Big assumption on your part. Of course they lose money. But who cares?
I'm sick of all the moral justification BS around here. Piracy is great because you can get free stuff by ripping off an abstract wealthy corporate entity, and there's a very low likelyhood of getting caught. Despite all the "Rage against the RIAA" and "Copyright is Immoral" hysterics you here around here, that's the bottom line that most of us pirates agree with.
I fail to see how it's equal to stealing in this case, in ANY meaningful way, when the people who are downloading copies of the music probably weren't going to buy it in the first place.
I don't think the guy who stole my car battery was planning on buying one for himself. That doesn't make sense.
Anyway, the "Probably weren't going to buy it" standard is ridclously low, because why would anyone buy something if they could get it for free? (and with almost no chance of legal reprecussions.) I'll happliy admit that I've bought music only after a fruitless search on the P2P networks and not all of us pirates are poor starving students oppressed by the high cost of CDs.
Godwin's law is an analogy about inevitability. As in, it's inevitable that these stories start a long flamewar about the meaning of "stealing" or "theft".
I'm sorry, I thought you were intelligent enough to understand that "native support" excluded the Classic virtual machine emulator. Forget I responded to your post.
Yes it would be a tard-box if ICT was an issue. That's where RTFA enters the picture.
Nobody likes the idea of a format war. But Sony's going to to ship millions of PS3s and even the most optimistic HDDVD prediction doesn't come anywhere close. I'm thinking Blu-Ray will be seen as the winner this time, or there will be a late push to merge the two.
The original release of Netscape 1.0 was freeware. Certain companies, such as the one I worked for, asked for a "supported" (payware) version and were turned down. Enough people must have asked, because eventually there was a "1.1N" version that you could buy. But there was no revenue model around browsers in the very beginning. (And yes, IE was free/bundleware but it was a complete joke compared to Netscape until v3.)
Apple's OSX can manage this. No OSX programs need admin access other than to initially install,
First, that's wrong and there are poorly written OSX programs that don't run properly as limited user. Not that many, but I've seen QuarkXPress on various lists.
Second, Unix has a nice security feature/hole called SUID Root. Mac apps use this to elevate permissions to root for copy protection systems and the like. Windows just doesn't have this feature and tends to require admnistrator instead.
Finally, Apple broke backwards compatibility and forced all of their software vendors to significantly rewrite all their programs. Most people run Windows because they don't like things like that. Had OSX natively supported Classic apps it would have had all the same permission problems as Windows does. That's more of an "implementation" issue than a "fundamental design flaw".
You feel like you're overpaying for Intel, but you didn't ever feel like you were overpaying for PowerPC in the past?
Speculation was that Apple paid under $50 for a G4 CPU.
For a large OEM like Dell, I doubt there's any huge difference between Intel and AMD pricing. Apple however is pretty much only using the luxury Core Duo parts, so they are probably spending a lot more money on CPUs and saving it elsewhere by using Intel chipsets and integrated video. If component costs were really a huge concern for Apple, they'd be shipping boxes with Celerons and Pentium-Ds. But with 20-30% profit margins, who cares?
By not putting HDMI on the tard-box PS3, they severely limit the tard-box's potential as a quality Blu-Ray player. Sure, this ICT pact may mean that the tard-box will play BDs at 1080p, but for how long?
Yes, because if it isn't 1080p, it's not worth having.
The funny thing about this is that Sony was originally spreading this FUD against the XBox360, and now people have bought it hook-line-and-sinker and are using it to FUD the PS3.
The reality is that few sets support 1080p, and without the ICT bullshit, there's no real need to have HDMI. For the vast majority of SUV-Driving Big-Screen TV Yuppie Suburboid Cultureless Assholes, the $500 PS3 will make a perfectly fine HD player and is not a "tard-box" at all. {And I think you undermined a pretty good post by insisting on using that term.}
If you're sitting there with a expensive 1080p TV pissing-and-moaning about $100, then I apologize.
