I think you have to consider the guy who wrote this review to be a bit a die-hard fan. I mean he insists or reading the books to his wife becuase she might not finish them before the movie. His criticisms about the lack of nuance in the film is a bit unrealistic too. he's obviously been affected by the book, which has many pages in which to develop descriptions and environments. Something that just doesn't work in film - you audience will fall asleep. Also books rely on your imagination for imagery. Film can never be so compeling or vivid as an inspired imagination.
Along the same lines, I wish they would make mobile phones more like organisers. I don't mean like the Nokia Communicatior. It's way too big. My Nokia 8210 (GSM) is the right size, but I wish it had more memory and organiser features. If only phones were like PCs - hackable.
Copyright law is there for a purpose: to benefit the consumer. We give people and companies so they have a motivation to make good music and distribute it. What they are doing is hording it to make money, except they don't have the vision to realise it'll lose them money.
Lets say I am a bitter old billionaire. Say I buy up all the record companies and stop distributing the music and disallow anyone playing the music. Is that fair? The record companies are trying to dictate how we buy and enjoy music and is wrong in the same sense as this example.
They may no longer be able, for example, to move music or video files around easily from one of their computers to another... The digital videos they shot in 1999 may be unplayable on their desktop and laptop computers
I don't think consumers will ever except this. Even if some politician who's been paid off by the industry tries to make it fly it will fail. The idea that your own liberties, such as managing the videos you shot, are limited just in case some greedy record comany or film studio might have their copyright voilated, is outrageous.
If people (who are old enough) cast their mind back, copy protection on software largely disappeared in the eighties. It was just too much of a burden on people who didn't pirate software. And ultimately it didn't work.
I think the important point to remember here is that the record companies are not playing fair. They do not want to licence their products for sale on the internet. Although it may not be illegal, or rather someone has not caught them out according to the law yet, they are basically trying to control the market.
It's up to us to put pressure on them to licence their music. A good way to do that is to swap MP3s. You might call it theft, but many of these companies are not exactly saints and in any David vs Goliath battles, dirty tricks are to go. in there arrogance, record companies forget that they only exist becuase of us, the consumers. By acting together we remind them of that fact.
I quite agree. And as you say you can't tell someone who spends their own time for free what to do. But programmers should realise that there is a benefit to sticking to some standards. Programming to a particular standard gives you a broader audience, more people are able to use your software, and that must be important to most Linux programmers.
Linux is missing an important element compared to other OSes: Design. It hasn't got a coherent set of features that are based on a sober evulation of the average user's needs. It has various packages that do this very well for specific solutions, but if you're going to write a user OS, you need careful design. And this is a big task, mainly becuase it requires standardisation of (programming, user) interfaces and behaviour across all aspects of the OS. Users need consistancy and predictability and Linux just dosn't have it. It does have an enormous, possibly endless, feature set, but many of those features are inaccessible to anyone who isn't interested in fiddling endlessly.
And what underlies this is the programmer mentalilty. Most free software is designed by programmers who, on the whole, have little empathy for the average user. They are technology focused. This may be good for the technology, but not good for the user.
The Linux development community should focus on developing and sticking to some technical design standards and working (and innovating) within those contraints. This may provide a platform for someone to fairly easily come up with a really easy to use system.
The Simpsons have been delivering witty, insightful, accurate and fairly balanced social and political commentry for years, without ever resorting to anything really base or gratuatious. They are consistenly funny and inoffensive. Mind you, if your average (American, but not only American) viewer paid more attention to what they watched they may be made to contemplate now and then, and realise that alot of the barbs snuck in to the families' banter is aimed at them.
I can't name the number of times I've stopped and said "hey, this is just like the Simpsons when Homer..." about my own behaviour or the bahviour of my friends. D'oh!
I really wish someone in government would wake up to this reality. Network infrastrcuture is a critical resource and it should not be in the hands of one company, not just for economic reasons.
It amazing that the giverment sees this with a raod network, but not communications. How will it feel when we wake up one day in the future and realise the phone company owns the driveway to our houses and will charge us whatever they like to use it and also control who may drive on it.
