Good luck defending that patent-- litigation isn't free, and sooner or later an infringer will say, "Hey, I'm a company with cash, this is a shmuck on the Internet. I'll just crush him financially through the courts."
But on the downside, I bet their monthly traffic allotment just busted through the ceiling and into the gruesome "pay per additional bandwidth this month" point.
Isn't that why they released it using BitTorrent? That way, if their allotment is X% used up, they can stop seeding while the rest of the crowd feeds one another.
I'm not sure that's the "funding model", although if they really get things moving they would be more similar to public television since their funding is donation-based (sans underwriting).
It's an entirely different production model to traditional television, which is probably what you were getting at. Instead of a very top-down model where a bunch of focus groups and test audiences (not to mention the whims of executives) decide whether a new show airs, these guys are unconditionally releasing their stuff for the cost of an Internet connection, a very bottom-up approach. They will, as you said, reach the eyeballs of many more people in the initial release, and probably have comparable viewer group size to niche favorites, at least.
The question will be, is their model sustainable? Can a bunch of guys with some production/acting/writing talents put up a show on their dime and at least recoup the costs on donations? My guess is, probably not-- not unless this model gains more traction.
Zogby is an Internet pollster and so-called "social research" company; they got some of the lowest reliability marks from these meta-pollsters because their numbers were neither consistent nor terribly accurate in the last American election cycle.
So I would take the assertions of this study with at least a pound of salt; it could very easily be a study paid for by someone who has something to lose should Google continue to gain popularity.
If you're using Windows, get the version from PortableApps.com. The only way that can ever update is if you download a new version.
This doesn't work quite as nicely on Linux or Mac, but then, those builds don't crash quite as often for me (never saw Chrome crash, on any platform). YMMV.
In politics and business, that's called "leadership". It worked for Bill Gates-- despite the fact that many of the products under his tenure as Microsoft CEO were either bought or copied wholesale from others, he had the admiration of the business community because he had piles of money.
Now, that probably does not describe Gates today, as he's following to some extent the philosophy of Andrew Carnegie. But the influence he wielded was and still is considerable, and he wasn't afraid of using it to get his way as Microsoft CEO-- one wonders whether he'll resist the temptation as philanthropist.
About 2005 or so was when they started to purge articles using a rather arbitrary "Notability" guideline-- essentially, if it wasn't important to the committed editors on Wikipedia, it would get tagged for deletion.
The problem was, instead of the old "edit wars" you had "delete feuds" where any editor could tag a popular but niche article as "NN" (Not Notable) and vote likewise in the ensuing discussion-- every pretense of the discussion not being a straw poll was often disregarded. And the irony is, NN is/was likely superfluous, as it could have easily been described using their policies on verification-- if there aren't multiple sources for it, chances are it doesn't matter anyway.
Both of the problems we describe point to a developed culture where established editors no longer welcome new editors, and even treat them with hostility. Maybe it's not the dreaded "Wikipedia cabal" critics have written about, but it appears to have adopted every negative stereotype of the "snooty" private school. It's a sociological problem, and many times harder to solve, so a token gesture to anonymous editors is not going to help this much at all.
1. They're using applications that depend explicitly on either XP or IE6. 2. They bought all the crap that Gates and Ballmer shoveled down their throats during the time they actively opposed Linux (rather than the subterfuge of today). 3. They don't want to pay for or support migration, even if the long-term benefits outweigh the costs; i.e., they are stuck in the short-term profit mentality that still plagues Wall Street.
A witness at a crime scene may be hesitant to say exactly what he or she thinks because he knows the neighbors may see it. People may run away or refuse to come forward because they are afraid that they will be identified later on television and thus could become the victims of a crime.
This is evidence that the public does not trust the police, not that the camera changes testimony.
The point that I hope you're trying to make is, the cops should never default to intimidation for anyone but those who warrant the rebuke of the law-- and officers are supposed to be trained to recognize the difference between a teenager who just needs a good talking-to, and a drug lord who will shoot to kill. Yes, I know that there are enough bad cops (one, quite frankly, is enough to spoil the entire profession, which is why police departments must be accountable to impartial parties rather than a committee of their own members looking to protect one of their own, a mob looking for revenge, or the city council looking for easy political brownie points).
I also recall the image overhaul that Chief Bill Bratton did to reform the infamous LAPD-- that's just as crucial, because if the people don't trust the police, police can't do their jobs without abusing the people, and the cycle escalates. But, as you said, there are scores more good cops than the bad apples-- I know several personally who are committed to doing their jobs and protecting the people in their beats. And I know that even if the officers I mentioned are recorded, they will do their jobs with pride, because they built that trust with myself and others in their cities.
