I have both a clue and a desire for a new Mac. What I don't have, and have never had, is any desire to buy movies from iTunes. It sucks, but DRM up the arse is the way HD content is going. It's not like Apple invented this game, along with everyone else they're just playing the studios' game because there's no other way to get the HD movies people want.
BluRay has provisions for blacklisting players, so if Apple were stupid enough to do that, at some point in the future their users would insert a new BluRay disc which would revoke the keys for their BluRay drive, rendering it useless. I'm guessing Apple don't want that to happen.
While it's true that there are a lot of "collectors" out there accounting for big chunks of the downloads and distorting the figures, the ones I've known never buy anything they can download. While they certainly wouldn't buy as many games/music/movies as they pirate, I'm pretty confident that if the choice was no games/music/movies or paying, they would be buying a hell of a lot more games/music/movies than they do now.
You expect people to reboot to play a game? Very funny. It's not 1995 any more you know. Not only are OSes much more stable, but a far greater proportion of people actually do something useful with their computers.
There's a bunch of bloggers and talk radio hosts talking about this. When I try to find something concrete, I cannot. But, a bunch of folks who listen and read that shit actually believe it and my company is getting hundreds of inquiries about this mythical seizing of retirement funds.
Apparently, some academic suggested it as a possible solution, but a bunch of folks who make a lot of money off of scaring people propagated it as truth. The most sickening thing for me is that most of the public does not try to verify it.
Sounds to me like you're complaining about people doing the very thing you're complaining about them not doing. They're phoning your company to verify whether the claims are true.
ISPs don't like IPv6 as it "flattens" the internet. NAT is good for them, keeps clients clients and servers servers, also makes it easy to install what are really shaping / deep packet inspection / logging black boxes as "NAT" appliances, etc.
ISPs won't like it because multicast has a good chance of actually working in the real world with IPV6. Multicast would be a bitch to charge for and is a radically more efficient way to broadcast information, which would lead to less data transfer and lower revenues. As TV over the intertubes ramps up, do you really think ISPs will want to let go of the revenues they get from a one-connection-per-viewer model?
Multicast is possible with IPv4, but so much of the infrastructure doesn't support it it'll take the switch to IPv6 to make multicast a viable alternative.
You really must have to try very hard to sound such a condescending cunt, you're so good at it I doubt it could all be down to natural ability. Well fuck me, it looks like they actually have tolerance of four wavelengths of visible light rather than two (feel free to point out that the factor of four is wildly inaccurate as visible light has a range of wavelengths, it'll give you another opportunity to sound like a cunt, something you apparently enjoy). Looks like their engineering is actually totally shitty and unimpressive and I was completely and utterly wrong.
I have a substantial collection of Lego, and I have a single MegaBlocks model... as much as I hate to say it, there's really a difference in quality. The Lego plastic is actually superior, and the quality of the molds must be better, too.
Lego are utterly fantastic at making their bricks. They're mind-bogglingly good, in fact. To work properly, Lego bricks must be made to a tolerance of one micron, otherwise models would fall apart or the bricks be too hard to separate. Those little plastic bricks are as precisely engineered as the most precisely engineered components in the most expensive Swiss watch. They've been making them exactly the right size since the 1960s - the bricks you or you parents had in the 60s will still work perfectly with the bricks they make today.
What a stupid and misleading title. You can, and I suspect most people will, use RAID with these boxes. RAID-Z more than likely, though other types of RAID are possible too. It is not a RAID-less box, it's a box without a dedicated RAID controller.
You don't seem to have any ideas about how creative industries would work in the absence of copyright either, yet still seem confident that they would somehow work just fine. If you don't know what would happen, how can you possibly know things would be better?
High budget? I can't see that happening without the kind of guarantee of a return that copyright provides. Copyright doesn't guarantee that lots of people will like your work of course, but it does guarantee that if they do you'll make some money and have a chance at covering your costs and making a profit. People don't work for free or give their money away to nearly the same extent to which they are willing to work for money. I can't see anybody investing $10m in making a movie or game if everybody who wanted it could get it for free. I just can't see enough people paying voluntarily to make it worthwhile.
That hardly solves the problem. The applet should be embedded in the web page and download all the samples automatically, on demand. Why the stupid rigmarole of doing everything yourself? It's a ridiculously complex process. I gave up when I discovered that "OS X users are asked to handle decoding of samples themselves" what does decoding the samples involve? I haven't a fucking clue, because that's all it tells me.
The main machine in particular is an OSX laptop. Can't really sterilize it without... issues...
It's a pity they don't fit Macs with USB ports or Bluetooth. Even if they did, nobody makes external keyboards or mice for Macs and you can't use the ones designed for PCs. Not a single hit on Google for "sterile keyboard", "medical keyboard", "sealed keyboard" or similar terms either. Yup, it looks like traditional input devices are a non-option.
