You're right, but I'm thinking for mobile use something like a video iPod that could be connected to a monitor in the minivan. OTOH, don't underestimate the bandwidth of a van-load of HD-DVD/BDs (or something like that).
That pretty much sums it up. Either way, the DRM included leaves the Terms and Conditions of any copy up to the content owner. That includes any copying that otherwise would have been done under the Fair Use doctrine.
But were there any Sony engineers involved? I thought the tech came from a 3rd party, not from within Sony. IOW Sony executives just used the Evil Engineers at a different company to do their bidding.
Oddly enough, those same parents don't seem to care quite enough to regulate thier kids' gaming habits themselves. It's just easier to let the gub'mint do it for them.
OK, I'm -1 Redundant and -1 Rant.
You guys just don't get it, do you! This law allows the parents to regulate what their kids buy and use as opposed to the check-out clerk at the store. Or do you think its also OK for anyone to sell alcohol, cigarettes, firearms and porn to minors too? Are those laws in place because parents don't care enough to regulate their kids drinking/smoking/whatever habits?
just parents who really give a damn
Funny, I was under the impression they were the ones pushing for the law. Or are you saying its the parents who don't care much about what their kids are doing who spent all the time and effort required to get this law on the books?
As I said before, I don't have an issue with a law preventing the sale to minors, but I do think they went too far with the punishment.
You seem to believe that anyone who wants government to stop interfering with how we raise our kids advocates anarchy and debauchery.
The government isn't interfering with your right to buy the game for your kid. What the government is doing is preventing the check-out clerk at Wal-Mart from determining if your kid can buy the game, drink, drug, weapon...
I think its ironic how many times legisislation put in place to enforce a parent's right to decide what's right for their kids is decried as a tool put in place by parents who don't want to take responsibility for their kids.
I disagree that the government should get involved with issues that should be a parent's job.
And it could be argued that what this law is intended to do is prevent other adults from overriding a parent's decision and selling something to a minor that the parent won't allow them to have. We do this for everything from alcohol, to tobacco, to firearms. Generally anything that's potentially dangerous to minors can't be sold to them without express parental consent Iand sometimes not even then -see lottery tickets.
So, are violent video games harmful to minors? I have my doubts, depending on the game, the kid and circumstances.
Should violent video games (T, M or AO) be sold to minors? Not IMO.
Should there be a law against it? Yes, if there's no other way to get everyone in line (again MO).
If you break the law, what should the punishment be? That's where I diverge from the Michigan law. IMO the penalties they have in place are way too harsh. Apparently the people in Michigan disagree, and that's their choice.
So, do you believe in the parent's right to make the decision, or should that be left to the check-out clerk at Wal-Mart?
No, they research new ways to apply the tech covered by the patents. So someone gets a patent on the transistor, but the person who has a great idea on how to use transistors to build complex logic circuits needs to consider the transister patent. Then there's the guy who comes up with a new way to manufacture transistors so you can put a whole bunch of them together in one integrated circuit...
Now consider if you need to wait 10-20 years between each step because the person with the idea can't afford to license the preceding patent.
But then that's the case for most (even good) patents. They often seem obvious after the fact. Especially decades after the fact. At that time, it wasn't so obvious (regarding the wipers). And it really wasn't all that obvious how one would go about controlling such a thing and make it economical. If you've never been in a world without zip-lock baggies, velcro, and stickie notes, those things seem pretty darn simple and obvious too.
I've been a microsoft basher since OS/2 2.3, but I think MS can go a long way toward promoting good will among end users if they issue a security patch that uninstalls this rootkit, and prevents it from installing in the future.
They won't though,
But wouldn't that run afoul of the DMCA section regarding circumventing a protection device? For that matter, isn't instructing people to turn off autorun doing the same? Much less detailed descriptions of how to remove the software from a "protected" computer.
I tend to listen to a lot of audio podcasts from my computer. No iPod necessary. Also, most of them are in mp3 format so you can load them on any player.
Yeah, won't that be great if I ever buy a second PS3 a few years down the road to replace a used and battered older PS3. Or my kids finally move out on their own, buy their own PS3 and want to play their old games on their new PS3.
If they actually do this, I may go with the other devil and buy an X Box. Or maybe I'll just go buy a Revolution.
Saves me about half the space. I was seriously considering no compression, but then I started thinking about how those big hard drives always seem to fill up much faster than it seems they should.
I'm actually in the process of ripping my entire CD collection. I've only done a few "as needed" over the years. Since I bought a big external drive, I went with a lossless compression codec so I'll (theoretically) never have to put CDs in a drive again.
Do what I did and use a lossless codec. From there, nothing need be manual when it comes to transcoding (assuming by manual you mean re-ripping everything).