At $300, people would look at the PS2 and say, "$300 for a game machine that also plays DVDs? Sign me up!" At $600, people are looking at the PS3 and saying, "Is this game or that movie worth $600?"
I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that most console purchasers don't buy it at launch. The real sales come 2-3 years down the road when the price drops. Eventually it will hit $300-$400 and said Yuppie could see HD Movies/Games as a good deal at that price. [Also the PS2 was a lousy deal for a DVD player 1-2 years after launch and I doubt that sold many units in the big picture.]
I can't imagine this would be very useful or interesting, unless you are Saddam Hussein and are looking for a cheap compute box to run your WMD simulations on. (My favorite piece of Playstation 2 PR.)
The whole ICT/HDMI switch over plan was pretty much doomed for failure from the get-go.
+ The vast majority of the installed base of HiDef TVs do not have HDMI
+ There's still virutally no computer support for the protocol.
+ The PR Beating that Microsoft took over the "Vista will require a new monitor" FUD.
+ The fact that HDMI is expensive enough that it apparenlty can't be used on low-end players ($500 PS3).
It was only Hollywood's arrogance that got it this far because any sane plan would have included a staged rollout. I wouldn't be suprised if they were "full speed ahead" on this until some studio exective figured out he was crippling his own TV. DOH.
The biggest thing holding back HD adoption is this endless quibbling over copy-protection standards. This has been going on for years now, and maybe someone figured out that it's time to shit or get off the pot -- that they'll never see a dime from HD unless they settle on some standards and stick to them.
So I wouldn't worry about 2010 either. HDMI is optional now, and will still be optional in 4 years. Maybe by 2015.
Rent Seeking is the Capitalist Way and not normally illegal, where collusion can often be.
Regardless the "nature of the GPL" doesn't prevent any sort of illegal activity by it's contributors, whether it's murder or violating anti-trust laws.
The Netscape business plan is to give away so many copies of its "client" software for individual users that there will be an increasing demand for companies operating Web sites to purchase Netscape "server" software
With a better reference, you could find Jim Clark himself saying this, and of course the IPO prospectus. I don't think Netscape had any intention to sell browser software until they realized that a lot of people wanted to pay for it.
Off the top of my head, something like OpenOffice -- a former commercial product with a "cathedral" development model and value-add payware version -- could be used in a collusion scheme.
But anyway, the point is that the anti-trust rules don't get automatically lifted just because there's a public CVS server involved.
Yes, it's often forgotten that Netscape was founded to be an enterprise server software company, and got into selling shrinkwrap browser software by accident.
As for Netscape's server products, the webserver was undercut by Apache, and the other stuff (groupware, application server) didn't sell well compared to IBM or Microsoft. Had they been successful with servers, Netscape would probably still be around today.
As for this anti-spyware company, it reminds me about Quarterdeck's bitching when Microsoft took the outragous step of adding a memory manager to their OS.
Once again, killjoe, you have totally misrepresented my argument because you don't have the intelligence to understand it.
I also have to say that your posts help Bill Gates much more than mine because you are pretty much the embodiment of a Moronic Linux Zealot stereotype.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, I thought I was talking to someone intelligent enough to understand the term "virtual machine emulator". Forget I responded to your post.
Big assumption on your part. Of course they lose money. But who cares?
I'm sick of all the moral justification BS around here. Piracy is great because you can get free stuff by ripping off an abstract wealthy corporate entity, and there's a very low likelyhood of getting caught. Despite all the "Rage against the RIAA" and "Copyright is Immoral" hysterics you here around here, that's the bottom line that most of us pirates agree with.
> there are not a lot of good reasons to use UTF-16
Unless you are using Java or Win32, in which case strings are UTF-16 and it's not worth trying to change them.
I fail to see how it's equal to stealing in this case, in ANY meaningful way, when the people who are downloading copies of the music probably weren't going to buy it in the first place.
