However, one of the points made was that EULAs must be available when the purchase is made; these must thefore be the ones that are guaranteed to be the correct ones.
IMO opinion then, they should do it right. If there's a paper copy available, make the buyer sign it at the time of sale. I always thought that was the way " binding agreements" were supposed to be done.
Does anyone else think its ironic that I have to go through hoops to electronically sign a document or agreement so that its legally binding, but OTOH I can be "bound" by an agreement I haven't had to affirm in any real way?
I'm still wrestling with the idea that I'm forced to agree with their terms, even when I reject their agreement.
For example, after buying the software, taking it home, opening the software, and reading the agreement I decide I don't want to abide by their terms. Why do I have to abide by their demand to return the package to the store for a refund?
My terms, which they agreed to when they accepted my money, is that I will use the software any way I want within the bounds of the law. If they don't agree to that, they can come to my house and refund my money to get their software back. And BTW, there's a 15% Removal Fee for deleting the software from my computer and putting the disk back in the box.
I guess what I've always had trouble with is the idea that additional restrictions can be imposed after the purchase and/or without my consent or knowledge. If they want the "agreement" to be binding, they should require me to sign the agreement at the cash register when I make the purchase.
Ok, this turned into more of a rant than I intended, so I'd better stop.
You're right. I already hear too much, " but it worked fine yesterday and I haven't done anything to my computer." I don't need updates happening behind my back to make things even worse.
This is about control over what you watch and how you watch it.
Which, IMO, is what the push for new legistation and DRM is all about. They're not worried about the money they're losing to infringement, they're worried about the money they could be making if they could control every viewing of all media -and they could charge for it every time.
I think it would be hard to convince a judge of some fundamental right to watching TV, though perhaps not as hard in the United States.
IIRC, its already been done. If memory serves, there was a case where some convicted criminals sued to have television made available to them in prison. I believe the mantra was denying them television was "crual and unusual" punishment.
You're right about the headphones. IMO its also true when listening to music in the car (too much background music) and from most computer speakers.
Where the lossless does help, is that with a "big" iPod I no longer even need a CD player with my home stereo system -much less a tape player or turntable. All those CDs can just be stashed in the cupboard.
The hard drive is way faster than needed for video capture. I've got an old 5400 rpm Firewire drive that has no problem capturing DV without a hiccup (until the drive's full).
Anything from mpeg1-4 would be a lot lower bandwidth than even that (I'd actually prefer mpg4 myself). Also don't forget that rotational speed isn't everything. Combine that with data density to see how fast you can stream.
I don't see why recording over stuff and any other operations can't be made just as easy on a drive based deck.
And to bring it back to iPods, that's why the digicam I envision would have a Firewire port to connect to any external drive. One advantage of Firewire is that it is a peer-to-peer bus.
Seems to me a hard drive would be a lot more efficient.
Another factor is that a major part of the cost and bulk of your basic camcorder is tied up in handling the tape. And those mechanical parts (and aligment) are usually what fails.
I keep thinking about all the other uses an iPod has though. Don't know about the Windows side of things so much, but on the Mac side, you can even boot your computer from an iPod.
So when I'm looking at something as portable as an iPod with that much storage I'm thinking maybe I really can carry around all the info I want in my back pocket. -Well not really my back pocekt...
Or there could be a lot of people like me who are looking forward to the day when I don't have to worry about what lossy codec sounds better than the other at a given bit rate.
One other factor WRT wireless vs. wired phone service I had forgotten about -geography. As in its a piece of cake rolling out wire in the plains of the US vs. mountainous regions.
Another factor that has slowed adoption in the US is that we've had an excellent "wired" system for decades. Its hard to get those companies to invest in something new when they can still make money off the old investment.
So yes, there are many factors -societal aspects being one important one among many.
The only reason Japan and Japanese have these sweet 500$ cell-phones is because they see it as a perfectly good investment every 6 months to a year.
That just floored me when I read that in the article. And we're so concerned in the US with how much of this discarded junk is filling the landfills and leeching toxic chemicals. To think of how such a geographically small country like Japan can dispose of all this stuff complete with wasted batteries.... How do they do it?