The benefits of small market share, and in fact the entire Apple experience, are intuitive for a certain kind of person. Artists, fashion mavens, leftists, and other creative personalities [imageshack.us] can sit down with an R&D-heavy business plan and comprehend its sensitive, tasteful aesthetic
I've always wondered about this view of Mac users, because from my experience, the people on the "opposite end" have traditionsally been heavy Mac users too. By "opposite end" I mean scientists and researchers. Particularly in University research labs yoiu find Macs all over the place (and have for decades). Its in the business domain that Window and Intel have domintated.
Lots of good links showing up in the discussion. Just wondering if anyone knows of any science oriented podcasts for kids?
Re:Can't believe that Pixar employees would be hap
on
Pixar For Sale?
·
· Score: 1
Which is why I thought it was great when Apple came out with the Rip, Mix, Burn. campaign. It was fun seeing Disney CEO Eisner crying foul about it in front of a Congressional panel, and moaning about how attitudes like Rip, Mix, Burn. were why Monsters, Inc. was being pirated on the internet.
Took the poor guy a while to grok that the same Jobs who was CEO of Apple was the same Jobs who was CEO of the company that made Monsters, Inc.
What I give Jobs credit for is knowing who to cede creative control to. Wether its Lassiter to create the story or Ives to create the computer enclosure.
If I were to takeover a company like Pixar, let's be honest here... name me 2 or 3 animators that you know for sure works there?
Doesn't matter. What does matter is that these are highly trained individuals who will go work for another company. You can't just replace them with a bunch of high school graduates like can be done in some industries. You're out of business until you put together a new "team" or two.
I could start a brand new animations company with the best personnel in the world, but a large majority of studios would still pick Pixar over my company because of the brand power itself.
Because Pixar is a proven, known good. Your new company is not. Nobody knows if you can produce or not. You call it brand power, I call it a track record.
Exactly. Pixar got into the deal because they were a small, unknow, unproven company at the time. Now they're all grow'd up, and boy have they filled out!
Re:Some other tidbits from my poor memory...
on
Pixar For Sale?
·
· Score: 1
Which is why I was ROTFL when I read,
The Times reports that if "Chicken Little" is a hit, it would show Wall Street and Jobs that Disney need not depend on Pixar for creation of new animated movie characters that could be adapted for theme park rides, consumer products and television.
"New animated movie characters" being a Chicken Little (been around for what, a century) that looks like a character from several decades ago. Then I looked at the picture of Pixar characters -Woody, Nemo, Mr. Incredible, Buzz Lightyear, and Sully. Suddenly I'm ROTFLMAO,
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, but I'm thinking for mobile use something like a video iPod that could be connected to a monitor in the minivan. OTOH, don't underestimate the bandwidth of a van-load of HD-DVD/BDs (or something like that).
That pretty much sums it up. Either way, the DRM included leaves the Terms and Conditions of any copy up to the content owner. That includes any copying that otherwise would have been done under the Fair Use doctrine.
Yes, and you get to choose your color!
Yes it is. Its just not considered a proper word.
/. post...
Now if I had a penny for every time an improper word was used in a
But were there any Sony engineers involved? I thought the tech came from a 3rd party, not from within Sony. IOW Sony executives just used the Evil Engineers at a different company to do their bidding.
Oddly enough, those same parents don't seem to care quite enough to regulate thier kids' gaming habits themselves. It's just easier to let the gub'mint do it for them.
OK, I'm -1 Redundant and -1 Rant.
You guys just don't get it, do you! This law allows the parents to regulate what their kids buy and use as opposed to the check-out clerk at the store. Or do you think its also OK for anyone to sell alcohol, cigarettes, firearms and porn to minors too? Are those laws in place because parents don't care enough to regulate their kids drinking/smoking/whatever habits?
just parents who really give a damn
Funny, I was under the impression they were the ones pushing for the law. Or are you saying its the parents who don't care much about what their kids are doing who spent all the time and effort required to get this law on the books?
As I said before, I don't have an issue with a law preventing the sale to minors, but I do think they went too far with the punishment.
You seem to believe that anyone who wants government to stop interfering with how we raise our kids advocates anarchy and debauchery.
The government isn't interfering with your right to buy the game for your kid. What the government is doing is preventing the check-out clerk at Wal-Mart from determining if your kid can buy the game, drink, drug, weapon...
I think its ironic how many times legisislation put in place to enforce a parent's right to decide what's right for their kids is decried as a tool put in place by parents who don't want to take responsibility for their kids.
I disagree that the government should get involved with issues that should be a parent's job.
And it could be argued that what this law is intended to do is prevent other adults from overriding a parent's decision and selling something to a minor that the parent won't allow them to have. We do this for everything from alcohol, to tobacco, to firearms. Generally anything that's potentially dangerous to minors can't be sold to them without express parental consent Iand sometimes not even then -see lottery tickets.
So, are violent video games harmful to minors? I have my doubts, depending on the game, the kid and circumstances.
Should violent video games (T, M or AO) be sold to minors? Not IMO.
Should there be a law against it? Yes, if there's no other way to get everyone in line (again MO).