Dear Judge,
I understand that you have found me guilty of this crime and I am willing to make a mends. I promise not to do the same crime again, or at least in the same way, and I'll also stop doing other bad things, well at least the ones you've caught me doing. I even agree to make sure that I don't do exactly the same crime by hiring a couple of people who will be very strict with me and spank me most serverly if I do it again.
Regards...
If I were you (which I am patently not) I would not bother trying to sell a codec. I think there are many out there today and without some sort of corporate backing or a really compelling difference, you probably will not have much impact in a crowded marketplace. What would make more sense is developing a product that uses your codec, but provides a different sort of product or service. Maybe build a video confrencing system, or a monitoring and logging system. These ideas are off the top of my head, but you get my drift - add some sort of additional value, some application that makes your codec shine while solving a problem. Then you'll have a market and getting inverstors and customers will be a whole lots easier.
It's good to see people are finally realising that in using Microsoft products they are losing comptetive advatage. They're exposing themselves to the mediocrity of MS and all the dangers it entails. Improved security in Linux is just one example. As the net and IT infrastructure becomes increasingly improtant into the future, companies will realise the folly of blindly following Microsofts lead.
It's interesting to note that the specifications state that there is no 'copyright protection' on the SD slot. I never really understood why manufacturers ever included the 'feature' since it would have to be turning off lots of customers, including those not into copying but forseeing hassles just doing what the have a right to.
Hopefully this and other copy protection features will be weeded out by natrual selection.
The solution to every Slashdotters woes?
on
The Year In Ideas
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I thought it was was pr0n! This notion of speaking to the opposite sex is outrageous.
Maybe they're planning a comeback of the cube in the iMac range! Might make sense, fitting G3 components would be cheaper than G4 (less heat considerations), they could release a low-end external display, a bit of styling and bingo - a cool box that doesn't cost too much. I think it would sell like hotcakes.
No charger, but you will need a power supply! More swings and roundabouts. I think, though, if Apple went ahead with such a think it would be wise for them to have an external power supply and make the thing a lot more like a cube. Lack of battery definelty makes a dent in the cost.
I think the most exciting thing about plastic LCDs is that they are reflective. This will make displays much much more usable than right now. I want one soley for this reason. I can't really see why flexibility is so exciting. Who wants a floppy display?
I think the "miniaturizing" part basically consists of developing custom ICs to reduce the chip count so you can squezze all the bits into a smaller box. Now the big cost here is in the development. So it would cost Apple nothing to use those same chips in another design. They could take the designs of the iBook and use them into a LCD iMac. Probably use a less dense PCB layout might save a couple of bucks. But that would probably be offset by the additional plastic, etc used in a larger box. The drive might be a bit cheaper compared to a 2.5 inch notebook drive. The LCD screens would be about the same since the main manufacturing costs are in the resolution rather than the size. So as you see there are slim picking for cost savings in a LCD iMac compared to an iBook.
I wonder if this has got anything to do with "Computer Games and Australians Today" a "major national study about computer games and the way in which they are perceived and used by Australians" which were released on Monday by the government?
This government is so openly divisive for its own ends that I would not put it past them.
They don't have to give me money to use their service. Christ, I'll even pay them! All they have to do is provide a quality service. The yan start by offering reliable downloads in a convient way, a variety of encodings and making available every recording ever made.
I'd happily pay $20 a month for such a service. I'm not against people making money, but I am against evil monopolies and oligopolies.
Why don't we download our music for $0 per month, and keep it forever? One day record companies will wake up to the fact that this is what they are competing against.
One part of this that is an interesting idea is having your data replicated by local peers, so that when you are offline the data is still available. This would improve the availablity of files in any P2P, not only in the case where the person is offline, but would also help where a person has popular files: they could be replicated on "friendly" hosts to satisfy demand. This would be great if it were done automatically a group of co-operating users.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have to consider the guy who wrote this review to be a bit a die-hard fan. I mean he insists or reading the books to his wife becuase she might not finish them before the movie. His criticisms about the lack of nuance in the film is a bit unrealistic too. he's obviously been affected by the book, which has many pages in which to develop descriptions and environments. Something that just doesn't work in film - you audience will fall asleep. Also books rely on your imagination for imagery. Film can never be so compeling or vivid as an inspired imagination.