Those groups overwhelmingly support the action because they either are naive enough to think that giving cops less accountability reduces crime (which is blatantly false and demonstrated to be false on multiple occasions), or that they know that if they give that impression that they're fighting crime by killing civil liberties, they will be re-elected.
Civil disobedience. If they get the legislatures to pass anti-camera laws, use them anyway. Get hidden cams and post incriminating stuff to P2P networks. If they get what is very clearly a power grab by the police, that is our best defense against police abuse.
The cops don't want cameras keeping them honest? Tough cookies. Cry us all a damn river. If it were not for cell phone cameras, a BART policeman in Oakland would not have been caught shooting and killing a restrained young man. If it weren't for cameras, the LAPD men who beat a handcuffed Rodney King would not have been found guilty of civil rights violations (they should have been found guilty of excessive use of force) or fined millions in damages.
They have every advantage in the courtroom that isn't afforded to us mere citizens, and they have the audacity to claim that no one should keep them accountable? Give me a fucking break.
Generally, when it's framed as "US workers vs. outsourced jobs", the supporters you describe will support the US workers and scoff at their high wages. Their line of reasoning is generally, "PROTECTIONISM!!! You're hurting everyone's economies!!"
I think that, if they want to at least placate those who want LAN play, they should release a LAN edition with no single-player campaign or Battle.net connection for the clients. The idea here is to cater to LAN party hosts and Internet cafes (if they still exist) to provide a multiplayer-only environment for those who don't connect to Battle.net either because it's not convenient for them, or because they just want to play with neighbors or friends. If they're really smart they'd market this "StarCraft II Server" much in the same way Microsoft does for Windows Server, and allow hosts to provide cut-down versions of SC2 solely for the purpose of local multiplayer games.
Of course, as with WoW private servers, Blizzard will never officially sanction this, and probably will aggressively fight any attempt by players to make this possible. The reason is not piracy or user safety, given that they insist that this is the case without much justification for this reasoning. The reasons are manifold: (1) It is more cost-effective to provide support if the platform is as homogeneous as possible, and the best way to ensure that is if everyone is required to connect to the same servers-- Blizzard's. (2) It is much easier to market and sell additional content (should they decide to do so) if they are in complete control of the online experience, something which LAN play and private servers will deny them. (3) It is likewise much easier to enforce Blizzard policy, no matter how inane or draconian, if everyone plays the same version on the same server farm, again something which private servers and LAN will hamper.
It's also amusing to see the new AMD-based notebooks lined up this year, after literally years of ceding the market to Intel. Maybe they run hotter, maybe they're not as energy-efficient, but I don't see those as reasons to let their mobile line languish.
Now if they could release XP drivers for some of their newer chipsets, that would be great-- unfortunately the vendors (*cough*Toshiba*cough*) have AMD by the nads on this one...
My current build uses an Arctic Cooling Freezer. Nice big aluminum/copper heatsink with a big fan, quiet, and keeps my CPU at sub-50 even under load-- though your 720 BE might run hotter than my 810 if it's overclocked. At about $30 on NewEgg (and still being built & sold), I think it's a great cooler for the money.
My motherboard (Gigabyte) doesn't like the fan, however-- the MB's control software sometimes fires off a warning that it's not working correctly. I think it's because it's a 3-pin rather than 4, though I'll have to research that.
If MPEG-LA wanted to be really nasty about it and keep it out of the courtroom, they could pressure the chip makers not to support WebM much in the same way Microsoft pressured OEMs: "You do that and I'll make you pay more licensing fees", or the more modern, "Thanks for not supporting a rival, here's a sweet licensing deal and more free (gratis) software!".
Yes, it's probably illegal in many jurisdictions to do that, but corporate entities have discovered that it's often more cost-effective to break the law and pay a penalty rather than follow the law in the first place. Not only that, only video professionals and a subset of computing geeks care about how the video data is compressed and streamed-- most Joes who buy their new shiny smartphone isn't going to care unless it doesn't work, and if we try to explain it, their eyes often glaze over.
Yes, and that's precisely why they will offer a big chunk of cash to settle rather than allow this stuff to be aired in a public forum like a courtroom.
Or, if it goes to trial, they will beg the judge to keep the proceedings closed to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck defending that patent-- litigation isn't free, and sooner or later an infringer will say, "Hey, I'm a company with cash, this is a shmuck on the Internet. I'll just crush him financially through the courts."
