Gmail is certainly not all about storage. It's about the Search, Labels, Conversation, and lightning-fast interface leveraging that storage space that lets me manage my email in ways I never could before. I have yet to find a (free) Web-based email service offers the speed and flexibility in managing my emails that Gmail does. I have emails dating back to 1998, and Gmail lets me find the information I need quickly. And Gmail's ads are non-intrusive and often useful. Hotmail could provide a terabyte of storage, but the intrusive, flashy ads make the experience nothing short of annoying. Even if Gamil charged for their service, I'd pay for it because of its functionality. It truely is in "the Google way".
Of course there's no "constitutionally protected right to re-view movies in the same form that you original saw them." The problem is that by "re-writing history" without providing a reference to the original work, we're setting a potentially dangerous precedent. Eventually, people could come to view this "new version" as "the original" simply because they have no access to the original for comparison.
Yes, we're only talking about a movie here, but where do you draw the line? We already see "re-written" history in our school's textbooks, and in other forms of media including movies and music. It's not the actual "re-writing" that's the problem, but the lack of reference to the original. Though this age of "digital altering" has unleashed vast creativity, we must be sure to preserve the originals.
Re:Some of the changes (possible spoilers)
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1
We reallu have two issues here:
1. How "good" is Lucas's latest version.
2. Why doesn't Lucas release the original?
To the first point, that's obviously subjective. Lucas now has tools that were not originally available during initial production, that he can use to twist and mold and tweak to his heart's content. How good it ends up being will simply be subjecetive to the viewers. Personally, I hope that he creates a stunning masterpiece.
But, as good as it may be, it's not the original. He should keep it named "Star Wars Episode IV: a New Hope" and everyone will be happy. But, again, it's not the original "Star Wars". Unfortunatly, the marketing machine will use the popularity of the original to sell this new version.
To the second point, the simple fact remains that people who saw "Star Wars" in the theater will never see what they saw on DVD. I simply don't understand why George Lucas doesn't release the original, unaltered, as-seen-in-the-theaters version. Is he so arrogant that he cannot release to the public what really made his career? Is he so above reality that he has to re-write history to make a buck? I'll bet that pleanty of people would buy up BOTH versions if available. Personally, if the "original" version is not viewable in the new set, then I have no desire to purchase the new set. Lucas lost a sale...
Re:Some of the changes (possible spoilers)
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
But you see, that's the problem!
Now, rarely are the DVD versions the same as what comes out in the theater. It seems that directors are simply "pushing out" whatever they can to make the theater release dates, then they use the DVD as their platform to show the movie "as they intended". The problem is that that's NOT how the viewers originally see it! Unless the production company releases the exact version, forever gone are the days of being able to legally view the theater version on DVD.
Case in point is "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". The version I saw in the theater back in the late 70's is NOT the version that's now on DVD. Call me a purist, but I actually prefer the theter version better. Short of trying to find the Laserdisc and a Laserdic player on eBay, I have absolutely no chance of legally seeing the same version I saw in the theater.
Another example is the LOTR series. The version I saw in the theater again was not what was on the DVD. In fact, many scenes were SPECIFICALLY SHOT to be exclusive to the DVD. So, now as a theater-goer, I have to resign myself to the fact that what I am viewing on the "big screen" is simply not what the director "intended" and is not what will be on the DVD.
This is nothing more than directors using the excuse of "creative license" to re-write history, and all they have to do is slap on a "director's cut" label, and everyone thinks it's something great.
The funny thing is that Lucas is really shooting himself in the foot. If he would release both the same version as originally seen in the theater as well as his "special, wiz-bang, enhanced, super, director's cut" version, he woud probably make a mint, because many would buy both!
Nope. I beg to differ. There is a big difference between "an internet" and "the Internet"--the former being a general term describing inter-networked computers; the latter describimg the entity that evolved out of Darpa's network which we all currently use to exchange email, surf the web, etc. There are countless "internets" around the world, but there is only one "Internet".
It's similar to the German "autobahn" which translates to "motorway" but the "Autobahn" is a specific network of roadways.
And who made Wired magazine the technical grammar police? Just becaus they think it's cool doesn't make it correct.
I think you guys are really missing the point. If Microsoft can successfully pull this off, they will capture a huge market share. You say "Why not just use Linux?" Yes, Linux is obviously an excellent solution, but if Microsoft can provide a simple, boxed installation that's familiar, I don't see how this wouldn't sell. And it's a natural migration path to "less crippled" versions like XP Home or XP Pro.