Along the same lines, I wish they would make mobile phones more like organisers. I don't mean like the Nokia Communicatior. It's way too big. My Nokia 8210 (GSM) is the right size, but I wish it had more memory and organiser features. If only phones were like PCs - hackable.
Microsoft. Someone ought to tell the FBI.
Copyright law is there for a purpose: to benefit the consumer. We give people and companies so they have a motivation to make good music and distribute it. What they are doing is hording it to make money, except they don't have the vision to realise it'll lose them money.
Lets say I am a bitter old billionaire. Say I buy up all the record companies and stop distributing the music and disallow anyone playing the music. Is that fair? The record companies are trying to dictate how we buy and enjoy music and is wrong in the same sense as this example.
I don't think consumers will ever except this. Even if some politician who's been paid off by the industry tries to make it fly it will fail. The idea that your own liberties, such as managing the videos you shot, are limited just in case some greedy record comany or film studio might have their copyright voilated, is outrageous.
If people (who are old enough) cast their mind back, copy protection on software largely disappeared in the eighties. It was just too much of a burden on people who didn't pirate software. And ultimately it didn't work.
I think the important point to remember here is that the record companies are not playing fair. They do not want to licence their products for sale on the internet. Although it may not be illegal, or rather someone has not caught them out according to the law yet, they are basically trying to control the market.
It's up to us to put pressure on them to licence their music. A good way to do that is to swap MP3s. You might call it theft, but many of these companies are not exactly saints and in any David vs Goliath battles, dirty tricks are to go. in there arrogance, record companies forget that they only exist becuase of us, the consumers. By acting together we remind them of that fact.
I quite agree. And as you say you can't tell someone who spends their own time for free what to do. But programmers should realise that there is a benefit to sticking to some standards. Programming to a particular standard gives you a broader audience, more people are able to use your software, and that must be important to most Linux programmers.
Linux is missing an important element compared to other OSes: Design. It hasn't got a coherent set of features that are based on a sober evulation of the average user's needs. It has various packages that do this very well for specific solutions, but if you're going to write a user OS, you need careful design. And this is a big task, mainly becuase it requires standardisation of (programming, user) interfaces and behaviour across all aspects of the OS. Users need consistancy and predictability and Linux just dosn't have it. It does have an enormous, possibly endless, feature set, but many of those features are inaccessible to anyone who isn't interested in fiddling endlessly.
And what underlies this is the programmer mentalilty. Most free software is designed by programmers who, on the whole, have little empathy for the average user. They are technology focused. This may be good for the technology, but not good for the user.
The Linux development community should focus on developing and sticking to some technical design standards and working (and innovating) within those contraints. This may provide a platform for someone to fairly easily come up with a really easy to use system.
This should make for some stupendous pr0n! Come on all you vouyers, start stringing those polygons together.
The Simpsons have been delivering witty, insightful, accurate and fairly balanced social and political commentry for years, without ever resorting to anything really base or gratuatious. They are consistenly funny and inoffensive. Mind you, if your average (American, but not only American) viewer paid more attention to what they watched they may be made to contemplate now and then, and realise that alot of the barbs snuck in to the families' banter is aimed at them.
I can't name the number of times I've stopped and said "hey, this is just like the Simpsons when Homer..." about my own behaviour or the bahviour of my friends. D'oh!
I really wish someone in government would wake up to this reality. Network infrastrcuture is a critical resource and it should not be in the hands of one company, not just for economic reasons.
It amazing that the giverment sees this with a raod network, but not communications. How will it feel when we wake up one day in the future and realise the phone company owns the driveway to our houses and will charge us whatever they like to use it and also control who may drive on it.
