Seemed to me like Mr. Box raised some good points. Unfortunately, he works for Microsoft, which means that your first impression is "Oh my gosh, Microsoft wants to stamp out HTTP and replace it with some evil, proprietary protocol" (it was my first impression, anyway). Looks like it just means that we'll also be making requests like "newtp://blah.blah.blah" someday.
I'm in the middle of a project where the one-way nature of HTTP is a bit inconvenient at times so I can see where he's coming from.
I agree with you that the technology and standards need to settle down. Another big factor, though, is cost. Sure, digital projectors will help theater owners in the long term but in the short term, studios are asking theater owners to bear the substantial costs of converting to something that will mainly benefit the studios (making prints, distribution, etc.). Digital projection will happen (all this arguing about analog vs. digital is irrelevant, just like CDs vs. vinyl back in the 80's) but the studios are going to have to kick in some of their $$ to jump start the conversions.
The restrictions on a DVD are nothing compared to the restriction of only being able to see a movie when TV networks air them. I know what the restrictions are and the freedoms (being able to watch a movie whenever I want as many times as I want as loud as I want) far outweigh them, IMHO.
Excuse me but I am old enough to remember when you couldn't watch movies in your house unless they were airing on TV. What color is the sky in your world where the ability to watch an uncut feature film in the privacy of your home with director commentary and optional subtitles is a right? Must be a pretty color.
Wrong. You can't patent knowledge but you can patent tools.
Philips and the others didn't just patent their idea for a DVD player. I can't patent the idea of an HDTV DVD player ('It should have lots of resolution and fit on a little disk and have freeze-frame. Thank you.'). I have to actually make one.
Philips and others do own the patents for this technology. This is not in dispute. They do not just claim to own it, they, in fact, do own it.
Customs is not being asked to close down manufacturers, they are being asked to impound players that violate the rights of the undisputed patent holders. If that hurts the manufacturers, too bad. Did you even read the article?
The only outrage is that your post was modded up to 3.
This idea is flawed. Music would still be out there - it just wouldn't be marketed in the way it is today, which is a good thing.
It's more than just marketing. Copyright protection doesn't just protect big labels, it allows the musicians to make a living from their music. Copyright does nothing to restrict creativity. If someone wants to make music that nobody listens to, they are free to do it.
Copyright protects a produced product. IP protects an idea.
Copyright and patents are both IP and neither one protects ideas (well, they didn't used to). You can't protect an idea, you protect the expression of an idea. I can't copyright my idea for a screenplay, I can only copyright my actual screenplay.
A big problem I see (not just the only one) is that a lot of these 'business process' patents are patents on ideas. I can touch a screenplay. I can touch a machine. I can even (sorta) touch software. How can I touch a business process?
Oh yeah, ClearCASE does have one nice feature in common with arch that CVS lacks: it does treat directories and files as elements separate from their names, so you can rename things and even remove files from directories without actually losing the element and its associated revision history.
This is something that Subversion also addresses, which is why the Linux Journal article is very interesting.
In every other area Linux has an free or nearly free alternative. Email, web browsing and content creation all have usable and in some cases outstanding programs.
If "usable" is the best thing you can say about an alternative then it is not much of an alternative.
I have helped a few small businesses convert to a Linux Based desktop for all employees, some do complain for a little while, but then they get back to doing whatever it is they get paid to do, especially when the CEO pointed out, it was either convert to Linux or face other budget cuts and possibly layoffs.
Another great endorsement:-(. 'People like Linux on the desktop once they realize it's either that or be laid off.'
I have yet to see anyone not be able to figure out how to use StarOffice. Frankly, someone who can't figure out StarOffice is probably not someone you want working for you anyway.
Figuring out StarOffice is one thing, liking it is another. StarOffice is about the worst piece of software ever written and the thing is, everybody knows it. Does anybody actually like StarOffice? I mean if Word was open sourced would people still like StarOffice? StarOffice is an alternative, like riding a unicycle with a flat tire is an alternative to driving a car.
Another point I would like to make is that the attitude in "someone who can't figure out StarOffice" is exactly the kind of attitude that will continue to prevent mass acceptance of Linux on the desktop. There are a lot more people who can't figure out StarOffice than can and it is those people that Microsoft and Apple keep in mind and the Open Source community tends to forget. Unless software is written for those people, it will just be niche software. That is why OS X is taking off and Linux on the desktop will stay where it is.
I've had a cable modem for a few years now in Southern California. First with MediaOne and then they were bought by AT&T Broadband. The very few times I have needed to call customer support (the connection is very reliable and snappy) I have been very surprised at how competent the people were. They even knew about Macs, which came in handy during the original setup on my Performa when I wasn't home (they did a fine job).