I really don't see the two main objections as a big deal:
Three program limit: Obviously, the "three programs" limit needs to be better defined (do services count, does explorer.exe count, etc.) but I really don't think this will be a deterrent. Remember that we on/. are not of the "one-at-a-time" mindset. For example, my standard fare at work is to have Lotus Notes, UltraEdit, two IE session, Info Select, and a Remote desktop window open all the time. But consider someone like my parents. They log onto AOL, surf the 'net, and they log off. They open Word, type a letter, and close Word. They open a greeting card program, create a card, and close the program. While they do understand the "concurrency" concept, they simply don't do it. I could install this on my parents' PC and they wouldn't know the difference.
Resolution: You complain about the resolution. We all crave high resolution, but I don't see this as an issue. Again, don't forget that this is being targeted in areas that probably don't have the most modern of hardware. Makes compatibility MUCH better.
Just Remember, they're trying to penetrate a market that filled with very non-computer-savvy users. If it's priced right, this will probably sell like hotcakes.
Oh, and as far as "They'll just get the pirated versions of XP Pro" statements, yes, many will, but from personal experience, I have admittedly have used MANY "less-than-legal" versions of software, and most times, end up paying for the product if it's worth it to me. Less than computer-savvy people will certainly not want the hassles of dealing with warez idiosyncracies.
Yea, you are correct, ReplayTV did do it right, but with a stress on "did".
DNNA, the new owners of ReplayTV have stated that they will be selling off all current ReplayTV inventory and focusing on a higher end ($2000+) multi-media server system (Do a search on the ReplayTV section of the AVS Forums for details.) While the end result may, in fact, be a killer system, the fact remains that "consumer-level" PVR's are still "TiVo-dominated".
The upside for ReplayTV owners is that DNNA also said that they are persuing several hardware companies and software licensees, so we MAY see other ReplayTV-based products from third-party companies. For existing ReplayTV owners, the other good news is that DNNA said that will continue to provide ReplayTV's EPG (Electronic Program Guide) service and would like to expand its availability to other companies.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE proponent of ReplayTV products. I have owned three ReplayTV boxes over the past 4 years, and I have posted several "tips" on my Jim's Tips Web site. ReplayTV has survived several buyouts and company changes, and still holds promise. It's just not necessarily clear as to what the future will be...
OK, so they addressed Popups and Popunders. But what about those %@&# Flash ads that are atarting to appear everywhere? You know, the ones that overlay the open window and play fancy animation, music, and dialog?
I find these types of ads even more intrusive because in many cases, you have to sit through the animation and other crap BEFORE the "close" button even appears. Reminds me of being "forced" to watch certain segments on the newer DVDs. And then, because these ads don't adhere to any UI standards, the "close" button is often hard to find. Whoever came up with these nasties should be teken out and immediatly shot.
Psychology and IT? You're just a "how they work" kind of guy aren't you?
Actually, yes! My fascination with "how people work", and more specifically, "how the mind works" seemed like a natural compliment to when I first "got into" computers. Programming a computer was like "tweaking a little brain". That may sound silly, but that's how I saw it. Today, I doubt most people who have a computer have any clue as to the inner workings. I'm certainly no engineer, so I'm still stumped by many of the technical details, but that drive to know "how things work" is what propelled me into IT, despite my specific degree.
You nailed it! Computer users really fall into one of two groups: Those who focus on "how to use them" and those who focus on "how they work". While this has always been the case, it's just that the majority of people who now deal with computers fall in to the "how to use them" category. You don't need a college degree in CS (or a degree at all, for that matter) to learn how to use computers, but understanding how they work is another story. Obviously, you don't NEED a degree to understand how computers work, but if you are interested enough and driven enough, then you WILL learn. I got my degree in Psychology, but have been working in IT for 15 years...
I knew lots of *amazing* programmers and IT professionals who had non-IT degrees, so how is this new trend any different than before?"
I received my degree in Psychology with a minor in English Writing, but Computers have been a hobby of mine since the PDP-11 and Commodore VIC-20 days. I was able to turn a hobby into a career, and have been programming and in IT professionally for over 15 years. My degree, while certainly not Computer-related, has aided me in dealing with the people with whom I work. I just had to leverage my experience and prove my talents to get me into the jobs I wanted.
