If you're getting DirecTV, use one of their PVRs. The reason is simple -if I'm reading correctly, the PC based PVRs only record analog video to digital. IOW your 100% digital DirecTV show has to be converted to analog, then back to digital to save it on a PC using one of these devices. Same for digital cable. The loss in quality may or may not matter to you.
I'm mostly replying to how open-minded one must be to say,
Scientists declare themselves openminded, but then they define "openminded" as accepting of anything that doesn't threaten their existing view and opinions about what they believe.
Scientists declare themselves openminded, but then they define "openminded" as accepting of anything that doesn't threaten their existing view and opinions about what they believe.
You really need to get out there and meet some real scientists instead of relying on what you see on TV to define them.
I think this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific research. Any real scientist will tell you they're wrong more than they're right.
You start with an observation, come up with a reasonable hypothesis to explain it, then test it.
Eventually your hypothesis fails at some level. So based on your observation, you create another reasonable hypothesis....
That's scientific progress. Each step along the way we learn more. And often, we get led down the wrong path, for any one of many reasons -most are not evil.
As a scientist, I can tell how I think many things work. Of course that leads to the question, "Don't you know for sure?" from a non-scientific public who wants to know that the levy will hold or the vaccine will protect them from disease and not cause it.
No, I don't know for sure. But that's not what anybody wants to hear. And that's not what anybody will report in the press. That's not what politicians base decisions on. The overwhelming majority of times you see science misused as you stated above its by companies/politicians/people taking scientific data and theory and restating it as scientific fact. Its rarely the scientist doing the study who says such things.
I agree. After reading the article, I still don't know what he actually thinks MS has done that is innovative? His article throws together a bunch of nebulous ideas, mixed with buzzwords and analogies to describe what he thinks MS is doing different and calls it innovation?
Sheesh! If he can't give a straighforward example of MS innovation, perhaps there's a reason for that?
Using your example, maybe you could subscribe to the new season of "Family Guy" for a dollar or two a show. Alternatively, they could make previous seasons available as a download -either as a whole seasn or as individual episodes. Yes, it might compete with DVD sales, but I don't see the model being that much different than the musical equivalent.
Wouldn't that be interesting... a model where show production is paid for by downloads instead of advertising revenue. Maybe shows like Firefly and Farscape would have a chance at another life.
I believe his point was that iTunes is not the only way to put music on an iPod. iTunes is just the vendor-supplied (preferred by Apple) method of doing it.
You may be right. We'll have to wait and see if they get to the point where they can start selling the consoles above cost. As I understand it (from 3rd hand information ground through the popular press) MS's plan was to continue selling consoles at a loss, at least for the near term.
I guess I'm thinking of it a little different, not as purchased online and on CD, but as a subscription (much like cable TV) and purchasing CDs (DVDs of movies you like). The subscription covers all the stuff you want to try out or might want to listen to a couple times, the CD (or maybe online purchase) is what you get when you decide you like it and want your own.
So in my "model" subscription services don't hurt CD sales, they may actually increase them (similar to radio). And they make money on the subscription to boot (free money -radio stations paying you to play your music).
Sounds like the the big labels aren't interested in a lot of free money, they want more!
And isn't it really free money for them? Like the Apple store, I assume MS would handle the encoding of the music, the running of the store and all costs including advertising. All the record companies have to do is sign the paper and tell MS which bank account to put the money in.
Although I think it would be amusing to see Gates follow Jobs' lead. Wouldn't it be fun to see the richest man in the world call someone else greedy?
That's the beauty of true science, it's a quest for truth regardless of what was previously "known". If you discover something that conflicts with earlier thinking, not only are you recognized, but you're celebrated.
Of course being celebrated often comes long after years of being told you're an idiot, persecuted and maybe not until years after yoiur death.
And let's not forget that its not the "religious fundamentalists" who are the naysayers/persecuters. In most cases (including Darwin's evolution) its the other scientists who have the most difficult time accepting something new.
I'm still trying to figure out why MS even cares. They're a software company. Shouldn't they fully support both? Do they care who provides the best RAM or the best hard drives or even the best CPU? IMO all they should care about is supporting the hardware the consumers want them to support, not try to dictate what hardware the consumer has available.
The only problem I see is the X Box division. I can see where they want something ASAP to be competitive, and they want to make sure what they choose will be supported by other industries (the movie industry).
I don't know how I feel about a big monopoly player "wagging the dog" so to speak in order to insure its competitiveness in another arena.
You don't have to replace anything. If the quality you get from your current DVDs is fine with you, stick with them. If you want better quality you have to buy something better.
I haven't felt compelled to re-purchase all my VHS movies on DVD. Just like I haven't re-purchased all my LPs on CDs. I doubt very much I'll feel compelled to replace many of my current DVDs with HD. Ever.