I don't think the guy who stole my car battery was planning on buying one for himself. That doesn't make sense.
Anyway, the "Probably weren't going to buy it" standard is ridclously low, because why would anyone buy something if they could get it for free? (and with almost no chance of legal reprecussions.) I'll happliy admit that I've bought music only after a fruitless search on the P2P networks and not all of us pirates are poor starving students oppressed by the high cost of CDs.
Godwin's law is an analogy about inevitability. As in, it's inevitable that these stories start a long flamewar about the meaning of "stealing" or "theft".
I'm sorry, I thought you were intelligent enough to understand that "native support" excluded the Classic virtual machine emulator. Forget I responded to your post.
However, ICT also applies to 720p.
Yes it would be a tard-box if ICT was an issue. That's where RTFA enters the picture.
Nobody likes the idea of a format war. But Sony's going to to ship millions of PS3s and even the most optimistic HDDVD prediction doesn't come anywhere close. I'm thinking Blu-Ray will be seen as the winner this time, or there will be a late push to merge the two.
Oops. Meant to say HDCP, which has only very limited PC support right now.
The original release of Netscape 1.0 was freeware. Certain companies, such as the one I worked for, asked for a "supported" (payware) version and were turned down. Enough people must have asked, because eventually there was a "1.1N" version that you could buy. But there was no revenue model around browsers in the very beginning. (And yes, IE was free/bundleware but it was a complete joke compared to Netscape until v3.)
i alsID=6373
Also, according to this article, Netscape Server was introduced 12/94.
http://www.entmag.com/archives/article.asp?Editor
Apple's OSX can manage this. No OSX programs need admin access other than to initially install,
First, that's wrong and there are poorly written OSX programs that don't run properly as limited user. Not that many, but I've seen QuarkXPress on various lists.
Second, Unix has a nice security feature/hole called SUID Root. Mac apps use this to elevate permissions to root for copy protection systems and the like. Windows just doesn't have this feature and tends to require admnistrator instead.
Finally, Apple broke backwards compatibility and forced all of their software vendors to significantly rewrite all their programs. Most people run Windows because they don't like things like that. Had OSX natively supported Classic apps it would have had all the same permission problems as Windows does. That's more of an "implementation" issue than a "fundamental design flaw".
You feel like you're overpaying for Intel, but you didn't ever feel like you were overpaying for PowerPC in the past?
Speculation was that Apple paid under $50 for a G4 CPU.
For a large OEM like Dell, I doubt there's any huge difference between Intel and AMD pricing. Apple however is pretty much only using the luxury Core Duo parts, so they are probably spending a lot more money on CPUs and saving it elsewhere by using Intel chipsets and integrated video. If component costs were really a huge concern for Apple, they'd be shipping boxes with Celerons and Pentium-Ds. But with 20-30% profit margins, who cares?
Let me guess you are also one of the those sad fucks .. stupid console loser argument from 5 years ago.
Oh look, I made a little joke and accidently trolled an AC Fanboy. Well, if you actually used a PS as a compute box, more power to ya.
By not putting HDMI on the tard-box PS3, they severely limit the tard-box's potential as a quality Blu-Ray player. Sure, this ICT pact may mean that the tard-box will play BDs at 1080p, but for how long?
Yes, because if it isn't 1080p, it's not worth having.
The funny thing about this is that Sony was originally spreading this FUD against the XBox360, and now people have bought it hook-line-and-sinker and are using it to FUD the PS3.
The reality is that few sets support 1080p, and without the ICT bullshit, there's no real need to have HDMI. For the vast majority of SUV-Driving Big-Screen TV Yuppie Suburboid Cultureless Assholes, the $500 PS3 will make a perfectly fine HD player and is not a "tard-box" at all. {And I think you undermined a pretty good post by insisting on using that term.}
If you're sitting there with a expensive 1080p TV pissing-and-moaning about $100, then I apologize.