Why should our upstream bandwidth - which we pay for - be used to redistribute MSFT's shit? I don't see them mirroring our ftp distro site. I don't see them telling the Comcast rep to reactivate my account after it was suspended for bandwidth abuse.
Then don't use BitTorent and just download it from Microsoft! Sheese! The point of BitTorrent is to provide a distributed means of sharing files. Part of the price you pay for the benefits is providing a resource for others. If you don't like giving back to the community then don't use it.
Fuck that, they already gouged me for 200 bucks for XP Pro, they can damn well foot the bandwidth bill for any patch I need to keep it working.
Again, no problem. Just download it from Microsoft. I fail to see what is the big deal...
That said, if Microsoft ONLY goes the P2P route, THEN you would have a justifiable complaint. The simple fact is that geeks everywhere want it yesterday so they're willing to "do some legwork" that Microsoft should be doing. But again, that's the price you pay for getting the release early. There's no harm in waiting for your PC to auto-update when the time comes...
I don't see how this will really work. All the NFL would have to do is enable the broadcast flag, and TiVo, (I'm assuming they would be compliant) wouldn't allow transfer because of the Broadcast Flag. The industry would simply say, "Sure, implement all the sharing technology you want...as long as it's Broadcast Flag aware."
As part of a settlement, ReplayTV removed this feature from its current 55xx series boxes. I wonder if they will be able to put it back? My ReplayTV model 5040 has always had this feature, but admittedly, I have never actually used it...
You are correct for on your "ecological assessment" but don't forget that unless you go to a library or browse at a news stand, you have to PAY for the paper version. The falacy most fall into is that just because it's electronically available that it should be free. Putting up "registration barriers" is a hassle, but it's "cheaper" than the paper alternative.
That reminds me of when I registered PGP keys way back in 1998 on the PGP servers. I stopped using them about four years ago, and though they are still there, for the life of me, I can't remember the passphrase! Major bummer!
One of the things they ask you when you fill out the short form is if you want the $50 put in your paypal account. Which means paypal will still get interest off the majority of those that do have their $50 sent to their paypal account.
Actually, this is typical of these types of class-action suits. Consider a class action suit against the phone company Ameritech in Illinois a few years back. The "payment" to the class? An Ameritech phone card with a couple hours of free calling time.
At least in this case, the "payment" can be transformed easily into real cash.
I've been using Zone Alarm to do this for years. And as I recall, Windows XP SP2 will include a bi-directional firewall. While it would be nice to have this implemented into a set-it-and-forget-it hardware solution, apps like Zone Alarm are are free and quite effective.
Further, any effective hardware implementation will have to keep logs or send alerts because personally, I want to know what's being prevented from going out.
I guess the differences in Rock styles can be explained by the age profile of people going to IT courses:
Developer profile: 25-35 years old
Project manager profile: 40-50
Security profile: same age or slightly older than a project manager
Dang! What about us 36-39 year-olds?!? We always get excluded from these types of results! I guess I'm forever relegated to being among the few who continue to secretly listen to the likes of REO Speedwagon, Journey, Styx, Falco, Queen, and all the other "forgotten" groups...
Slashdot Mirror
Gmail is certainly not all about storage. It's about the Search, Labels, Conversation, and lightning-fast interface leveraging that storage space that lets me manage my email in ways I never could before. I have yet to find a (free) Web-based email service offers the speed and flexibility in managing my emails that Gmail does. I have emails dating back to 1998, and Gmail lets me find the information I need quickly. And Gmail's ads are non-intrusive and often useful. Hotmail could provide a terabyte of storage, but the intrusive, flashy ads make the experience nothing short of annoying. Even if Gamil charged for their service, I'd pay for it because of its functionality. It truely is in "the Google way".
Of course there's no "constitutionally protected right to re-view movies in the same form that you original saw them." The problem is that by "re-writing history" without providing a reference to the original work, we're setting a potentially dangerous precedent. Eventually, people could come to view this "new version" as "the original" simply because they have no access to the original for comparison.
Yes, we're only talking about a movie here, but where do you draw the line? We already see "re-written" history in our school's textbooks, and in other forms of media including movies and music. It's not the actual "re-writing" that's the problem, but the lack of reference to the original. Though this age of "digital altering" has unleashed vast creativity, we must be sure to preserve the originals.
