Do you remember what the PS2 cost when it was released? Early adopters obviously are having no problem swallowing $250 for this while the rest of us can wait as the price drops.
The guy _gave away_ a virtual thing that he obtained by chance. The guy he gave it to then sold it for ~$800.
So, a) the item had no value when it was first obtained and b) it was given away. You'd be hard pressed to find a court that would jump to the conclusion you did.
Let's focus on the ownership part, ignoring the virtual worth of the item in question. Suppose you drop by my house with a lovely Katana sword. You then leave said sword in my posession. I turn around and sell it. Sure, I'm a turd, but you are pretty much 100% SOL.
Yeah, that was kind of my point: No existing display technology is perfect, all have their pros and cons. Thus, dismissing TFT LCD technology because some of them might have dead pixels seems like an odd soapbox to stand on when CRT technology isn't necessarily perfect either.
Pick the display tech that suits your needs, while remembering that what is best for you is most certainly not the same for everyone else.
That won't work, anyone that knows what a dead pixel looks like will be able to tell. One screen pixel is represented by 3 pixels on the lcd. Now, there are ways to mess with this and target sub-pixels. This is how ClearType technology works.
Size doesn't really matter here, resolution is more important. What's the res and dpi on the PSP? If the dpi is higher than most lcd screens being manufactured, it is entirely possible that the manufacturing process is more delicate resulting in more problem pixels. Not to excuse it, but it could explain why most monitors these days no longer have this issue, and why the PSP display does.
Sort of, but it is a balancing act. Producing an LCD screen and then throwing it out because of 1 dead pixel out of 1310720 is certainly wasteful and drives cost up. If there is an acceptable balance as to what consumers will accept as functional for their money, then it makes sense to do so. Most monitor manufacturers specify that 2-3 dead pixels is acceptable. I've also never heard of a manufacturer that flat out refused replacement when pushed on this anyways.
Now, if dead pixels aren't acceptable for you, easy solution: Try before you buy.
I've got 2 17" samsung 173T monitors, and a 15" thinkpad. Not one single dead pixel on any of them. For that matter, neither of the cell phones in my house have dead pixels on their screens either.
Now, I do realize and understand why manufacturers have defined tolerances for acceptability. Most tend to concider 2-3 dead pixels on a large monitor to be acceptable. This I can accept as it is indeed quite expensive to scrap any displays that come out of production with a couple of dead pixels. Still though, knowing that in reality it isn't that common to have dead pixels, I would suggest always testing before purchasing. Just don't buy the monitor with the dead pixels if you happen across one;)
Does it really look like I'm trying to support the advertising model? Sheesh.
All I am saying, _yet_ again, is that if you agree to a service which includes an advertising model, then you have agreed to at least accept those advertisements. (The only ones that would argue that you should be forced to actually view them would be the end ad agency, but noone agrees with that stance) Once you've received those ads, feel free to do what you will. Including delete them. HOWEVER, the TIVO cannot automatically do that as that would be EXACTLY the same as agreeing to pay for content that is subsidized by advertising, and then refusing to even accept the ads.
Personally, if you haven't figured this out yet, I'd rather pay for no-ad content thanks. Unfortunately no one other than the DVD manufacturers wants to provide that content that way.
If you re-read my post, you will see that you are in fact arguing with yourself.
My point, again, was that if you subscribe to an advertising based broadcast service, YOU have agreed to accept said advertising in exchange for the advertising offsetting the cost of the service you are using. Circumventing the advertisements in this case would very deffinately be construed as theft by the court system.
I'd be rather pissed if I were to pay for an ad free service though and was forced to watch ads. That's a different story.
Ahh, but given that what right do you have to watch the program you've recorded? Technically, all you've done is time-shifted the program in question. Your TIVO 'watches' the show at the original air time and saves it for you to watch later. The advertisers are paying to have their ads played during that show. I believe there is a reasonable expectation here that those ads _should_ persist with the recording.
It's not like NBC called you up and asked if they could broadcast some program to you. You would be the consumer here.
So, until there is some other way of paying to view programs, all we have is the advertising model currently in use. Your service would cost lots more if it had to be provided sans advertising.
I hate ads as much as the next guy, but I can clearly see how refusing to even accept the ads that help pay for what you're watching could be construed as theft.
Some of us prefer not to live our life out in the gutter. FYI, in this society, it may not be your God given right to make money, but it is kindof a requirement to any quality of life.
Anarchy is a great idea, but it never seems to pan out very well in practice;)
The problem with this argument is that our society is built on capitalism. Your argument, while arguable 'correct', just doesn't fly in our society. In our society, unfortunately, that argument makes you a thief. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.
If you want the world to work that way, I'd suggest you get into politics and change things.
If I buy something, it is not acceptable for it to be encumbered by DRM.
However, if it's used to enforce a rental or temporary use of something, and that's what I'm agreeing to pay for, no problem.
But again, if you are trying to sell me something that is broken, I won't be buying. FYI: If everybody made their purchases this way, there would be no such thing as DRM. In my opinion, iTMS users have done serious damage by undermining expected fair use by accepting these purchases.