The problem is all the 25 GB players you seel that won't play the newest releases in two years. Remember its going to take a few years for the prices of these players (wether HD DVD or BD) to get down to the $50 you can get a DVD player for. So how many people are going to spend several hundred dollars to buy a player that may not be useful in a couple years? I think I'd stick with my DVD player and get a 50 GB player when they're ready -which could seriously hurt the nascent market if a lot of people thought the same way.
DivX may have competed with mpeg2 for encoding video on DVDs, but it didn't compete with the DVD spec itself. That's different than VHS vs. Betamax or HD DVD vs. BD. Its much easier to add the software (or hardware) decoders to support a different or mutliple encoding formats than it is to create or alter a Betamax player to also support VHS, or an HD DVD player to support BD (which may be possible).
If the movie industry started making all new DVD releases as hybrid discs, there could be a very easy transition
But that's just as possible to do with BD. So as a deciding factor its a moot point IMO. Also, IIRC there are some limitations in doing the hybrid. Its been mentioned that the hybrid HD DVD may only allow a single layer (4.3 GB) for the "normal" DVD side. That may or may not be true, and it may be just as much of a problem for BD.
Another factor to consider is that the BD group is closer to implementing disk burning on the PC, though I think that's only the 25 GB stuff. Its going to be a while before you can burn your own HD DVD on your PC, for data or video.
I'm still up in the air on which I prefer. I guess I'm leaning more towards BD for the simple fact that I think it has more potential long-term.
The other side of that is if you don't download the huge-ass program, you have to keep sending your huge-ass data files back-and-forth every time you do something.
Granted, its really only a problem with huge programs working with huge data files, but audio and video files are becoming a bigger part of what people use on computers and they're getting bigger fast (Hello HD video!).
"The point is that *most* of what people do with their computers can be done with a web platform today. "
That may be true, but there are still some issues in my mind. For example, the "most" you refer to refers to the fact that most people work with smaller documents -vector graphics vs. bitmapped images. With multimedia becoming a bigger part of what people are doing on their computer, won't that shift the balance away from a web platform?
The other question in my mind is, is the web platform actually any better? "As good as" "in most cases" isn't going to cut it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're getting DirecTV, use one of their PVRs. The reason is simple -if I'm reading correctly, the PC based PVRs only record analog video to digital. IOW your 100% digital DirecTV show has to be converted to analog, then back to digital to save it on a PC using one of these devices. Same for digital cable. The loss in quality may or may not matter to you.
Your bias is embarassingly obvious also.
Is it? You might be surprised...
I'm mostly replying to how open-minded one must be to say,
Scientists declare themselves openminded, but then they define "openminded" as accepting of anything that doesn't threaten their existing view and opinions about what they believe.
Scientists declare themselves openminded, but then they define "openminded" as accepting of anything that doesn't threaten their existing view and opinions about what they believe.
You really need to get out there and meet some real scientists instead of relying on what you see on TV to define them.
I think this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific research. Any real scientist will tell you they're wrong more than they're right.
You start with an observation, come up with a reasonable hypothesis to explain it, then test it.
Eventually your hypothesis fails at some level. So based on your observation, you create another reasonable hypothesis....
That's scientific progress. Each step along the way we learn more. And often, we get led down the wrong path, for any one of many reasons -most are not evil.
As a scientist, I can tell how I think many things work. Of course that leads to the question, "Don't you know for sure?" from a non-scientific public who wants to know that the levy will hold or the vaccine will protect them from disease and not cause it.
No, I don't know for sure. But that's not what anybody wants to hear. And that's not what anybody will report in the press. That's not what politicians base decisions on. The overwhelming majority of times you see science misused as you stated above its by companies/politicians/people taking scientific data and theory and restating it as scientific fact. Its rarely the scientist doing the study who says such things.
I agree. After reading the article, I still don't know what he actually thinks MS has done that is innovative? His article throws together a bunch of nebulous ideas, mixed with buzzwords and analogies to describe what he thinks MS is doing different and calls it innovation?
Sheesh! If he can't give a straighforward example of MS innovation, perhaps there's a reason for that?
Or as if the legal definition of "theft" is the One True Definition and all other definitions and usage of the word are strictly forbidden.
We can always count on someone to refer to copyright infringment as theft, and the ensuing deluge of posts arguing about it.
There are all kinds of scenarios to make money.
Using your example, maybe you could subscribe to the new season of "Family Guy" for a dollar or two a show. Alternatively, they could make previous seasons available as a download -either as a whole seasn or as individual episodes. Yes, it might compete with DVD sales, but I don't see the model being that much different than the musical equivalent.
Wouldn't that be interesting... a model where show production is paid for by downloads instead of advertising revenue. Maybe shows like Firefly and Farscape would have a chance at another life.
It's not like it'd take much to allow video playback.
Not to mention that they already have a video out too. Talk about Tivo-To-Go.
For speculating on the meaning of the picture on an invitation?
I know Apple has a reputation for being lawsuit happy, but I don't think they've ever sued for wild speculation.