I think population density is a big factor often forgotten. When you get to the point where only a handfull of people would even be within range of a cell phone tower, the cost/benefit just isn't there. Especially when the wire has already been run.
But increased capacity for what purpose? If a full-length HD movie fits on a single HD-DVD, who cares if Blu-Ray has a larger (unused) capacity? Will they actually encode using a higher bit-rate when using Blu-Ray?
Now if we're talking for computer/data use -Give me bigger!
OTOH, had the Blu-Ray consorsium even finalized their recordable spec yet? That's one advantage HD-DVD has going for it.
For now, I say just put both technologies out there and let me try them out. Let the market decide (and drive the price down so I can afford the tech).
"The solution came from TDK: it developed a protective layer that is just 0.1 millimeter thick but harder and more scratch-resistant than current coatings. Mr. Fidler said TDK is also developing methods to minimize fingerprints on disc surfaces, which can also distort the laser beam."
If that's true, I may change my mind. I had always heard the Blu-ray disks were much more fragile and IIRC were initially expected to be packaged in cassettes (like floppy disks). I do remember there was a point when the Blu-ray backers seemed to realize nobody wanted to buy disks encased in cassettes which made them all that much more expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
However, one of the points made was that EULAs must be available when the purchase is made; these must thefore be the ones that are guaranteed to be the correct ones.
IMO opinion then, they should do it right. If there's a paper copy available, make the buyer sign it at the time of sale. I always thought that was the way " binding agreements" were supposed to be done.
Does anyone else think its ironic that I have to go through hoops to electronically sign a document or agreement so that its legally binding, but OTOH I can be "bound" by an agreement I haven't had to affirm in any real way?
I'm still wrestling with the idea that I'm forced to agree with their terms, even when I reject their agreement.
For example, after buying the software, taking it home, opening the software, and reading the agreement I decide I don't want to abide by their terms. Why do I have to abide by their demand to return the package to the store for a refund?
My terms, which they agreed to when they accepted my money, is that I will use the software any way I want within the bounds of the law. If they don't agree to that, they can come to my house and refund my money to get their software back. And BTW, there's a 15% Removal Fee for deleting the software from my computer and putting the disk back in the box.
I guess what I've always had trouble with is the idea that additional restrictions can be imposed after the purchase and/or without my consent or knowledge. If they want the "agreement" to be binding, they should require me to sign the agreement at the cash register when I make the purchase.
Ok, this turned into more of a rant than I intended, so I'd better stop.
What's next? To get food at a restaurant: "You agree that the product is not warranted to have any nutritional value and ..."?
OTOH, when restaurant chains (if you can call McDonalds that) are being sued for making people fat...
You're right. I already hear too much, " but it worked fine yesterday and I haven't done anything to my computer." I don't need updates happening behind my back to make things even worse.
IOW, the Schneier article is about something completely different (browser caches are there wether they're being searched or not).
Its like MS Windows and a PC.
Windows, just sitting there on the CD isn't a secutity problem.
The PC, sitting there without an operating system isn't a secutity problem.
Put the two together -Microsoft magic!
How about, you just have everyone download from their local mirror site which has placed local commercials in the files or streams?
Personally, I'd like to be able to view and/or download a stream over broadband while the show is being broadcast over the air.
This is about control over what you watch and how you watch it.
Which, IMO, is what the push for new legistation and DRM is all about. They're not worried about the money they're losing to infringement, they're worried about the money they could be making if they could control every viewing of all media -and they could charge for it every time.
I think it would be hard to convince a judge of some fundamental right to watching TV, though perhaps not as hard in the United States.
IIRC, its already been done. If memory serves, there was a case where some convicted criminals sued to have television made available to them in prison. I believe the mantra was denying them television was "crual and unusual" punishment.
You're right. As has been explained to me enough times I should know, mpg1,2,4 are good for a final product, not for something to be edited.
For that you do want DV. The only down side being size. That 80 GB drive will still hold over 6 hr of DV though. That would be enough for me.