Another Moronism: Any business model that lets you buy a substandard version of a standard product is "smart" and "in".
I'm sick of the black/white argument. I'm sick of being accused of being a thief by pricks like you. I have 20g of 100% legitimately owned and acquired DRM FREE music files that I can use however the fuck I want. I am not a thief....and yet I am VERY much against DRM.
Its sad that people are so stupid as to pay companies to take their long held legitimate uses away.
Clue people: It used to be that if you purchased a song, then you had the right to do whatever the fuck you wanted with it for personal use. QUIT ARGUING MY FUCKING RIGHTS AWAY YOU PRICKS!
Ahh, so to be a good person and do good in life, one must abide by all of _your_ moral convictions and be absolutely perfect in the logic behind every action ever taken in their life?
She was sainted. Do you understand what that means? It means she has been mad a figurehead for the Catholic Church. But you cite articles claiming that she is a fraud because she opposed abortion and contraceptives?
I find it sick that people must condemn the good that others do just because they don't agree with their moral position. None of this changes the acts of good that this person did in her life.
I'd like to see you perform as many selfless acts of charity in your lifetime.
They don't care what you say here, they know there is nobody important (to them) listening. This isn't exactly a hotbed for the seriously weak of mind.
Besides, they can come and picket my house any time they want. My dog's been known to get loose when large groups of strangers convene on our premesis.
You seem to think that we are targets for this kind of crap. Not even close. They litigate against people like us. Scientology's recruitment channels focus very _very_ extensively on targetting those that are weak of mind. That's what all of their tests are for, to show _you_, the taker of the test, how extremely fragile, weak and broken you are.
If you fall for that shit, they try to suck you in. If you don't they get rid of you ASAP. If you then decide to share the truth in any meaningful manner, they litigate.
It's just that simple. There is nothing else to it. Sick sick sick.
Anyways, my point being, you're preaching to the converted. Or rather, you're preaching to the un-convertable.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you remember what the PS2 cost when it was released? Early adopters obviously are having no problem swallowing $250 for this while the rest of us can wait as the price drops.
Lets at least get the facts straight shall we?
The guy _gave away_ a virtual thing that he obtained by chance. The guy he gave it to then sold it for ~$800.
So, a) the item had no value when it was first obtained and b) it was given away. You'd be hard pressed to find a court that would jump to the conclusion you did.
Let's focus on the ownership part, ignoring the virtual worth of the item in question. Suppose you drop by my house with a lovely Katana sword. You then leave said sword in my posession. I turn around and sell it. Sure, I'm a turd, but you are pretty much 100% SOL.
Yeah, that was kind of my point: No existing display technology is perfect, all have their pros and cons. Thus, dismissing TFT LCD technology because some of them might have dead pixels seems like an odd soapbox to stand on when CRT technology isn't necessarily perfect either.
Pick the display tech that suits your needs, while remembering that what is best for you is most certainly not the same for everyone else.
I was just thinking that, sure you can set your screent o 1280x960, but a 1280x1024 LCD screen is going to look like ASS at that resolution.
Just curious, what is your position on Aperture Grille technology in CRT's?
That won't work, anyone that knows what a dead pixel looks like will be able to tell. One screen pixel is represented by 3 pixels on the lcd. Now, there are ways to mess with this and target sub-pixels. This is how ClearType technology works.
Size doesn't really matter here, resolution is more important. What's the res and dpi on the PSP? If the dpi is higher than most lcd screens being manufactured, it is entirely possible that the manufacturing process is more delicate resulting in more problem pixels. Not to excuse it, but it could explain why most monitors these days no longer have this issue, and why the PSP display does.
Sort of, but it is a balancing act. Producing an LCD screen and then throwing it out because of 1 dead pixel out of 1310720 is certainly wasteful and drives cost up. If there is an acceptable balance as to what consumers will accept as functional for their money, then it makes sense to do so. Most monitor manufacturers specify that 2-3 dead pixels is acceptable. I've also never heard of a manufacturer that flat out refused replacement when pushed on this anyways.
Now, if dead pixels aren't acceptable for you, easy solution: Try before you buy.
My personal experience would beg to differ.
;)
I've got 2 17" samsung 173T monitors, and a 15" thinkpad. Not one single dead pixel on any of them. For that matter, neither of the cell phones in my house have dead pixels on their screens either.
Now, I do realize and understand why manufacturers have defined tolerances for acceptability. Most tend to concider 2-3 dead pixels on a large monitor to be acceptable. This I can accept as it is indeed quite expensive to scrap any displays that come out of production with a couple of dead pixels. Still though, knowing that in reality it isn't that common to have dead pixels, I would suggest always testing before purchasing. Just don't buy the monitor with the dead pixels if you happen across one
Does it really look like I'm trying to support the advertising model? Sheesh.
