Ooooh, sounds like you're ready to start a jihad over this.
I just don't understand how you see this. What "weapons" does he sell to managers? He gives the peons a great "weapon", for sure. There's no better way than to point out how stupid a proposed policy is than finding a Dilbert cartoon that pokes fun at it.
How does this help managers?
I don't disagree that if, by some miracle, all management suddenly got a clue, SA would be in trouble. But the reality is that he has nothing to worry about. Stupidity abhors a vaccuum.
Ok, this guy is either completely lying or he is just misinformed.
If the DIVX player is unable to contact the mother ship for a certain period of time, it locks up. The only way to unlock it is to have it call up so they can bill you.
So your story about just not plugging it up and playing all the DIVXs you want is true - for about a month. Then your choice is too pay your bill or leave it disabled.
I can't say this for sure, but I think it DVD playing is disabled as well as DIVX playing when this happens.
This is a pretty important question, and some nearsighted studios manage to miss it.
Yes, DTV will come along with its higher resolution picture and current DVDs won't take advantage of it.
However, as long as they are good transfers, DVDs already rival film. Granted, if you blew the picture of to the size of a movie screen, it wouldn't look good. But at TV size, it's a damn fine picture. Along with this, I must stress the importance of doing an anamorphic (or 16x9 enhanced) transfer. This means that the film is recorded on the DVD at like twice the normal number of lines (this is a rough explanation). However, when you play it back on a standard TV, it drops every X line. To the person on the standard TV, this is indistiguishable from the non-anamorphic transfer. But when you pop that thing into a high-res tv or monitor, it displays ALL the resolution. It's quite forward thinking.
Be sure to look for this feature, as it will become very important in the future when you upgrade to a 16x9 tv. Plus, an anamorphic print requires a new transfer to be made. In other words, they don't just take some old crummy transfer they used for a laserdisc which was transferred from a slightly degraded copy of the film to begin with and just copy it to DVD. They go back to the source and make a new transfer. Obviously, this is not going to be practical for every film (plus, it costs a bit of $$$). But for most, especially for any new movies by major studios, there is no reason not to do it.
Oh definitely. That's one of the most heinous thing - they basically have the key to your movie collection.
I must note, though, that any parent should be setting a password for their DIVX player. This way kids couldn't run up charges from unsupervised usage.
But that really sucks, too. It unneccessarily limits the freedom you can give to your kids. Instead, everytime they want to watch their favorite kiddy show, you have to come turn it on.
Hmm, Rob fixed the wrapping bug, but it looks like it's caused some other problem. It keeps putting a space in the href. Well, here's the text of the link:
plugging into a phone jack is hard?
on
Anti-DIVX article
·
· Score: 1
For geeks, wires criscrossing the room is no big deal. Non-geek folk don't like this much. Especially those with children who like to trip over any exposed wire, thus ripping it and possibly some components out of the socket.
--
What happens when your DIVX player goes kaput?
on
Anti-DIVX article
·
· Score: 1
Ok, looks like I'm on FUD patrol with this story. I think DIVX is weak enough to fail on the facts. So here they are regarding your post:
Discs are unlocked for accounts, not for players. So if your player dies, your fine. Of course, you then have to buy another player and tell DIVX to hook it up to your account. The same goes for multiple players - they are all on one account and can swap discs freely.
In the interest of reducing FUD, I must point out that the player calls during the middle of the night once a month. It doesn't actually need to call before it can unlock a movie. The call is just for billing purposes (including locking down your machine if you don't pay the bill).
Well, for billing and to sell your name to god knows how many spam lists...
To be fair, I seem to remember them publicly supporting DVD over DIVX. This makes sense, as M$ doesn't really have any tentacles in the home entertainment business. They'd rather have people using DVD-ROM so they can ship even more bloated software.
There was still some doubt in my mind that the whole website fiasco might not be an April Fools' joke, but just odd timing. After this, I can be pretty positive it's a joke.
I also don't think it's Katz doing the writing. If you will notice, he always uses uppercase characters in his from... dept line, which is out of place with all the other story posters. This time, we have lowercase: from the fighting-for-the-little-guy dept.
I agree with your first paragraph, but I think the second is missing the point. Imagine a crime where someone hacks someones arms and legs off, tortures them for hours, and they still survive (albeit physically and mentally scarred). Is that not a more "savage" than a single bullet? I would say it is. "Savage" is not the same as "deadly".