Isn't that why they released it using BitTorrent? That way, if their allotment is X% used up, they can stop seeding while the rest of the crowd feeds one another.
I'm not sure that's the "funding model", although if they really get things moving they would be more similar to public television since their funding is donation-based (sans underwriting).
It's an entirely different production model to traditional television, which is probably what you were getting at. Instead of a very top-down model where a bunch of focus groups and test audiences (not to mention the whims of executives) decide whether a new show airs, these guys are unconditionally releasing their stuff for the cost of an Internet connection, a very bottom-up approach. They will, as you said, reach the eyeballs of many more people in the initial release, and probably have comparable viewer group size to niche favorites, at least.
The question will be, is their model sustainable? Can a bunch of guys with some production/acting/writing talents put up a show on their dime and at least recoup the costs on donations? My guess is, probably not-- not unless this model gains more traction.
Zogby is an Internet pollster and so-called "social research" company; they got some of the lowest reliability marks from these meta-pollsters because their numbers were neither consistent nor terribly accurate in the last American election cycle.
So I would take the assertions of this study with at least a pound of salt; it could very easily be a study paid for by someone who has something to lose should Google continue to gain popularity.
There may well be an entire game franchise around that particular concept.
They've managed to combine the worst aspects of MLB umpires and Olympic officials...
If you're using Windows, get the version from PortableApps.com. The only way that can ever update is if you download a new version.
This doesn't work quite as nicely on Linux or Mac, but then, those builds don't crash quite as often for me (never saw Chrome crash, on any platform). YMMV.
In politics and business, that's called "leadership". It worked for Bill Gates-- despite the fact that many of the products under his tenure as Microsoft CEO were either bought or copied wholesale from others, he had the admiration of the business community because he had piles of money.
Now, that probably does not describe Gates today, as he's following to some extent the philosophy of Andrew Carnegie. But the influence he wielded was and still is considerable, and he wasn't afraid of using it to get his way as Microsoft CEO-- one wonders whether he'll resist the temptation as philanthropist.
About 2005 or so was when they started to purge articles using a rather arbitrary "Notability" guideline-- essentially, if it wasn't important to the committed editors on Wikipedia, it would get tagged for deletion.
The problem was, instead of the old "edit wars" you had "delete feuds" where any editor could tag a popular but niche article as "NN" (Not Notable) and vote likewise in the ensuing discussion-- every pretense of the discussion not being a straw poll was often disregarded. And the irony is, NN is/was likely superfluous, as it could have easily been described using their policies on verification-- if there aren't multiple sources for it, chances are it doesn't matter anyway.
Both of the problems we describe point to a developed culture where established editors no longer welcome new editors, and even treat them with hostility. Maybe it's not the dreaded "Wikipedia cabal" critics have written about, but it appears to have adopted every negative stereotype of the "snooty" private school. It's a sociological problem, and many times harder to solve, so a token gesture to anonymous editors is not going to help this much at all.
To say little of the Afghans who will now be exploited as slave labor-- er, indentured servants-- er, loyal employees.
Given your sig, I'd complain about Microsoft's vaporware, and voila: hat trick.
Reasons they don't (can't):
1. They're using applications that depend explicitly on either XP or IE6.
2. They bought all the crap that Gates and Ballmer shoveled down their throats during the time they actively opposed Linux (rather than the subterfuge of today).
3. They don't want to pay for or support migration, even if the long-term benefits outweigh the costs; i.e., they are stuck in the short-term profit mentality that still plagues Wall Street.
That's pointy-haired manager speak for "I don't know why, but the lawyers say we shouldn't."
I've read so much bad news about petroleum lately, that I read the article title as "Studies Prove That BP Can Cross Placenta To Fetuses".
And BPA is a petroleum product. Go figure.
"... Come back... one year! NEXT!!"
Never thought I'd see an Asian restaurant Nazi. Usually they do that sort of thing to their staff.
This is evidence that the public does not trust the police, not that the camera changes testimony.
The point that I hope you're trying to make is, the cops should never default to intimidation for anyone but those who warrant the rebuke of the law-- and officers are supposed to be trained to recognize the difference between a teenager who just needs a good talking-to, and a drug lord who will shoot to kill. Yes, I know that there are enough bad cops (one, quite frankly, is enough to spoil the entire profession, which is why police departments must be accountable to impartial parties rather than a committee of their own members looking to protect one of their own, a mob looking for revenge, or the city council looking for easy political brownie points).