If you break the law, what should the punishment be? That's where I diverge from the Michigan law. IMO the penalties they have in place are way too harsh. Apparently the people in Michigan disagree, and that's their choice.
So, do you believe in the parent's right to make the decision, or should that be left to the check-out clerk at Wal-Mart?
No, they research new ways to apply the tech covered by the patents. So someone gets a patent on the transistor, but the person who has a great idea on how to use transistors to build complex logic circuits needs to consider the transister patent. Then there's the guy who comes up with a new way to manufacture transistors so you can put a whole bunch of them together in one integrated circuit...
Now consider if you need to wait 10-20 years between each step because the person with the idea can't afford to license the preceding patent.
But then that's the case for most (even good) patents. They often seem obvious after the fact. Especially decades after the fact. At that time, it wasn't so obvious (regarding the wipers). And it really wasn't all that obvious how one would go about controlling such a thing and make it economical. If you've never been in a world without zip-lock baggies, velcro, and stickie notes, those things seem pretty darn simple and obvious too.
I've been a microsoft basher since OS/2 2.3, but I think MS can go a long way toward promoting good will among end users if they issue a security patch that uninstalls this rootkit, and prevents it from installing in the future.
They won't though,
But wouldn't that run afoul of the DMCA section regarding circumventing a protection device? For that matter, isn't instructing people to turn off autorun doing the same? Much less detailed descriptions of how to remove the software from a "protected" computer.
Here come the Sony lawsuits!
I tend to listen to a lot of audio podcasts from my computer. No iPod necessary. Also, most of them are in mp3 format so you can load them on any player.
Yeah, won't that be great if I ever buy a second PS3 a few years down the road to replace a used and battered older PS3. Or my kids finally move out on their own, buy their own PS3 and want to play their old games on their new PS3.
If they actually do this, I may go with the other devil and buy an X Box. Or maybe I'll just go buy a Revolution.
Saves me about half the space. I was seriously considering no compression, but then I started thinking about how those big hard drives always seem to fill up much faster than it seems they should.
I'm actually in the process of ripping my entire CD collection. I've only done a few "as needed" over the years. Since I bought a big external drive, I went with a lossless compression codec so I'll (theoretically) never have to put CDs in a drive again.
Do what I did and use a lossless codec. From there, nothing need be manual when it comes to transcoding (assuming by manual you mean re-ripping everything).
I would add that aac, aif and flac would also fit in, if mp3 and ogg do.
The benefits of small market share, and in fact the entire Apple experience, are intuitive for a certain kind of person. Artists, fashion mavens, leftists, and other creative personalities [imageshack.us] can sit down with an R&D-heavy business plan and comprehend its sensitive, tasteful aesthetic
I've always wondered about this view of Mac users, because from my experience, the people on the "opposite end" have traditionsally been heavy Mac users too. By "opposite end" I mean scientists and researchers. Particularly in University research labs yoiu find Macs all over the place (and have for decades). Its in the business domain that Window and Intel have domintated.
Lots of good links showing up in the discussion. Just wondering if anyone knows of any science oriented podcasts for kids?
Which is why I thought it was great when Apple came out with the Rip, Mix, Burn. campaign. It was fun seeing Disney CEO Eisner crying foul about it in front of a Congressional panel, and moaning about how attitudes like Rip, Mix, Burn. were why Monsters, Inc. was being pirated on the internet.
Took the poor guy a while to grok that the same Jobs who was CEO of Apple was the same Jobs who was CEO of the company that made Monsters, Inc.
What I give Jobs credit for is knowing who to cede creative control to. Wether its Lassiter to create the story or Ives to create the computer enclosure.
Which, IMO, shows its the story, not the tech. Disney seems to have lost sight of that.
If I were to takeover a company like Pixar, let's be honest here... name me 2 or 3 animators that you know for sure works there?
Doesn't matter. What does matter is that these are highly trained individuals who will go work for another company. You can't just replace them with a bunch of high school graduates like can be done in some industries. You're out of business until you put together a new "team" or two.
I could start a brand new animations company with the best personnel in the world, but a large majority of studios would still pick Pixar over my company because of the brand power itself.
Because Pixar is a proven, known good. Your new company is not. Nobody knows if you can produce or not. You call it brand power, I call it a track record.
Exactly. Pixar got into the deal because they were a small, unknow, unproven company at the time. Now they're all grow'd up, and boy have they filled out!
Which is why I was ROTFL when I read,
The Times reports that if "Chicken Little" is a hit, it would show Wall Street and Jobs that Disney need not depend on Pixar for creation of new animated movie characters that could be adapted for theme park rides, consumer products and television.
"New animated movie characters" being a Chicken Little (been around for what, a century) that looks like a character from several decades ago. Then I looked at the picture of Pixar characters -Woody, Nemo, Mr. Incredible, Buzz Lightyear, and Sully. Suddenly I'm ROTFLMAO,