Obviously you're not only selecting on the basis of the lead actor, there's more than just one person involved in making a film. You "vote" on the sum total, but the lead actor is often a significant draw. Having Tom Cruise means more people will come to see your film. There are very few series like the James Bond films, but even with those most people prefer one Bond over another.
Any basis? There's an entire culture. I've heard plenty of bootlegs (in the sense detailed on that Wikipedia page), some legal and some not so legal. Some are great, more are amusing, most are garbage (which is true of most culture). The most notable example is perhaps Danger Mouse's Grey Album, a mashup of The Beatles White Album and Jay Z's Black Album. Not only amusingly playful in concept, but for the most part bloody good. Perhaps if Danger Mouse had been able to do mashups for ever he wouldn't have had the incentive to get together with Cee-Lo, form Gnarls Barkely and make more original music and earn some money. The Grey Album is exceptional though, the fact that copyright makes it harder or sometimes impossible to do is a loss, but a price worth paying IMO. I'm not under the illusion that copyright is perfect and doesn't stifle some elements of creativity, I just think the good outweighs the bad. Conceptually that's my position anyway, if they extend copyrights much more the scales might tip the other way. 25 years should be plenty, though I see some merit in the argument for copyrights lasting for the lifetime of the artist (unless they sell the rights).
Sampling in general happens all the time, not as often to the extent of taking the entire vocals from a track, but lifting riffs and beats is very common. It's common enough that there is a standard process for getting sample rights and it's far from uncommon to have the use of samples authorised because for the original artist it means more reward for the effort they've already put in. It was only an example though, the one I thought most people would recognise. Perhaps the bootleg/mashup/sampling culture isn't very big where you are.
Can you give me any examples of the wonderful things we could expect to see in an unconstrained market that don't happen now? I can imagine the garbage - fan rewrites of the ending of novels, redubbed pop videos, new captions on Dilbert strips - but I can't imagine anything that would be of enough value to offset the incentive to create that copyright provides. Copyright not only encourages people to create full-time, it encourages originality too.
That sounds more like training than a tutorial. If it was training on your voice and you said the wrong words I'm not surprised it got confused and produced gobbledegook.
Some respected business analysts said they're worth more like $7.50/share (WAY over inflated P/E ratio and such).
P/E ratio? This is the new economy, we don't even worry about having a business model, let alone ancient concepts like the P/E ratio. Yahoo has nine bazillion users, so it must be worth trillions. Not only does it have lots of users (which is all that really matters, dontcha know) it apparently even makes some money from somewhere - that must be worth an extra 2 or 3%.
Copyright stops duplication, not inspiration. Nobody owns the copyright on rock and roll or the impressionist movement or the sitcom or science fiction. You can still make derivative (in the general sense) works, copyright just stops you assembling chunks of other people's work to do it, unless they give you permission. I don't rate a derivative (in the copyright sense) work like putting the vocals from song A over the beat from song B as highly as an original composition inspired by songs A and B, so I don't think the fact that copyright hinders the process of taking chunks of other people's work verbatim and re-using them is such a terrible loss.
You get asked who you want to see in a film every time you decide which film to see. The public have voted, they want Tom Cruise, even if he costs $20m.
You make it sound like nobody would pay if it was available for free. You might be right for some people, but I would. I'm sure there are enough people out there who would do the same.
There doesn't have to be a legal means or anything to prevent people from copying, just a moral one.
We already have a moral imperative to pay for stuff, but just look at how many people download music and films off the net now. That's with legal and technical barriers in addition to the moral. There is abundant evidence that relatively few people will pay if they don't have to. The few who would pay would soon get pissed off with paying for everybody else.
When did you go? I went a few weeks ago and of specific geek interest there was also the computing museum and a collection of more modern crypto machines. Then there are all the WWII military and home-front exhibits, the amateur radio stuff, the wartime cinema stuff, model railway stuff, the "Pigeons at War" exhibit and more.
Some of the exhibits are only open on certain days, so you may have been unlucky on the day you went and missed out on a lot, but there really is a lot more there than you seem to have seen. A lot of exhibits are closed some of the time because they are run by volunteers, they just don't have the resources to organise and display everything they have got properly.
I went a few weeks ago. The old computers are very cool, they don't have a lot of cash for fancy displays and so on, so you wander through something resembling a warehouse full of old *nix machines, ranks of huge disk drives more closely resembling a lauderette than a storage array, a room full of old personal computers you can have a go on and relive you youth - Commodore Pet, C64, Spectrum, BBC Micro, TRS-80, Amiga 500, Atari ST and more. Cases full of old PDAs, laptops and calculators. Awesome stuff for hardware geeks.
