What the hell is up with all these backslash "stories." Did Slashdot finally get so lazy that it won't even copy stories off of Digg, but is instead copying stories of yesterday's Slashdot?
Next thing you'll know, we'll have a backslash on the front page about all the backslash's on the front page. And then we'll comment about it, and there'll be a backslash about that on tomorrow's front page. This is getting rather pathetic, guys. Time to find my News For Nerds elsewhere.
Yeah, right... I'm gonna shell out $9 to download a copy, when for $5-10 I could purchase that same DVD at Wal-Mart and get a nice case and maybe even other goodies.
If Hollywood actually wants this to catch on, they're going to need to set some realistic prices.
If, on the other hand, this is only there for Hollywood to point to and say, "look, there is an alternative to illegal movie downloads," well then, well done! You've gone and created something that no one but the courts will actually take seriously!
How does such pathetically poor grammar routinely make it to the front page? Having technological skills is a wonderful thing for a tech site's editors, but I think/. has forgotten that editors also need to have a solid working understanding of proper grammar and sentence structure. How the hell does anyone justify hiring these people as editors?
"After all, why would Microsoft reward Massachusetts for taking no action to curtail an IT policy that favored ODF and rejected Microsoft's own XML format...?"
This isn't a reward: this is good marketing. It's marketing because it costs Microsoft next to nothing to give software away (they've already paid to create it, and MA wouldn't buy it from them -- hence, very little lost $$). However, by giving it to students, they can train future generations on their software, thus helping to lock them into Windows & Office. When these students go out into the Real World, their only software experiences will be on MS stuff -- and thus, their employers will have incentives to use MS stuff rather than retrain them for something else. It's good marketing because, as stated above, it doesn't cost MS much $$. And smart companies always jump at the chance for cheap marketing.
This has little to do with common law -- and they would be perfectly within their rights to change their minds. That is their RIGHT. When the government says it won't sue -- you can hold them to it. When a corporation says that, you cannot. It's that simple.
And, no, just because you live in GB doesn't mean that this changes. Go talk to a lawyer.
"Peter Jamieson, chairman of the British Phonographic Industry, said 'consumers would only be penalized if they made duplicates of songs for other people.'"
Well, that's lovely, but Peter Jamieson, chairman of the British Pornographic, er, Phonographic Industry, does not, contrary to his wishes, create the laws. Also of consideration is the worth of his word. One day he says it's OK, the next day he'll be suing you for doing it. Corporate policy has a tendency to change like that... especially with organisations such as the BPI/RIAA/MPAA etc etc.
Basically, what I'm saying is that no body should pay any attention to this, because it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
If the PS3 is not only upgradable, but is going to be released year-after-year with newer (and more powerful) parts, I see one of two things happening.
In a couple years, game creators will start creating games that rely upon features that weren't available in the first-generation of PS3. The result will be games that either flat-out do not work on older PS3's, or games that work on older PS3's, but in a reduced capacity. And that is not what you expect when you shell out $500+ for a gaming console -- and if Sony doesn't want people to think of it as a console, they really shouldn't have named it the PlayStation 3, because everyone is going to treat it like a console just because of its name.
Or, game designers instead code for the lowest-common-denominator, like what is done with PC's. The current generation of game may not run bleeding fast on the current generation of hardware, but PC game designers are almost never able to throw in all the features they'd like to, because it simply isn't worth their time to create code for two seperate systems (next-generation/bleeding edge, and current/older computers).
All I can see from this is negative. <shrugs> Maybe the console people won't mind creating two seperate versions of the same game, one for the older PS3, and one for the newer PS3's... but something tells me that they won't spend the kind of time and money that that would require. The result will be that customers are going to get screwed.
"Hibernation works by writing the contents of the RAM to the hard drive, so this would only work if you had = 256 MB RAM. "
True, 256mb isn't enough to hibernate off of... however, what if the hibernation method were revised a little? If the OS were to clean out it memory caches (modern OS's cache just about everything -- disk, network, applications, etc.) and then only use as much hibernation space as is actually being used in memory? My workstation has 2 gigs of memory, but rarely am I actively using more than 512mb... so, theoretically, if hibernation mode were optimised for this technology, we could actually use this flash memory for hibernating.
Just an idea. Comes with its own advantages and drawbacks, like most things in life.
"Similarly if you want to save time on boot-up you would need to store all the necessary system files in that space, and few modern operating systems can cram themselves into that space."