At $300, people would look at the PS2 and say, "$300 for a game machine that also plays DVDs? Sign me up!" At $600, people are looking at the PS3 and saying, "Is this game or that movie worth $600?"
I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that most console purchasers don't buy it at launch. The real sales come 2-3 years down the road when the price drops. Eventually it will hit $300-$400 and said Yuppie could see HD Movies/Games as a good deal at that price. [Also the PS2 was a lousy deal for a DVD player 1-2 years after launch and I doubt that sold many units in the big picture.]
getting to run homebrew Linux apps on it
I can't imagine this would be very useful or interesting, unless you are Saddam Hussein and are looking for a cheap compute box to run your WMD simulations on. (My favorite piece of Playstation 2 PR.)
.how is anyone supposed to COPY and pirate HD video in the first place through non-HDCP DVI interfaces?
Serious question? There are component HD capture cards. And yes, pirates are capturing HD movies from HBO and the like and sharing them.
Good job feigning outrage, but I think if you could afford a 1080p set you wouldn't be so concerned about that extra $100 for the highend PS3.
The whole ICT/HDMI switch over plan was pretty much doomed for failure from the get-go.
+ The vast majority of the installed base of HiDef TVs do not have HDMI
+ There's still virutally no computer support for the protocol.
+ The PR Beating that Microsoft took over the "Vista will require a new monitor" FUD.
+ The fact that HDMI is expensive enough that it apparenlty can't be used on low-end players ($500 PS3).
It was only Hollywood's arrogance that got it this far because any sane plan would have included a staged rollout. I wouldn't be suprised if they were "full speed ahead" on this until some studio exective figured out he was crippling his own TV. DOH.
The biggest thing holding back HD adoption is this endless quibbling over copy-protection standards. This has been going on for years now, and maybe someone figured out that it's time to shit or get off the pot -- that they'll never see a dime from HD unless they settle on some standards and stick to them.
So I wouldn't worry about 2010 either. HDMI is optional now, and will still be optional in 4 years. Maybe by 2015.
How is this different than the Window+Tile command found in MDI MS Windows programs?
Rent Seeking is the Capitalist Way and not normally illegal, where collusion can often be.
Regardless the "nature of the GPL" doesn't prevent any sort of illegal activity by it's contributors, whether it's murder or violating anti-trust laws.
With a better reference, you could find Jim Clark himself saying this, and of course the IPO prospectus. I don't think Netscape had any intention to sell browser software until they realized that a lot of people wanted to pay for it.
How does "the principle of least authority" allow for "good spyware" like the Google Toolbar, but not the "bad spyware" everyone hates?
Most Spyware isn't doing anything special on a system level, it's a judgement call based on the desirability of the software.
Off the top of my head, something like OpenOffice -- a former commercial product with a "cathedral" development model and value-add payware version -- could be used in a collusion scheme.
But anyway, the point is that the anti-trust rules don't get automatically lifted just because there's a public CVS server involved.
Yes, it's often forgotten that Netscape was founded to be an enterprise server software company, and got into selling shrinkwrap browser software by accident.
As for Netscape's server products, the webserver was undercut by Apache, and the other stuff (groupware, application server) didn't sell well compared to IBM or Microsoft. Had they been successful with servers, Netscape would probably still be around today.
As for this anti-spyware company, it reminds me about Quarterdeck's bitching when Microsoft took the outragous step of adding a memory manager to their OS.
You can certainly distribute files in a way that may fool people into running malware in Linux, but that's hardly the point here
No, that was your point -- that it is more difficult on Linux -- which I see you are now backing away from.
Once again, killjoe, you have totally misrepresented my argument because you don't have the intelligence to understand it.
I also have to say that your posts help Bill Gates much more than mine because you are pretty much the embodiment of a Moronic Linux Zealot stereotype.