Customer support for cable TV may (and probably does) suck but my cable modem support is actually quite good.
They may spring up automatically but monopolies are a natural outcome. An unrestricted monopoly can then use anti-competitive powers (here is where things get sticky) to stifle compeition. If there is no competition or free market, there is no capitalism.
Government's role, therefore, should be to see that the free market is preserved.
I'm so glad I got my shirts before Zim (maybe) goes away. You can get Zim merchandise at Hot Topic. Looks like they're being hit with people ordering in wake of the news but keep trying.
No, I'm not connected with them in any way. I'm just someone who found out about the Zim shirts recently and quickly ordered four of them. Doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom...
In your project you are doing something that clerly goes beyond what can be expected of a simple Personal Digital Assistant. Storing, retouching, and uploading images is hardly the sort of thing that people think about doing when they buy a PDA. Calendars, to do lists, contacts. That's what they're best at and that's why most people buy them. An iPaq may be more capable for your app but that doesn't make it the best choice for the rest of the PDA world.
every cel was painted on computer, instead of by hand.
Every cel was painted by hand on a computer instead of by hand with a traditional brush and paint. Computers did not generate painted cels, the painters that painted them on computers did.
How can anyone think that using CGI would add value to Curious George, or especially to Where the Wild Things Are. Both of these are books, and quite frankly will be impossible to make into a compelling motion pictures.
Um...yeah...because we all know it's impossible to turn a book into a successfull movie...?
I dunno, Eric Goldberg is working on Wild Things so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now.
As for the question of why anyone would make Wild Things with CG, remember the texture (for lack of a better word) on the characters. All those little scratch marks would be virtually impossible to recreate traditionally. John Lassiter and Glen Keane fiddled with using computers in a Wild Things test for Disney back in the 80's so it's not as far-fetched as you might think.
Slashdot Mirror
Laugh at me if you will but Hot Topic is the only place to get Invader Zim shirts. If I have to get laughed at, so be it.
DOOM!
Back on-topic, though, some of us are not artistically inclined so pre-fabbed skins are the only way my Mac is going to get dressed up.
Seemed to me like Mr. Box raised some good points. Unfortunately, he works for Microsoft, which means that your first impression is "Oh my gosh, Microsoft wants to stamp out HTTP and replace it with some evil, proprietary protocol" (it was my first impression, anyway). Looks like it just means that we'll also be making requests like "newtp://blah.blah.blah" someday.
I'm in the middle of a project where the one-way nature of HTTP is a bit inconvenient at times so I can see where he's coming from.
I agree with you that the technology and standards need to settle down. Another big factor, though, is cost. Sure, digital projectors will help theater owners in the long term but in the short term, studios are asking theater owners to bear the substantial costs of converting to something that will mainly benefit the studios (making prints, distribution, etc.). Digital projection will happen (all this arguing about analog vs. digital is irrelevant, just like CDs vs. vinyl back in the 80's) but the studios are going to have to kick in some of their $$ to jump start the conversions.
The restrictions on a DVD are nothing compared to the restriction of only being able to see a movie when TV networks air them. I know what the restrictions are and the freedoms (being able to watch a movie whenever I want as many times as I want as loud as I want) far outweigh them, IMHO.
Excuse me but I am old enough to remember when you couldn't watch movies in your house unless they were airing on TV. What color is the sky in your world where the ability to watch an uncut feature film in the privacy of your home with director commentary and optional subtitles is a right? Must be a pretty color.
Wrong. You can't patent knowledge but you can patent tools.
Philips and the others didn't just patent their idea for a DVD player. I can't patent the idea of an HDTV DVD player ('It should have lots of resolution and fit on a little disk and have freeze-frame. Thank you.'). I have to actually make one.
The original analogy was just fine.
This was moderated as insightful?
Philips and others do own the patents for this technology. This is not in dispute. They do not just claim to own it, they, in fact, do own it.
Customs is not being asked to close down manufacturers, they are being asked to impound players that violate the rights of the undisputed patent holders. If that hurts the manufacturers, too bad. Did you even read the article?
The only outrage is that your post was modded up to 3.
This idea is flawed. Music would still be out there - it just wouldn't be marketed in the way it is today, which is a good thing.
It's more than just marketing. Copyright protection doesn't just protect big labels, it allows the musicians to make a living from their music. Copyright does nothing to restrict creativity. If someone wants to make music that nobody listens to, they are free to do it.
Copyright and IP are radically different things.
Copyright protects a produced product. IP protects an idea.
Copyright and patents are both IP and neither one protects ideas (well, they didn't used to). You can't protect an idea, you protect the expression of an idea. I can't copyright my idea for a screenplay, I can only copyright my actual screenplay.