Not true. Flash memory is faster than hard drives (both in "seek times" and in raw transfer speed), so this would allow the core operating system files to be transfered quicker. As well, hard drives typically take a few seconds to "spin up" before being available to load data off of -- so this could also have the added benefit of being able to allow the OS to start booting while the hard drive is still spinning up.
Further, the 256mb model is only the beginning. This is the 1st generation product. In the future, we'll be able to purchase hard drives with 4+ gb of solid-state memory on-board, which will allow you to store pretty much all of your "core" OS files and such on it. Not even Windows Vista is going to be so large that the actually running OS couldn't fit on that.
"...far more proficient at gaming - an area where Intel has traditionally been weak..."
Define "traditionally." Normally that word is reserved for a long-term scope, in which case Intel has been better at gaming than the competition. Up until the Athlon, no x86 clone could compete with Intel when it game to games (2d or 3d). Think back to the K5 & K6 -- neither was good at 3D (not even the K6-3 could compete with a similarly clocked P2/P3. And the processors from previous generations of AMD, Cyrix, and IBM were much the same. The Athlon was the very first x86 clone that was better at gaming than an Intel flagship processor.
So, this isn't so much as Intel stealing the crown as re-claiming the thrown.
<shrugs>No big deal.. I just get tired of the Intel bashing crowd. "OMG INTEL IS TEH DEVIL, AMD IS OUR SAVIOR!!"
"The BSA claims that all of these "lost sales" represent real harm to the economy...."
Bah. Let's just say, hypothetically, that I sometimes pirate an MP3. Does that automatically mean that if a free (as in pirated) version were not available, that I would actually pay for that song? That I would go out and buy a CD that I really didn't want, or pay $1 for a DRM'd copy from iTunes? HELL NO.
Along those same premises, let's say, hypothetically, that I had a pirated copy of Adobe Photoshop on one of my PC's. I'm not a graphics professional, and have little use for it beyond making my own wallpaper. Are we to assume that I would actually pay the $699 price tag for this software? HELL NO.
What I would very much like to see is a poll comparing what people have pirated against what people have pirated and would pay for if they could not pirate it. I don't have any statistical evidence to back me up, here, but I'm going to hazard a guess that piracy leads to a lot less in actual losses than the BSA or the RIAA/MPAA assumes. And that is ignoring the fact that there are a rare few people that actually purchase a product just because they were impressed with the pirated copy, and wished ot support the author/creator.
Haven't we heard enough of this "piracy is going to kill our economy" bullshit? Why are we focusing on this, when the our (America's) trade deficit with China is over $200,000,000,000/year (yes, that is 200 billion dollars a YEAR at the current rate). Seems to me that this piracy thing is small potatoes, in the end.
Sounds an aweful lot like extortion to me. If they'd initiated this lawsuit a year ago, that'd have been one thing... but instead, they chose to take Microsoft to court as launch-day comes close.
"Pay us some money, or we'll drag out this court thing and screw over your launch date, and cost you a bunch of money anyways."
While I'm not necessarily against the added mobility that this offers, I do foresee one potential caveat: If a significant number of consumers sign up for these services, it will further strain the already overloaded cellphone network. And, the way these &#($#)* telco's seem to be going these days, it's a safe bet that they'll transfer the added cost on to customers, yet again. You'll have your base price (be it minutes/month, or be it bandwidth/month), and then you'll have an additional cost to ensure that your cell phone / internet access works when you want it to. Those that don't pay will end up either having to attempt to reconnect until you get through, or at best, in some sort of queue. Either way, it'd suck.
>shrugs maybe i'm just a pescimist, but I have absolutely no difficulty seeing Verizon trying something like this.
Agreed. I'd never heard of Blue Security until this story hit the news. Now I'm a member, too. I'd be willing to bet that we're not the only ones, either. Blue Security probably just doubled its membership with this story.
Looks to me like this Pharma dude really shot himself in the foot.
New movies only $3.99, all other movies $2.99. Plus, check out Showcase Section for discounts as low as 49 Cents.
Your 24 hour viewing period doesn't start until you play the file
Buy a movie for unlimited viewing on your PC
Movies range in price from $9.95 to $19.95. Be sure and check the site for more offers and discounts.
Maybe I'm just a cheap bastard... but there is no way in hell I'm going to pay what is basically full price for an electronic/digital purchase. For less money than their quoted prices, I can go to Wal-Mart and buy the physical DVD -- which will play anywhere without me worrying about some retarded DRM blocking me.