I believe his point was that iTunes is not the only way to put music on an iPod. iTunes is just the vendor-supplied (preferred by Apple) method of doing it.
You may be right. We'll have to wait and see if they get to the point where they can start selling the consoles above cost. As I understand it (from 3rd hand information ground through the popular press) MS's plan was to continue selling consoles at a loss, at least for the near term.
I guess I'm thinking of it a little different, not as purchased online and on CD, but as a subscription (much like cable TV) and purchasing CDs (DVDs of movies you like). The subscription covers all the stuff you want to try out or might want to listen to a couple times, the CD (or maybe online purchase) is what you get when you decide you like it and want your own.
So in my "model" subscription services don't hurt CD sales, they may actually increase them (similar to radio). And they make money on the subscription to boot (free money -radio stations paying you to play your music).
OTOH, that hasn't worked so well for MS and the X-Box.
Sounds like the the big labels aren't interested in a lot of free money, they want more!
And isn't it really free money for them? Like the Apple store, I assume MS would handle the encoding of the music, the running of the store and all costs including advertising. All the record companies have to do is sign the paper and tell MS which bank account to put the money in.
Although I think it would be amusing to see Gates follow Jobs' lead. Wouldn't it be fun to see the richest man in the world call someone else greedy?
Which, from what I've been hearing on the news, is no different than many other Supreme Court Justices. In fact, many argue this is a good thing.
Are we bashing Microsoft or Bush's Nominee?
Yes!
That's the beauty of true science, it's a quest for truth regardless of what was previously "known". If you discover something that conflicts with earlier thinking, not only are you recognized, but you're celebrated.
Of course being celebrated often comes long after years of being told you're an idiot, persecuted and maybe not until years after yoiur death.
And let's not forget that its not the "religious fundamentalists" who are the naysayers/persecuters. In most cases (including Darwin's evolution) its the other scientists who have the most difficult time accepting something new.
I'm still trying to figure out why MS even cares. They're a software company. Shouldn't they fully support both? Do they care who provides the best RAM or the best hard drives or even the best CPU? IMO all they should care about is supporting the hardware the consumers want them to support, not try to dictate what hardware the consumer has available.
The only problem I see is the X Box division. I can see where they want something ASAP to be competitive, and they want to make sure what they choose will be supported by other industries (the movie industry).
I don't know how I feel about a big monopoly player "wagging the dog" so to speak in order to insure its competitiveness in another arena.
You don't have to replace anything. If the quality you get from your current DVDs is fine with you, stick with them. If you want better quality you have to buy something better.
I haven't felt compelled to re-purchase all my VHS movies on DVD. Just like I haven't re-purchased all my LPs on CDs. I doubt very much I'll feel compelled to replace many of my current DVDs with HD. Ever.
The problem is all the 25 GB players you seel that won't play the newest releases in two years. Remember its going to take a few years for the prices of these players (wether HD DVD or BD) to get down to the $50 you can get a DVD player for. So how many people are going to spend several hundred dollars to buy a player that may not be useful in a couple years? I think I'd stick with my DVD player and get a 50 GB player when they're ready -which could seriously hurt the nascent market if a lot of people thought the same way.
DivX may have competed with mpeg2 for encoding video on DVDs, but it didn't compete with the DVD spec itself. That's different than VHS vs. Betamax or HD DVD vs. BD. Its much easier to add the software (or hardware) decoders to support a different or mutliple encoding formats than it is to create or alter a Betamax player to also support VHS, or an HD DVD player to support BD (which may be possible).
If the movie industry started making all new DVD releases as hybrid discs, there could be a very easy transition
But that's just as possible to do with BD. So as a deciding factor its a moot point IMO. Also, IIRC there are some limitations in doing the hybrid. Its been mentioned that the hybrid HD DVD may only allow a single layer (4.3 GB) for the "normal" DVD side. That may or may not be true, and it may be just as much of a problem for BD.
Another factor to consider is that the BD group is closer to implementing disk burning on the PC, though I think that's only the 25 GB stuff. Its going to be a while before you can burn your own HD DVD on your PC, for data or video.
I'm still up in the air on which I prefer. I guess I'm leaning more towards BD for the simple fact that I think it has more potential long-term.
I believe it has a lifetime warrenty.
You just have to pay shipping and handling.
The other side of that is if you don't download the huge-ass program, you have to keep sending your huge-ass data files back-and-forth every time you do something.
Granted, its really only a problem with huge programs working with huge data files, but audio and video files are becoming a bigger part of what people use on computers and they're getting bigger fast (Hello HD video!).
"The point is that *most* of what people do with their computers can be done with a web platform today. "
That may be true, but there are still some issues in my mind. For example, the "most" you refer to refers to the fact that most people work with smaller documents -vector graphics vs. bitmapped images. With multimedia becoming a bigger part of what people are doing on their computer, won't that shift the balance away from a web platform?
The other question in my mind is, is the web platform actually any better? "As good as" "in most cases" isn't going to cut it.