You're right about the headphones. IMO its also true when listening to music in the car (too much background music) and from most computer speakers.
Where the lossless does help, is that with a "big" iPod I no longer even need a CD player with my home stereo system -much less a tape player or turntable. All those CDs can just be stashed in the cupboard.
Because we all know the new iPods they're announcing use Flash cards!
The hard drive is way faster than needed for video capture. I've got an old 5400 rpm Firewire drive that has no problem capturing DV without a hiccup (until the drive's full).
Anything from mpeg1-4 would be a lot lower bandwidth than even that (I'd actually prefer mpg4 myself). Also don't forget that rotational speed isn't everything. Combine that with data density to see how fast you can stream.
I don't see why recording over stuff and any other operations can't be made just as easy on a drive based deck.
And to bring it back to iPods, that's why the digicam I envision would have a Firewire port to connect to any external drive. One advantage of Firewire is that it is a peer-to-peer bus.
Seems to me a hard drive would be a lot more efficient.
Another factor is that a major part of the cost and bulk of your basic camcorder is tied up in handling the tape. And those mechanical parts (and aligment) are usually what fails.
I know there's a tie-in with the 500G operating shock there, but I haven't had my coffee yet...
For just music maybe not.
I keep thinking about all the other uses an iPod has though. Don't know about the Windows side of things so much, but on the Mac side, you can even boot your computer from an iPod.
So when I'm looking at something as portable as an iPod with that much storage I'm thinking maybe I really can carry around all the info I want in my back pocket. -Well not really my back pocekt...
Or there could be a lot of people like me who are looking forward to the day when I don't have to worry about what lossy codec sounds better than the other at a given bit rate.
Bring on big drives and lossless compression!
I did. Actually lots of fun.
One other factor WRT wireless vs. wired phone service I had forgotten about -geography. As in its a piece of cake rolling out wire in the plains of the US vs. mountainous regions.
Another factor that has slowed adoption in the US is that we've had an excellent "wired" system for decades. Its hard to get those companies to invest in something new when they can still make money off the old investment.
So yes, there are many factors -societal aspects being one important one among many.
If we really want to improve our education system, we have to improve our society's views on teachers
I agree, and part of the problem can be seen above.
"Teachers don't care, though -- no reason to."
Apparently realdpk doesn't know any of the teachers I've known. Too bad.
The only reason Japan and Japanese have these sweet 500$ cell-phones is because they see it as a perfectly good investment every 6 months to a year.
That just floored me when I read that in the article. And we're so concerned in the US with how much of this discarded junk is filling the landfills and leeching toxic chemicals. To think of how such a geographically small country like Japan can dispose of all this stuff complete with wasted batteries.... How do they do it?
But did you figure out the three sea shells?
Because not everyone in the US lives there?
The problem isn't population or size, its population density (the two together).
I think population density is a big factor often forgotten. When you get to the point where only a handfull of people would even be within range of a cell phone tower, the cost/benefit just isn't there. Especially when the wire has already been run.
Same holds true for cable and broadband.
But increased capacity for what purpose? If a full-length HD movie fits on a single HD-DVD, who cares if Blu-Ray has a larger (unused) capacity? Will they actually encode using a higher bit-rate when using Blu-Ray?
Now if we're talking for computer/data use -Give me bigger!
OTOH, had the Blu-Ray consorsium even finalized their recordable spec yet? That's one advantage HD-DVD has going for it.
For now, I say just put both technologies out there and let me try them out. Let the market decide (and drive the price down so I can afford the tech).
OTOH, from the NYTimes article linked in Slate,
"The solution came from TDK: it developed a protective layer that is just 0.1 millimeter thick but harder and more scratch-resistant than current coatings. Mr. Fidler said TDK is also developing methods to minimize fingerprints on disc surfaces, which can also distort the laser beam."
If that's true, I may change my mind. I had always heard the Blu-ray disks were much more fragile and IIRC were initially expected to be packaged in cassettes (like floppy disks). I do remember there was a point when the Blu-ray backers seemed to realize nobody wanted to buy disks encased in cassettes which made them all that much more expensive.