It's a truly historic place and they have some wonderful stuff they could display, but the lack of cash is obvious from the moment you walk through the doors. It is literally falling down in many places, with priceless an unique artifacts hidden away in huts thrown up 60 years ago and intended to last for 10. It's sad to see things like a Harier jet sinking in to the grass, a huge wooden mockup of a sumbarine rotting away in the car park and a dusty PDP/11 tucked away in a side room. They could have far more on display, preserve things much better and generally give the place, people and things the attention and respect they deserve if only they had the money. There is no shortage of will, knowledge or dedication, only cash. If you're ever in the UK, go. If you aren't, give them a donation.
Slashdot Mirror
I have both a clue and a desire for a new Mac. What I don't have, and have never had, is any desire to buy movies from iTunes. It sucks, but DRM up the arse is the way HD content is going. It's not like Apple invented this game, along with everyone else they're just playing the studios' game because there's no other way to get the HD movies people want.
BluRay has provisions for blacklisting players, so if Apple were stupid enough to do that, at some point in the future their users would insert a new BluRay disc which would revoke the keys for their BluRay drive, rendering it useless. I'm guessing Apple don't want that to happen.
While it's true that there are a lot of "collectors" out there accounting for big chunks of the downloads and distorting the figures, the ones I've known never buy anything they can download. While they certainly wouldn't buy as many games/music/movies as they pirate, I'm pretty confident that if the choice was no games/music/movies or paying, they would be buying a hell of a lot more games/music/movies than they do now.
You expect people to reboot to play a game? Very funny. It's not 1995 any more you know. Not only are OSes much more stable, but a far greater proportion of people actually do something useful with their computers.
Sounds to me like you're complaining about people doing the very thing you're complaining about them not doing. They're phoning your company to verify whether the claims are true.
ISPs won't like it because multicast has a good chance of actually working in the real world with IPV6. Multicast would be a bitch to charge for and is a radically more efficient way to broadcast information, which would lead to less data transfer and lower revenues. As TV over the intertubes ramps up, do you really think ISPs will want to let go of the revenues they get from a one-connection-per-viewer model?
Multicast is possible with IPv4, but so much of the infrastructure doesn't support it it'll take the switch to IPv6 to make multicast a viable alternative.
You really must have to try very hard to sound such a condescending cunt, you're so good at it I doubt it could all be down to natural ability. Well fuck me, it looks like they actually have tolerance of four wavelengths of visible light rather than two (feel free to point out that the factor of four is wildly inaccurate as visible light has a range of wavelengths, it'll give you another opportunity to sound like a cunt, something you apparently enjoy). Looks like their engineering is actually totally shitty and unimpressive and I was completely and utterly wrong.
Lego are utterly fantastic at making their bricks. They're mind-bogglingly good, in fact. To work properly, Lego bricks must be made to a tolerance of one micron, otherwise models would fall apart or the bricks be too hard to separate. Those little plastic bricks are as precisely engineered as the most precisely engineered components in the most expensive Swiss watch. They've been making them exactly the right size since the 1960s - the bricks you or you parents had in the 60s will still work perfectly with the bricks they make today.
What a stupid and misleading title. You can, and I suspect most people will, use RAID with these boxes. RAID-Z more than likely, though other types of RAID are possible too. It is not a RAID-less box, it's a box without a dedicated RAID controller.
You don't seem to have any ideas about how creative industries would work in the absence of copyright either, yet still seem confident that they would somehow work just fine. If you don't know what would happen, how can you possibly know things would be better?
High budget? I can't see that happening without the kind of guarantee of a return that copyright provides. Copyright doesn't guarantee that lots of people will like your work of course, but it does guarantee that if they do you'll make some money and have a chance at covering your costs and making a profit. People don't work for free or give their money away to nearly the same extent to which they are willing to work for money. I can't see anybody investing $10m in making a movie or game if everybody who wanted it could get it for free. I just can't see enough people paying voluntarily to make it worthwhile.
That hardly solves the problem. The applet should be embedded in the web page and download all the samples automatically, on demand. Why the stupid rigmarole of doing everything yourself? It's a ridiculously complex process. I gave up when I discovered that "OS X users are asked to handle decoding of samples themselves" what does decoding the samples involve? I haven't a fucking clue, because that's all it tells me.
It's a pity they don't fit Macs with USB ports or Bluetooth. Even if they did, nobody makes external keyboards or mice for Macs and you can't use the ones designed for PCs. Not a single hit on Google for "sterile keyboard", "medical keyboard", "sealed keyboard" or similar terms either. Yup, it looks like traditional input devices are a non-option.
Obviously you're not only selecting on the basis of the lead actor, there's more than just one person involved in making a film. You "vote" on the sum total, but the lead actor is often a significant draw. Having Tom Cruise means more people will come to see your film. There are very few series like the James Bond films, but even with those most people prefer one Bond over another.