We reallu have two issues here:
1. How "good" is Lucas's latest version.
2. Why doesn't Lucas release the original?
To the first point, that's obviously subjective. Lucas now has tools that were not originally available during initial production, that he can use to twist and mold and tweak to his heart's content. How good it ends up being will simply be subjecetive to the viewers. Personally, I hope that he creates a stunning masterpiece.
But, as good as it may be, it's not the original. He should keep it named "Star Wars Episode IV: a New Hope" and everyone will be happy. But, again, it's not the original "Star Wars". Unfortunatly, the marketing machine will use the popularity of the original to sell this new version.
To the second point, the simple fact remains that people who saw "Star Wars" in the theater will never see what they saw on DVD. I simply don't understand why George Lucas doesn't release the original, unaltered, as-seen-in-the-theaters version. Is he so arrogant that he cannot release to the public what really made his career? Is he so above reality that he has to re-write history to make a buck? I'll bet that pleanty of people would buy up BOTH versions if available. Personally, if the "original" version is not viewable in the new set, then I have no desire to purchase the new set. Lucas lost a sale...
But you see, that's the problem!
Now, rarely are the DVD versions the same as what comes out in the theater. It seems that directors are simply "pushing out" whatever they can to make the theater release dates, then they use the DVD as their platform to show the movie "as they intended". The problem is that that's NOT how the viewers originally see it! Unless the production company releases the exact version, forever gone are the days of being able to legally view the theater version on DVD.
Case in point is "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". The version I saw in the theater back in the late 70's is NOT the version that's now on DVD. Call me a purist, but I actually prefer the theter version better. Short of trying to find the Laserdisc and a Laserdic player on eBay, I have absolutely no chance of legally seeing the same version I saw in the theater.
Another example is the LOTR series. The version I saw in the theater again was not what was on the DVD. In fact, many scenes were SPECIFICALLY SHOT to be exclusive to the DVD. So, now as a theater-goer, I have to resign myself to the fact that what I am viewing on the "big screen" is simply not what the director "intended" and is not what will be on the DVD.
This is nothing more than directors using the excuse of "creative license" to re-write history, and all they have to do is slap on a "director's cut" label, and everyone thinks it's something great.
The funny thing is that Lucas is really shooting himself in the foot. If he would release both the same version as originally seen in the theater as well as his "special, wiz-bang, enhanced, super, director's cut" version, he woud probably make a mint, because many would buy both!
..."light" or "Light"...now I'm confused.
Nope. I beg to differ. There is a big difference between "an internet" and "the Internet"--the former being a general term describing inter-networked computers; the latter describimg the entity that evolved out of Darpa's network which we all currently use to exchange email, surf the web, etc. There are countless "internets" around the world, but there is only one "Internet".
It's similar to the German "autobahn" which translates to "motorway" but the "Autobahn" is a specific network of roadways.
And who made Wired magazine the technical grammar police? Just becaus they think it's cool doesn't make it correct.
I jukt h%pe th2 hand3uit&ng re)oGni7iob is Bet7Er thaN oN tfe N0wtan!
I think you guys are really missing the point. If Microsoft can successfully pull this off, they will capture a huge market share. You say "Why not just use Linux?" Yes, Linux is obviously an excellent solution, but if Microsoft can provide a simple, boxed installation that's familiar, I don't see how this wouldn't sell. And it's a natural migration path to "less crippled" versions like XP Home or XP Pro.
/. are not of the "one-at-a-time" mindset. For example, my standard fare at work is to have Lotus Notes, UltraEdit, two IE session, Info Select, and a Remote desktop window open all the time. But consider someone like my parents. They log onto AOL, surf the 'net, and they log off. They open Word, type a letter, and close Word. They open a greeting card program, create a card, and close the program. While they do understand the "concurrency" concept, they simply don't do it. I could install this on my parents' PC and they wouldn't know the difference.
I really don't see the two main objections as a big deal:
Three program limit:
Obviously, the "three programs" limit needs to be better defined (do services count, does explorer.exe count, etc.) but I really don't think this will be a deterrent. Remember that we on
Resolution:
You complain about the resolution. We all crave high resolution, but I don't see this as an issue. Again, don't forget that this is being targeted in areas that probably don't have the most modern of hardware. Makes compatibility MUCH better.
Just Remember, they're trying to penetrate a market that filled with very non-computer-savvy users. If it's priced right, this will probably sell like hotcakes.