And, while we're at it... these places aren't allowing you to burn a movie to DVD -- so it's basically stuck on your Windows-based DVR or PC for all of eternity. For the price they're quoting me, I would expect the download to be in full HD and be able to be converted to DVD and burned at my leisure.
The fact that they actually believe that a pricing model like this will have any impact on piracy is just ludicrous. Can the MPAA's greed get any more obvious?
"...But 768 cores? What would possibly use that many cores?..."
If you'd RTFA, you'd note that they're building chips with 48 cores, not 768.
To answer your question, anyways: More cores == better efficiency == less heat == lower electric bill. Desktop users may not need a 48-core chip (yet), but server farms love designs such as this.
"King Kong" will be the first film available as part of the new service.
Great... so they chose the one movie that no one pirated. I can see the headlines now, "LEGAL MOVIE DOWNLOADS OFFERED, YET PEOPLE STILL CHOOSE PIRACY!!"
Seriously, I hope they pay me to download this crap... I know it sure isn't worth my money, or even watching for free, for that matter
"For $349, iPod Hi-Fi delivers crystal-clear, audiophile-quality sound in a clean, compact design."
I happen to know a couple of audiophiles. One has a pair of Klipschorns and the other a pair of Definitive loudspeakers. Both of them paid over $10,000 for the speakers + amps + pre-amps + equalizers + cables ($40+/foot adds up quick)... and Apple is claiming that a single little box is going to replicate thousands of dollars worth of stereo equipment?
I'm not saying that the Hi-Fi isn't an aesthetically pleasing and lovely sounding little box.. but to claim that it can replicate the depth, quality, and shear power of a true audiophile's home stereo seems to me to be false advertising. Frankly, I seriously doubt it could even compete with my computer speakers.
"Whatever happened to 3D positional audio? Last I heard, Creative bought out Aureal and now we're stuck with EAX, which is pretty lousy as far as positional 3D audio goes. Aureal had full-on binaural algorithms in development, so that (at least with headphones on) a whisper over your shoulder really sounded like a whisper over your shoulder. Adding more speakers is a pretty hack solution compared to the elegant stuff that was, at least once upon a time, in the works."
3D positional audio is just fine for PC games, where there is only one primary listener -- the player. But 3D positional audio has a serious limitation: it focuses the pseudo-3D sound at the convergence point of the speakers (ie. the dead center of the room). At that location, true 3D sounds is replicated. However, for all other locations things will sound "off." This makes 3D positional audio an exceedingly poor idea for home theatre audio, which is what the author of this article is talking about.
As an aside, the author mentions the efficiency rating (dB per meter @ 1 watt). This is typically quite poor in computer speakers and your all-in-one surround kits for home theatre, hovering in the mid-80's. If you can manage to find good speakers that have a 100+ efficiency rating, it is often better than a set of speakers with a rating of 90 that is pumpiing out twice as many watts. And, as the author indicated, Klipsch is a great example of quality sound + efficiency. Speakers from companies like Bose, for example, sound great (especially given their small size) but are extremely inneficient -- resulting in you having to crank the power up much farther to achieve the same volume. As with all things, doing a little research before you plop down a few hundred (or thousand) $$ is advised.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares about the transfer speed. What I want to know is what kind of ping I'm getting.
What the hell is up with all these backslash "stories." Did Slashdot finally get so lazy that it won't even copy stories off of Digg, but is instead copying stories of yesterday's Slashdot?
Next thing you'll know, we'll have a backslash on the front page about all the backslash's on the front page. And then we'll comment about it, and there'll be a backslash about that on tomorrow's front page. This is getting rather pathetic, guys. Time to find my News For Nerds elsewhere.
If Hollywood actually wants this to catch on, they're going to need to set some realistic prices.
If, on the other hand, this is only there for Hollywood to point to and say, "look, there is an alternative to illegal movie downloads," well then, well done! You've gone and created something that no one but the courts will actually take seriously!
how 'bout Trendy Fad??
This isn't a reward: this is good marketing. It's marketing because it costs Microsoft next to nothing to give software away (they've already paid to create it, and MA wouldn't buy it from them -- hence, very little lost $$). However, by giving it to students, they can train future generations on their software, thus helping to lock them into Windows & Office. When these students go out into the Real World, their only software experiences will be on MS stuff -- and thus, their employers will have incentives to use MS stuff rather than retrain them for something else. It's good marketing because, as stated above, it doesn't cost MS much $$. And smart companies always jump at the chance for cheap marketing.