Dear Judge,
I understand that you have found me guilty of this crime and I am willing to make a mends. I promise not to do the same crime again, or at least in the same way, and I'll also stop doing other bad things, well at least the ones you've caught me doing. I even agree to make sure that I don't do exactly the same crime by hiring a couple of people who will be very strict with me and spank me most serverly if I do it again.
Regards...
If I were you (which I am patently not) I would not bother trying to sell a codec. I think there are many out there today and without some sort of corporate backing or a really compelling difference, you probably will not have much impact in a crowded marketplace. What would make more sense is developing a product that uses your codec, but provides a different sort of product or service. Maybe build a video confrencing system, or a monitoring and logging system. These ideas are off the top of my head, but you get my drift - add some sort of additional value, some application that makes your codec shine while solving a problem. Then you'll have a market and getting inverstors and customers will be a whole lots easier.
It's good to see people are finally realising that in using Microsoft products they are losing comptetive advatage. They're exposing themselves to the mediocrity of MS and all the dangers it entails. Improved security in Linux is just one example. As the net and IT infrastructure becomes increasingly improtant into the future, companies will realise the folly of blindly following Microsofts lead.
It's interesting to note that the specifications state that there is no 'copyright protection' on the SD slot. I never really understood why manufacturers ever included the 'feature' since it would have to be turning off lots of customers, including those not into copying but forseeing hassles just doing what the have a right to.
Hopefully this and other copy protection features will be weeded out by natrual selection.
I thought it was was pr0n! This notion of speaking to the opposite sex is outrageous.
Maybe they're planning a comeback of the cube in the iMac range! Might make sense, fitting G3 components would be cheaper than G4 (less heat considerations), they could release a low-end external display, a bit of styling and bingo - a cool box that doesn't cost too much. I think it would sell like hotcakes.
No charger, but you will need a power supply! More swings and roundabouts. I think, though, if Apple went ahead with such a think it would be wise for them to have an external power supply and make the thing a lot more like a cube. Lack of battery definelty makes a dent in the cost.
I think the most exciting thing about plastic LCDs is that they are reflective. This will make displays much much more usable than right now. I want one soley for this reason. I can't really see why flexibility is so exciting. Who wants a floppy display?
I think the "miniaturizing" part basically consists of developing custom ICs to reduce the chip count so you can squezze all the bits into a smaller box. Now the big cost here is in the development. So it would cost Apple nothing to use those same chips in another design. They could take the designs of the iBook and use them into a LCD iMac. Probably use a less dense PCB layout might save a couple of bucks. But that would probably be offset by the additional plastic, etc used in a larger box. The drive might be a bit cheaper compared to a 2.5 inch notebook drive. The LCD screens would be about the same since the main manufacturing costs are in the resolution rather than the size. So as you see there are slim picking for cost savings in a LCD iMac compared to an iBook.
..it's called an iBook.
But seriously, why would Apple sell such a thing? It would have to be comparable in cost to an iBook, the LCD being the most expensive part.
It would probably be a snazzy box, but would the price be right for a low-end machine?
I wonder if this has got anything to do with "Computer Games and Australians Today" a "major national study about computer games and the way in which they are perceived and used by Australians" which were released on Monday by the government?
This government is so openly divisive for its own ends that I would not put it past them.
They don't have to give me money to use their service. Christ, I'll even pay them! All they have to do is provide a quality service. The yan start by offering reliable downloads in a convient way, a variety of encodings and making available every recording ever made.
I'd happily pay $20 a month for such a service. I'm not against people making money, but I am against evil monopolies and oligopolies.
Why don't we download our music for $0 per month, and keep it forever? One day record companies will wake up to the fact that this is what they are competing against.
Until then, good luck.
One part of this that is an interesting idea is having your data replicated by local peers, so that when you are offline the data is still available. This would improve the availablity of files in any P2P, not only in the case where the person is offline, but would also help where a person has popular files: they could be replicated on "friendly" hosts to satisfy demand. This would be great if it were done automatically a group of co-operating users.