, pay-per-view, or pre-recorded home video.
Think of the potential problems. A student in a dorm room could broadcast a rented DVD to every other student in their building, a clear violation of the big "at-home use" FBI warning you see at the start of the movie. A pay-per-view sports broadcast could be sent to everyone in my apartment building. My next-door neighbor could pirate my cable TV feed just by tuning into/cracking my Wi-Fi frequency. It's not a problem if we're talking about broadcast television signals, but anything else is a major violation of copyright, essentially turning my home system into a small pirate broadcast station.
What could be more simple than the same connector used on 99% of the world's personal computers?
How about not using any connector at all, and simply sticking with the flat panel display that comes with the iMac and iBook?
There's no good reason for Apple to waste space on a computer designed to be as small as possible to hook a second monitor up to what's supposed to be, and this is important, a consumer PC. Pros and developers need second monitors. Consumers almost never do.
The Treo 10, which has already gone here.
I'm a little fascinated by Slashdot's ongoing fixation on this device. I mean, it is Apple-only at this point (Mediafour's PC-compatability efforts notwithstanding) and no one seems to be talking about Linux interactivity at all, aside from suggestions on how to basically hack into the hard drive. People keep saying it's expensive, that nobody will want it, and yet the local nerds keep bringing it up.
My only theory as to why is because it may not be Linux-y, but it's still a fascinating device. Aside from the technical challenges involved in accessing it from Linux, it's still a totally unique approach to MP3 players, from the interface to the controls to the expandability to the super-high-speed FireWire. It's Apple, which means it's about as proprietary as they come, but the geeks keep wanting to take it apart and make it work for them.
And I don't think it's because they want to break the proprietariness. Apple does that for convenience (theirs), not to lock people out, and anyone with a FireWire port on their Linux box and enough software-writing experience can eventually get it to sync with their favorite MP3 player. Microsoft locks down their software and people hack it because they don't like being told "no." Apple does it to sell iMacs, and people hack it because they don't want an iMac.
But what that means is they do want the iPod. If it weren't so expensive, I don't doubt it'd be Linux-ized already. Hopefully next year it'll be $100 less with a 10GB model replacing it, and we'll see a little more hacking going on.
But to me, this sounds like a success story for Apple. Yes, we all know its pricey and proprietary, but Slashdotters just can't seem to keep their eyes off of it. And if Apple can draw that much drool from the free software community, I think it's proof positive they know what they're doing.
Compression, after all, is removing all redundancy from the original data.
Of course, that's only the definition of lossless compression. Lossy compression also exists, with better compression rates and the obligatory sacrifice of detail, and that's what multimedia often relies on.
The average lifespan is only that long thanks to modern advances in medicine, disease cures, etc. Without them, the average human could expect to live maybe 50 years, although menopause might also come a little earlier.
But you can't think of those years as being wasted. After all, if a woman has children as late as 40, she'd certainly like to raise them to adulthood (and then help them learn to raise their own children) before she dies.
Is Alex Chiu's miracle Eternal Life Device going to give me cancer now? I can't believe it! The man is a fraud!
This goes against everything I've ever been taught. I'm beginning to put more and more stock in that time cube thingy every day....
As a matter of fact, "The Rescuers Down Under" (1990) was Disney's first "computer-generated" movie in the sense that every cel was painted on computer, instead of by hand. Movies like "The Lion King" and "Beauty and the Beast" have also used CGI characters (wildebeasts and dancing spoons) that look very much like hand-drawn animations.
What the article means, of course, is using fully 3D-rendered CGI with textures and shadows that would be nearly impossible to create using traditional animation. The distance between digital painting and 3D modelling is absolutely night and day.
For simplicity's sake, let's think about quadratic equations for a second. You can solve them easily, but if you want to use them in a larger program, you could create a QuadEq object in OOP with the following properties:
An OO programmer would then add methods to set, retrieve, and calculate those properties based on what's been entered. And the QuadEq object would be entirely portable and easily amplified for future equations.
I don't think choosing OOP is a matter of being the only tool to solve certain problems. However, it is often the most efficient way to solve large, rapidly-changing problems. But like you said, other problems (like many of the ones I encounter in web development) will be small and uncomplicated enough that the overhead of OOP isn't worth the trouble.
So's their music.
*ba-dum*
In other words: we've been legally required to implement a security layer on most MP3 files. But it's just a code wrapper, and if you're persistent enough, you can strip it right back off. Just don't mention our name on your "Downloads" page.
Slashdot just linked to the story; they didn't originate it. They would've had no way to report the information (at least not in Slashdot's usual manner) without pointing people to the actual discoverer of the problem, unless AOL has an article on it somewhere.
It is very irresponsible of the original writer to post an explicit method to exploit the crack, however. At least there's one redeeming feature: the article also tells readers how to protect themselves from the crack by altering their preferences, and also that AOL is fixing the problem server-side.
The crack was/is already out there, for people who enjoy using that sort of thing. Don't blame this site for pointing people to it just because Slashdot has a higher readership.
Eagle Scout, the highest rank in Boy Scouts, has to be achieved by the age of 18. To get there, you need to accomplish every other rank before it, some twenty-one merit badges in various subjects, and a self-designed project to benefit the community and demonstrate leadership. Only 2% of American Scouts achieve it, and colleges and jobs actually recognize it -- not because they like Scouting (note: this isn't nearly as impressive after age 25) but because it shows you possess initiative, leadership, and determination, and that you can finish a difficult task set before you.
College degrees have a similar effect. Besides showing that a major university considers you qualified and educated in your field, it proves that you're willing and able to achieve a difficult and long-term goal set before you by yourself. The goal isn't to prove you know your stuff, but to prove you can prove it, and hang in there long enough to impress someone much bigger than your corporate boss.
...for a long time, that they were getting paid by the advertisers themselves for hosting their commercials. It seemed a perfect scheme. I was honestly surprised when I learned they weren't (and yet the advertisers weren't protesting; why complain about free advertising which they normally had to pay for?)
If they'd just established a revenue model that way, no doubt they'd still be afloat. Ah well, so goes the market.
...Web sites across the Internet are tracking which ad banners you see and click on by using a sophisticated "cookie" file.
This article would be "news" if we weren't already familiar with the technology, I think.
...haven't these folks been to Everything2 yet?
It doesn't seem to be discussed in this article, but there is much progress being made on "3D copiers," computerized machines that will build complicated 3-dimensional objects one layer at a time out of ice or plastics. Because of how these objects are constructed, shapes that would be impossible to carve from a solid mass can be "molded" from the bottom up or from the inside-out.
If 3D chip design proliferates, I predict that these two technologies will eventually merge. Sophisticated chips will be assembled one layer at a time, perhaps one layer of atoms at a time, with electronic pathways twisting and turning through a three-dimensional block of material designed to ferry heat away from the core of the device. The main advantage, of course, would be enabling shorter pathways from one part of the chip to another, improving further as design improves. Perhaps in time motherboards would be replaced by "motherblocks" and the entire computer will become far more portable.
...so that they'll actually still be useful eighteen months after I buy them.