A big problem I see (not just the only one) is that a lot of these 'business process' patents are patents on ideas. I can touch a screenplay. I can touch a machine. I can even (sorta) touch software. How can I touch a business process?
Oh puh-leez. Talk about flamebait...
Anyone know a good system of incoroprating source control with a databases?
Subversion uses BerkeleyDB.
ClearCASE has been doing this for many years now.
Nothing new. not revolutionary...
The revolution is that arch and Subversion are free. ClearCase is nice and all but it's not cheap (in the extreme).
Oh yeah, ClearCASE does have one nice feature in common with arch that CVS lacks: it does treat directories and files as elements separate from their names, so you can rename things and even remove files from directories without actually losing the element and its associated revision history.
This is something that Subversion also addresses, which is why the Linux Journal article is very interesting.
In every other area Linux has an free or nearly free alternative. Email, web browsing and content creation all have usable and in some cases outstanding programs.
If "usable" is the best thing you can say about an alternative then it is not much of an alternative.
I have helped a few small businesses convert to a Linux Based desktop for all employees, some do complain for a little while, but then they get back to doing whatever it is they get paid to do, especially when the CEO pointed out, it was either convert to Linux or face other budget cuts and possibly layoffs.
Another great endorsement :-(. 'People like Linux on the desktop once they realize it's either that or be laid off.'
I have yet to see anyone not be able to figure out how to use StarOffice. Frankly, someone who can't figure out StarOffice is probably not someone you want working for you anyway.
Figuring out StarOffice is one thing, liking it is another. StarOffice is about the worst piece of software ever written and the thing is, everybody knows it. Does anybody actually like StarOffice? I mean if Word was open sourced would people still like StarOffice? StarOffice is an alternative, like riding a unicycle with a flat tire is an alternative to driving a car.
Another point I would like to make is that the attitude in "someone who can't figure out StarOffice" is exactly the kind of attitude that will continue to prevent mass acceptance of Linux on the desktop. There are a lot more people who can't figure out StarOffice than can and it is those people that Microsoft and Apple keep in mind and the Open Source community tends to forget. Unless software is written for those people, it will just be niche software. That is why OS X is taking off and Linux on the desktop will stay where it is.
I've had a cable modem for a few years now in Southern California. First with MediaOne and then they were bought by AT&T Broadband. The very few times I have needed to call customer support (the connection is very reliable and snappy) I have been very surprised at how competent the people were. They even knew about Macs, which came in handy during the original setup on my Performa when I wasn't home (they did a fine job).
Customer support for cable TV may (and probably does) suck but my cable modem support is actually quite good.
They may spring up automatically but monopolies are a natural outcome. An unrestricted monopoly can then use anti-competitive powers (here is where things get sticky) to stifle compeition. If there is no competition or free market, there is no capitalism.
Government's role, therefore, should be to see that the free market is preserved.
What you believe is irrelevant (and incorrect). It was a real net profit, not pro forma nonsense (i.e. Ticketmaster).
No, it wasn't pro forma. It was a real net profit. Read the articles again. In fact, their pro forma profit was $35M.
I'm so glad I got my shirts before Zim (maybe) goes away. You can get Zim merchandise at Hot Topic. Looks like they're being hit with people ordering in wake of the news but keep trying.
No, I'm not connected with them in any way. I'm just someone who found out about the Zim shirts recently and quickly ordered four of them. Doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom...
In your project you are doing something that clerly goes beyond what can be expected of a simple Personal Digital Assistant. Storing, retouching, and uploading images is hardly the sort of thing that people think about doing when they buy a PDA. Calendars, to do lists, contacts. That's what they're best at and that's why most people buy them. An iPaq may be more capable for your app but that doesn't make it the best choice for the rest of the PDA world.
If it's so obvious, why aren't there any others around that look like it???
Minor quibble:
every cel was painted on computer, instead of by hand.
Every cel was painted by hand on a computer instead of by hand with a traditional brush and paint. Computers did not generate painted cels, the painters that painted them on computers did.
How can anyone think that using CGI would add value to Curious George, or especially to Where the Wild Things Are. Both of these are books, and quite frankly will be impossible to make into a compelling motion pictures.
Um...yeah...because we all know it's impossible to turn a book into a successfull movie...?
I dunno, Eric Goldberg is working on Wild Things so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now.
As for the question of why anyone would make Wild Things with CG, remember the texture (for lack of a better word) on the characters. All those little scratch marks would be virtually impossible to recreate traditionally. John Lassiter and Glen Keane fiddled with using computers in a Wild Things test for Disney back in the 80's so it's not as far-fetched as you might think.
Deep Canvas is just used for background-like things.
That's "Academy Award-nominated South Park movie" to you!