And, no, just because you live in GB doesn't mean that this changes. Go talk to a lawyer.
Basically, what I'm saying is that no body should pay any attention to this, because it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
All I can see from this is negative. <shrugs> Maybe the console people won't mind creating two seperate versions of the same game, one for the older PS3, and one for the newer PS3's... but something tells me that they won't spend the kind of time and money that that would require. The result will be that customers are going to get screwed.
Just an idea. Comes with its own advantages and drawbacks, like most things in life.
Further, the 256mb model is only the beginning. This is the 1st generation product. In the future, we'll be able to purchase hard drives with 4+ gb of solid-state memory on-board, which will allow you to store pretty much all of your "core" OS files and such on it. Not even Windows Vista is going to be so large that the actually running OS couldn't fit on that.
So, this isn't so much as Intel stealing the crown as re-claiming the thrown.
<shrugs>No big deal .. I just get tired of the Intel bashing crowd. "OMG INTEL IS TEH DEVIL, AMD IS OUR SAVIOR!!"
Along those same premises, let's say, hypothetically, that I had a pirated copy of Adobe Photoshop on one of my PC's. I'm not a graphics professional, and have little use for it beyond making my own wallpaper. Are we to assume that I would actually pay the $699 price tag for this software? HELL NO.
What I would very much like to see is a poll comparing what people have pirated against what people have pirated and would pay for if they could not pirate it. I don't have any statistical evidence to back me up, here, but I'm going to hazard a guess that piracy leads to a lot less in actual losses than the BSA or the RIAA/MPAA assumes. And that is ignoring the fact that there are a rare few people that actually purchase a product just because they were impressed with the pirated copy, and wished ot support the author/creator.
Haven't we heard enough of this "piracy is going to kill our economy" bullshit? Why are we focusing on this, when the our (America's) trade deficit with China is over $200,000,000,000/year (yes, that is 200 billion dollars a YEAR at the current rate). Seems to me that this piracy thing is small potatoes, in the end.
"Pay us some money, or we'll drag out this court thing and screw over your launch date, and cost you a bunch of money anyways."
>shrugs maybe i'm just a pescimist, but I have absolutely no difficulty seeing Verizon trying something like this.
Looks to me like this Pharma dude really shot himself in the foot.
Rent a movie for 24 hours viewing,
Buy a movie for unlimited viewing on your PC
Maybe I'm just a cheap bastard... but there is no way in hell I'm going to pay what is basically full price for an electronic/digital purchase. For less money than their quoted prices, I can go to Wal-Mart and buy the physical DVD -- which will play anywhere without me worrying about some retarded DRM blocking me.
And, while we're at it... these places aren't allowing you to burn a movie to DVD -- so it's basically stuck on your Windows-based DVR or PC for all of eternity. For the price they're quoting me, I would expect the download to be in full HD and be able to be converted to DVD and burned at my leisure.
The fact that they actually believe that a pricing model like this will have any impact on piracy is just ludicrous. Can the MPAA's greed get any more obvious?
To answer your question, anyways: More cores == better efficiency == less heat == lower electric bill. Desktop users may not need a 48-core chip (yet), but server farms love designs such as this.
Seriously, I hope they pay me to download this crap... I know it sure isn't worth my money, or even watching for free, for that matter
1.2 millimeters?! Time to head for high ground!
I'm not saying that the Hi-Fi isn't an aesthetically pleasing and lovely sounding little box.. but to claim that it can replicate the depth, quality, and shear power of a true audiophile's home stereo seems to me to be false advertising. Frankly, I seriously doubt it could even compete with my computer speakers.
As an aside, the author mentions the efficiency rating (dB per meter @ 1 watt). This is typically quite poor in computer speakers and your all-in-one surround kits for home theatre, hovering in the mid-80's. If you can manage to find good speakers that have a 100+ efficiency rating, it is often better than a set of speakers with a rating of 90 that is pumpiing out twice as many watts. And, as the author indicated, Klipsch is a great example of quality sound + efficiency. Speakers from companies like Bose, for example, sound great (especially given their small size) but are extremely inneficient -- resulting in you having to crank the power up much farther to achieve the same volume. As with all things, doing a little research before you plop down a few hundred (or thousand) $$ is advised.