I also recall the image overhaul that Chief Bill Bratton did to reform the infamous LAPD-- that's just as crucial, because if the people don't trust the police, police can't do their jobs without abusing the people, and the cycle escalates. But, as you said, there are scores more good cops than the bad apples-- I know several personally who are committed to doing their jobs and protecting the people in their beats. And I know that even if the officers I mentioned are recorded, they will do their jobs with pride, because they built that trust with myself and others in their cities.
Those groups overwhelmingly support the action because they either are naive enough to think that giving cops less accountability reduces crime (which is blatantly false and demonstrated to be false on multiple occasions), or that they know that if they give that impression that they're fighting crime by killing civil liberties, they will be re-elected.
Civil disobedience. If they get the legislatures to pass anti-camera laws, use them anyway. Get hidden cams and post incriminating stuff to P2P networks. If they get what is very clearly a power grab by the police, that is our best defense against police abuse.
The cops don't want cameras keeping them honest? Tough cookies. Cry us all a damn river. If it were not for cell phone cameras, a BART policeman in Oakland would not have been caught shooting and killing a restrained young man. If it weren't for cameras, the LAPD men who beat a handcuffed Rodney King would not have been found guilty of civil rights violations (they should have been found guilty of excessive use of force) or fined millions in damages.
They have every advantage in the courtroom that isn't afforded to us mere citizens, and they have the audacity to claim that no one should keep them accountable? Give me a fucking break.
Generally, when it's framed as "US workers vs. outsourced jobs", the supporters you describe will support the US workers and scoff at their high wages. Their line of reasoning is generally, "PROTECTIONISM!!! You're hurting everyone's economies!!"
I think that, if they want to at least placate those who want LAN play, they should release a LAN edition with no single-player campaign or Battle.net connection for the clients. The idea here is to cater to LAN party hosts and Internet cafes (if they still exist) to provide a multiplayer-only environment for those who don't connect to Battle.net either because it's not convenient for them, or because they just want to play with neighbors or friends. If they're really smart they'd market this "StarCraft II Server" much in the same way Microsoft does for Windows Server, and allow hosts to provide cut-down versions of SC2 solely for the purpose of local multiplayer games.
Of course, as with WoW private servers, Blizzard will never officially sanction this, and probably will aggressively fight any attempt by players to make this possible. The reason is not piracy or user safety, given that they insist that this is the case without much justification for this reasoning. The reasons are manifold: (1) It is more cost-effective to provide support if the platform is as homogeneous as possible, and the best way to ensure that is if everyone is required to connect to the same servers-- Blizzard's. (2) It is much easier to market and sell additional content (should they decide to do so) if they are in complete control of the online experience, something which LAN play and private servers will deny them. (3) It is likewise much easier to enforce Blizzard policy, no matter how inane or draconian, if everyone plays the same version on the same server farm, again something which private servers and LAN will hamper.
It's also amusing to see the new AMD-based notebooks lined up this year, after literally years of ceding the market to Intel. Maybe they run hotter, maybe they're not as energy-efficient, but I don't see those as reasons to let their mobile line languish.
Now if they could release XP drivers for some of their newer chipsets, that would be great-- unfortunately the vendors (*cough*Toshiba*cough*) have AMD by the nads on this one...
My current build uses an Arctic Cooling Freezer. Nice big aluminum/copper heatsink with a big fan, quiet, and keeps my CPU at sub-50 even under load-- though your 720 BE might run hotter than my 810 if it's overclocked. At about $30 on NewEgg (and still being built & sold), I think it's a great cooler for the money.
My motherboard (Gigabyte) doesn't like the fan, however-- the MB's control software sometimes fires off a warning that it's not working correctly. I think it's because it's a 3-pin rather than 4, though I'll have to research that.
If MPEG-LA wanted to be really nasty about it and keep it out of the courtroom, they could pressure the chip makers not to support WebM much in the same way Microsoft pressured OEMs: "You do that and I'll make you pay more licensing fees", or the more modern, "Thanks for not supporting a rival, here's a sweet licensing deal and more free (gratis) software!".
Yes, it's probably illegal in many jurisdictions to do that, but corporate entities have discovered that it's often more cost-effective to break the law and pay a penalty rather than follow the law in the first place. Not only that, only video professionals and a subset of computing geeks care about how the video data is compressed and streamed-- most Joes who buy their new shiny smartphone isn't going to care unless it doesn't work, and if we try to explain it, their eyes often glaze over.
Yes, and that's precisely why they will offer a big chunk of cash to settle rather than allow this stuff to be aired in a public forum like a courtroom.
Or, if it goes to trial, they will beg the judge to keep the proceedings closed to the public.