Ah, perhaps I should have specified more what I meant by "executable". I don't mean scripting stuff (though I do, indeed, feel that JS is evil). I think scripting is just fine, when all it does is affect the presentation, layout, and effects of a document. But when a document executes code that is independent of the document (like a mail merge that goes and gets addresses from Outlook), it's no longer a document - it's a program.
And just like you shouldn't run any program someone emails you, you shouldn't "run" a document someone sends you. I wouldn't worry about an HTML document, because it doesn't fall under my definition of executable (plus I keep JS turned off).
The problem with M$'s documents is that they just don't put limits on it. A document should be in it's own little sandbox and shouldn't leave it. If you want to do mail merges and such, add that module into outlook or a seperate executable - don't wedge it into the Word format!
Interesting opinion. I think it's pretty interesting, considering it points out how M$'s shoddy products lead to security holes. Granted, the/. community already knows this... But that's never stopped submissions from being posted before.
I think the underlying reason that the "bubble" life was bad was that it was knowingly faked. The only sincere person was Truman. The rest were all just doing it to make a buck, at the expense of Truman's privacy.
Most people value sincerity and privacy. That's what makes Truman's bubble such a bad thing. Even though the real world isn't completely sincere and you don't have complete privacy, it has to be better than the 100% insincerity and 100% lack of privacy that existed in the bubble.
Ahhh, so because people are getting away with it, it's okay?
Sorry, I don't buy that. They get away with it because no one has reported them. ("Them" being the people who are selling it). There's also the fact that the bootlegging has become so rampant, there just isn't enough money to stamp it out.
I doubt that Waterson gives a whit about them either. His objections to licensing the image were ...
Well, let me just quote him. I think it's pretty clear that this would have "pissed" him off: (emphasis mine)
"And making the whole issue even more absurd, when I didn't license, bootleg Calvin and Hobbes merchandise sprung up to feed the demand. Mall stores openly sold T-shirts with drawings illegally lifted from my books, and obscene or dug-related shirts were rife on college campuses. Only thieves and vandals have made money on Calvin and Hobbes merchandise."
I don't know, seems pretty clear that he wouldn't like some picture of Calvin urinating on various entities. Do you really doubt this?
Slashdot Mirror
Ooooh, sounds like you're ready to start a jihad over this.
I just don't understand how you see this. What "weapons" does he sell to managers? He gives the peons a great "weapon", for sure. There's no better way than to point out how stupid a proposed policy is than finding a Dilbert cartoon that pokes fun at it.
How does this help managers?
I don't disagree that if, by some miracle, all management suddenly got a clue, SA would be in trouble. But the reality is that he has nothing to worry about. Stupidity abhors a vaccuum.
--
You can stop trying to sell me on DVD. I'm perfectly happy with my Toshiba 2107.
--
Ok, this guy is either completely lying or he is just misinformed.
If the DIVX player is unable to contact the mother ship for a certain period of time, it locks up. The only way to unlock it is to have it call up so they can bill you.
So your story about just not plugging it up and playing all the DIVXs you want is true - for about a month. Then your choice is too pay your bill or leave it disabled.
I can't say this for sure, but I think it DVD playing is disabled as well as DIVX playing when this happens.
--
This is a pretty important question, and some nearsighted studios manage to miss it.
Yes, DTV will come along with its higher resolution picture and current DVDs won't take advantage of it.
However, as long as they are good transfers, DVDs already rival film. Granted, if you blew the picture of to the size of a movie screen, it wouldn't look good. But at TV size, it's a damn fine picture. Along with this, I must stress the importance of doing an anamorphic (or 16x9 enhanced) transfer. This means that the film is recorded on the DVD at like twice the normal number of lines (this is a rough explanation). However, when you play it back on a standard TV, it drops every X line. To the person on the standard TV, this is indistiguishable from the non-anamorphic transfer. But when you pop that thing into a high-res tv or monitor, it displays ALL the resolution. It's quite forward thinking.
Be sure to look for this feature, as it will become very important in the future when you upgrade to a 16x9 tv. Plus, an anamorphic print requires a new transfer to be made. In other words, they don't just take some old crummy transfer they used for a laserdisc which was transferred from a slightly degraded copy of the film to begin with and just copy it to DVD. They go back to the source and make a new transfer. Obviously, this is not going to be practical for every film (plus, it costs a bit of $$$). But for most, especially for any new movies by major studios, there is no reason not to do it.