All I am saying, _yet_ again, is that if you agree to a service which includes an advertising model, then you have agreed to at least accept those advertisements. (The only ones that would argue that you should be forced to actually view them would be the end ad agency, but noone agrees with that stance) Once you've received those ads, feel free to do what you will. Including delete them. HOWEVER, the TIVO cannot automatically do that as that would be EXACTLY the same as agreeing to pay for content that is subsidized by advertising, and then refusing to even accept the ads.
Personally, if you haven't figured this out yet, I'd rather pay for no-ad content thanks. Unfortunately no one other than the DVD manufacturers wants to provide that content that way.
If you re-read my post, you will see that you are in fact arguing with yourself.
My point, again, was that if you subscribe to an advertising based broadcast service, YOU have agreed to accept said advertising in exchange for the advertising offsetting the cost of the service you are using. Circumventing the advertisements in this case would very deffinately be construed as theft by the court system.
I'd be rather pissed if I were to pay for an ad free service though and was forced to watch ads. That's a different story.
We bitch here all the time about parental responsibility.
And then a responsible parent comes along and what do we do? Sheesh.
Have a kid or two and gain some perspective on reality.
Ahh, but given that what right do you have to watch the program you've recorded? Technically, all you've done is time-shifted the program in question. Your TIVO 'watches' the show at the original air time and saves it for you to watch later. The advertisers are paying to have their ads played during that show. I believe there is a reasonable expectation here that those ads _should_ persist with the recording.
It's not like NBC called you up and asked if they could broadcast some program to you. You would be the consumer here.
So, until there is some other way of paying to view programs, all we have is the advertising model currently in use. Your service would cost lots more if it had to be provided sans advertising.
I hate ads as much as the next guy, but I can clearly see how refusing to even accept the ads that help pay for what you're watching could be construed as theft.
Unfortunately languages are evolved by the users of language, not by standards committees or any other formal controlled process.
It doesn't really matter how a language _should_ evolve. It'll evolve on it's own regardless of how you believe it should proceed.
Some of us prefer not to live our life out in the gutter. FYI, in this society, it may not be your God given right to make money, but it is kindof a requirement to any quality of life.
We know, thanks.
Anarchy is a great idea, but it never seems to pan out very well in practice;)
The problem with this argument is that our society is built on capitalism. Your argument, while arguable 'correct', just doesn't fly in our society. In our society, unfortunately, that argument makes you a thief. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.
If you want the world to work that way, I'd suggest you get into politics and change things.
If I buy something, it is not acceptable for it to be encumbered by DRM.
However, if it's used to enforce a rental or temporary use of something, and that's what I'm agreeing to pay for, no problem.
But again, if you are trying to sell me something that is broken, I won't be buying. FYI: If everybody made their purchases this way, there would be no such thing as DRM. In my opinion, iTMS users have done serious damage by undermining expected fair use by accepting these purchases.
Except for the tiny fact that the entire library is indexed, including all of those books you don't know exist.
I agree though, it would be nice to have a browsable listing.
He also revealed that he spends his mornings at work googling his own name. If it wasn't official before, it is now: Google is a verb!
OT: Your bunny wasn't fixed was it? Great, now look at what I have to deal with ;)
Another Moronism: Any business model that lets you buy a substandard version of a standard product is "smart" and "in".
I'm sick of the black/white argument. I'm sick of being accused of being a thief by pricks like you. I have 20g of 100% legitimately owned and acquired DRM FREE music files that I can use however the fuck I want. I am not a thief....and yet I am VERY much against DRM.
Its sad that people are so stupid as to pay companies to take their long held legitimate uses away.
Clue people: It used to be that if you purchased a song, then you had the right to do whatever the fuck you wanted with it for personal use. QUIT ARGUING MY FUCKING RIGHTS AWAY YOU PRICKS!
Ahh, so to be a good person and do good in life, one must abide by all of _your_ moral convictions and be absolutely perfect in the logic behind every action ever taken in their life?
She was sainted. Do you understand what that means? It means she has been mad a figurehead for the Catholic Church. But you cite articles claiming that she is a fraud because she opposed abortion and contraceptives?
I find it sick that people must condemn the good that others do just because they don't agree with their moral position. None of this changes the acts of good that this person did in her life.
I'd like to see you perform as many selfless acts of charity in your lifetime.
They don't care what you say here, they know there is nobody important (to them) listening. This isn't exactly a hotbed for the seriously weak of mind.
Besides, they can come and picket my house any time they want. My dog's been known to get loose when large groups of strangers convene on our premesis.
You seem to think that we are targets for this kind of crap. Not even close. They litigate against people like us. Scientology's recruitment channels focus very _very_ extensively on targetting those that are weak of mind. That's what all of their tests are for, to show _you_, the taker of the test, how extremely fragile, weak and broken you are.
If you fall for that shit, they try to suck you in.
If you don't they get rid of you ASAP.
If you then decide to share the truth in any meaningful manner, they litigate.
It's just that simple. There is nothing else to it. Sick sick sick.
Anyways, my point being, you're preaching to the converted. Or rather, you're preaching to the un-convertable.