Any basis? There's an entire culture. I've heard plenty of bootlegs (in the sense detailed on that Wikipedia page), some legal and some not so legal. Some are great, more are amusing, most are garbage (which is true of most culture). The most notable example is perhaps Danger Mouse's Grey Album, a mashup of The Beatles White Album and Jay Z's Black Album. Not only amusingly playful in concept, but for the most part bloody good. Perhaps if Danger Mouse had been able to do mashups for ever he wouldn't have had the incentive to get together with Cee-Lo, form Gnarls Barkely and make more original music and earn some money. The Grey Album is exceptional though, the fact that copyright makes it harder or sometimes impossible to do is a loss, but a price worth paying IMO. I'm not under the illusion that copyright is perfect and doesn't stifle some elements of creativity, I just think the good outweighs the bad. Conceptually that's my position anyway, if they extend copyrights much more the scales might tip the other way. 25 years should be plenty, though I see some merit in the argument for copyrights lasting for the lifetime of the artist (unless they sell the rights).
Sampling in general happens all the time, not as often to the extent of taking the entire vocals from a track, but lifting riffs and beats is very common. It's common enough that there is a standard process for getting sample rights and it's far from uncommon to have the use of samples authorised because for the original artist it means more reward for the effort they've already put in. It was only an example though, the one I thought most people would recognise. Perhaps the bootleg/mashup/sampling culture isn't very big where you are.
Can you give me any examples of the wonderful things we could expect to see in an unconstrained market that don't happen now? I can imagine the garbage - fan rewrites of the ending of novels, redubbed pop videos, new captions on Dilbert strips - but I can't imagine anything that would be of enough value to offset the incentive to create that copyright provides. Copyright not only encourages people to create full-time, it encourages originality too.
That sounds more like training than a tutorial. If it was training on your voice and you said the wrong words I'm not surprised it got confused and produced gobbledegook.
Don't tell me, tell Twitter.
P/E ratio? This is the new economy, we don't even worry about having a business model, let alone ancient concepts like the P/E ratio. Yahoo has nine bazillion users, so it must be worth trillions. Not only does it have lots of users (which is all that really matters, dontcha know) it apparently even makes some money from somewhere - that must be worth an extra 2 or 3%.
Perhaps they think someone holds the copyright on capital letters.
Copyright stops duplication, not inspiration. Nobody owns the copyright on rock and roll or the impressionist movement or the sitcom or science fiction. You can still make derivative (in the general sense) works, copyright just stops you assembling chunks of other people's work to do it, unless they give you permission. I don't rate a derivative (in the copyright sense) work like putting the vocals from song A over the beat from song B as highly as an original composition inspired by songs A and B, so I don't think the fact that copyright hinders the process of taking chunks of other people's work verbatim and re-using them is such a terrible loss.
You get asked who you want to see in a film every time you decide which film to see. The public have voted, they want Tom Cruise, even if he costs $20m.
We already have a moral imperative to pay for stuff, but just look at how many people download music and films off the net now. That's with legal and technical barriers in addition to the moral. There is abundant evidence that relatively few people will pay if they don't have to. The few who would pay would soon get pissed off with paying for everybody else.
When did you go? I went a few weeks ago and of specific geek interest there was also the computing museum and a collection of more modern crypto machines. Then there are all the WWII military and home-front exhibits, the amateur radio stuff, the wartime cinema stuff, model railway stuff, the "Pigeons at War" exhibit and more.
Some of the exhibits are only open on certain days, so you may have been unlucky on the day you went and missed out on a lot, but there really is a lot more there than you seem to have seen. A lot of exhibits are closed some of the time because they are run by volunteers, they just don't have the resources to organise and display everything they have got properly.
I went a few weeks ago. The old computers are very cool, they don't have a lot of cash for fancy displays and so on, so you wander through something resembling a warehouse full of old *nix machines, ranks of huge disk drives more closely resembling a lauderette than a storage array, a room full of old personal computers you can have a go on and relive you youth - Commodore Pet, C64, Spectrum, BBC Micro, TRS-80, Amiga 500, Atari ST and more. Cases full of old PDAs, laptops and calculators. Awesome stuff for hardware geeks.
It's a truly historic place and they have some wonderful stuff they could display, but the lack of cash is obvious from the moment you walk through the doors. It is literally falling down in many places, with priceless an unique artifacts hidden away in huts thrown up 60 years ago and intended to last for 10. It's sad to see things like a Harier jet sinking in to the grass, a huge wooden mockup of a sumbarine rotting away in the car park and a dusty PDP/11 tucked away in a side room. They could have far more on display, preserve things much better and generally give the place, people and things the attention and respect they deserve if only they had the money. There is no shortage of will, knowledge or dedication, only cash. If you're ever in the UK, go. If you aren't, give them a donation.
Try using telnet:// or ssh:// URLs.