Oh, and as far as "They'll just get the pirated versions of XP Pro" statements, yes, many will, but from personal experience, I have admittedly have used MANY "less-than-legal" versions of software, and most times, end up paying for the product if it's worth it to me. Less than computer-savvy people will certainly not want the hassles of dealing with warez idiosyncracies.
Yea, you are correct, ReplayTV did do it right, but with a stress on "did".
DNNA, the new owners of ReplayTV have stated that they will be selling off all current ReplayTV inventory and focusing on a higher end ($2000+) multi-media server system (Do a search on the ReplayTV section of the AVS Forums for details.) While the end result may, in fact, be a killer system, the fact remains that "consumer-level" PVR's are still "TiVo-dominated".
The upside for ReplayTV owners is that DNNA also said that they are persuing several hardware companies and software licensees, so we MAY see other ReplayTV-based products from third-party companies. For existing ReplayTV owners, the other good news is that DNNA said that will continue to provide ReplayTV's EPG (Electronic Program Guide) service and would like to expand its availability to other companies.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE proponent of ReplayTV products. I have owned three ReplayTV boxes over the past 4 years, and I have posted several "tips" on my Jim's Tips Web site. ReplayTV has survived several buyouts and company changes, and still holds promise. It's just not necessarily clear as to what the future will be...
Hasn't this ALWAYS been a problem?!?
OK, so they addressed Popups and Popunders. But what about those %@&# Flash ads that are atarting to appear everywhere? You know, the ones that overlay the open window and play fancy animation, music, and dialog?
I find these types of ads even more intrusive because in many cases, you have to sit through the animation and other crap BEFORE the "close" button even appears. Reminds me of being "forced" to watch certain segments on the newer DVDs. And then, because these ads don't adhere to any UI standards, the "close" button is often hard to find. Whoever came up with these nasties should be teken out and immediatly shot.
You nailed it! Computer users really fall into one of two groups: Those who focus on "how to use them" and those who focus on "how they work". While this has always been the case, it's just that the majority of people who now deal with computers fall in to the "how to use them" category. You don't need a college degree in CS (or a degree at all, for that matter) to learn how to use computers, but understanding how they work is another story. Obviously, you don't NEED a degree to understand how computers work, but if you are interested enough and driven enough, then you WILL learn. I got my degree in Psychology, but have been working in IT for 15 years...
Again, no problem. Just download it from Microsoft. I fail to see what is the big deal...
That said, if Microsoft ONLY goes the P2P route, THEN you would have a justifiable complaint. The simple fact is that geeks everywhere want it yesterday so they're willing to "do some legwork" that Microsoft should be doing. But again, that's the price you pay for getting the release early. There's no harm in waiting for your PC to auto-update when the time comes...
Um, the article is dated May 06, 2002. Don't we have anything new to discuss?
I don't see how this will really work. All the NFL would have to do is enable the broadcast flag, and TiVo, (I'm assuming they would be compliant) wouldn't allow transfer because of the Broadcast Flag. The industry would simply say, "Sure, implement all the sharing technology you want...as long as it's Broadcast Flag aware."
As part of a settlement, ReplayTV removed this feature from its current 55xx series boxes. I wonder if they will be able to put it back? My ReplayTV model 5040 has always had this feature, but admittedly, I have never actually used it...
You are correct for on your "ecological assessment" but don't forget that unless you go to a library or browse at a news stand, you have to PAY for the paper version. The falacy most fall into is that just because it's electronically available that it should be free. Putting up "registration barriers" is a hassle, but it's "cheaper" than the paper alternative.
That reminds me of when I registered PGP keys way back in 1998 on the PGP servers. I stopped using them about four years ago, and though they are still there, for the life of me, I can't remember the passphrase! Major bummer!
Wouldn't that constant vortex sucking sound be annoying after a while?
At least in this case, the "payment" can be transformed easily into real cash.
I've been using Zone Alarm to do this for years. And as I recall, Windows XP SP2 will include a bi-directional firewall. While it would be nice to have this implemented into a set-it-and-forget-it hardware solution, apps like Zone Alarm are are free and quite effective.
Further, any effective hardware implementation will have to keep logs or send alerts because personally, I want to know what's being prevented from going out.
Dang! What about us 36-39 year-olds?!? We always get excluded from these types of results! I guess I'm forever relegated to being among the few who continue to secretly listen to the likes of REO Speedwagon, Journey, Styx, Falco, Queen, and all the other "forgotten" groups...