--
Oh definitely. That's one of the most heinous thing - they basically have the key to your movie collection.
I must note, though, that any parent should be setting a password for their DIVX player. This way kids couldn't run up charges from unsupervised usage.
But that really sucks, too. It unneccessarily limits the freedom you can give to your kids. Instead, everytime they want to watch their favorite kiddy show, you have to come turn it on.
--
http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Compa
--
--
For geeks, wires criscrossing the room is no big deal. Non-geek folk don't like this much. Especially those with children who like to trip over any exposed wire, thus ripping it and possibly some components out of the socket.
--
Discs are unlocked for accounts, not for players. So if your player dies, your fine. Of course, you then have to buy another player and tell DIVX to hook it up to your account. The same goes for multiple players - they are all on one account and can swap discs freely.
--
In the interest of reducing FUD, I must point out that the player calls during the middle of the night once a month. It doesn't actually need to call before it can unlock a movie. The call is just for billing purposes (including locking down
your machine if you don't pay the bill).
Well, for billing and to sell your name to god knows how many spam lists...
--
To be fair, I seem to remember them publicly
supporting DVD over DIVX. This makes sense, as
M$ doesn't really have any tentacles in the home
entertainment business. They'd rather have people
using DVD-ROM so they can ship even more bloated
software.
--
Nah, you have to register all your players on one account.
Still sucks, though.
--
I was just about to point that out about renting online. Don't know if you are aware of it, but netflix.com is also an online DVD rental site.
--
Heh.
You are:
1) Gullible
2) and Attempted Conspirator
Take you pick.
--
I also don't think it's Katz doing the writing.
If you will notice, he always uses uppercase characters in his from
This time, we have lowercase:
from the fighting-for-the-little-guy dept.
Plus, I've never seen Katz curse in his articles.
--
--
Actually, we don't (in the States). An unauthorized search and seizure is one of the easiest ways of getting evidence thrown out in a U.S. court.
--
Ah, perhaps I should have specified more what I meant by "executable". I don't mean scripting stuff (though I do, indeed, feel that JS is evil). I think scripting is just fine, when all it does is affect the presentation, layout, and effects of a document. But when a document executes code that is independent of the document (like a mail merge that goes and gets addresses from Outlook), it's no longer a document - it's a program.
And just like you shouldn't run any program someone emails you, you shouldn't "run" a document someone sends you. I wouldn't worry about an HTML document, because it doesn't fall under my definition of executable (plus I keep JS turned off).
The problem with M$'s documents is that they just don't put limits on it. A document should be in it's own little sandbox and shouldn't leave it. If you want to do mail merges and such, add that module into outlook or a seperate executable - don't wedge it into the Word format!
--
Interesting opinion. I think it's pretty interesting, considering it points out how M$'s shoddy products lead to security holes. Granted, the
Executable documents are just plain wrong.
--
Who knows if the calendars/clocks were even right anymore? You saw how many times the aliens came along and zapped everyone, didn't you?
--
I think the underlying reason that the "bubble" life was bad was that it was knowingly faked. The only sincere person was Truman. The rest were all just doing it to make a buck, at the expense of Truman's privacy.
Most people value sincerity and privacy. That's what makes Truman's bubble such a bad thing. Even though the real world isn't completely sincere and you don't have complete privacy, it has to be better than the 100% insincerity and 100% lack of privacy that existed in the bubble.
--
You get free cable?
--
The point was not that he was making his own, the point was that he was gauging demand so he could make up some and sell them to everyone else.
Sorry you missed this.
--
Ahhh, so because people are getting away with it, it's okay?
Sorry, I don't buy that. They get away with it because no one has reported them. ("Them" being the people who are selling it). There's also the fact that the bootlegging has become so rampant, there just isn't enough money to stamp it out.
--
...
Well, let me just quote him. I think it's pretty clear that this would have "pissed" him off: (emphasis mine)
"And making the whole issue even more absurd, when I didn't license, bootleg Calvin and Hobbes merchandise sprung up to feed the demand. Mall stores openly sold T-shirts with drawings illegally lifted from my books, and obscene or dug-related shirts were rife on college campuses. Only thieves and vandals have made money on Calvin and Hobbes merchandise."
I don't know, seems pretty clear that he wouldn't like some picture of Calvin urinating on various entities. Do you really doubt this?
(see my other comments in this thread)
--