"Wait a minute? I do... and so far it seems to work... BLOODY HELL! How am I supposed to make a point of how Microsoft's intentions are evil (which they clearly are), when I can't find a good example where trusted 'fill in the blank' doesn't work... Anyone??? ?"
I'm puzzled how this is more 'flamebait' than 'interesting'. I think he makes a good point. There's nothing wrong with stopping and asking "Why should I follow the anti-MS stampede?". If you guys knee-jerk against every single thing that MS says or does, then how's anybody going to take you seriously when they do something that's really really bad.
As for my response: The main reason I'm against this is that the wrong problem is getting solved, and the consumers get burned for it. The problem is not that computers need to be restricted so that Hollywood can feel safe with digital content, the problem is that Hollywood needs to learn how to make it in this market.
Hollywood doesn't understand that people are happy to pay for service, but they can't pay until the service is provided. Right now, I could go download a bunch of movies from kazaa. What would that experience be like? Well, I get varying quality, unreliable connections, and it takes hours (sometimes days) to get a movie to come down. Now if I could pay $5 to download a guaranteed high quality movie at a speed of 100KB/s, why would I even care about Kazaa?
If the internet got to the point that p2p could work that fast, then the pressure is on Hollywood to provide a better service. "The first 100 people to buy this movie will also recieve a still from the movie..." or something like that.
PC's and the Internet are marketing opportunities, they are not exploits designed to put Hollywood out of business. If they're not willing to get with the times, then they don't have any reason to get computers regulated with technology like Palladium.
... not all of us instantly know what a 'cylcotron' is, and the sites that articles link to aren't always avaialable due to/. traffic.
So, please, when you post an article to/., please consider defining what the device is and why it's interesting. At the very least, link to a glossary term somewhere on the net that explains it. Please don't assume that a.) We all know what everything means or b.) That the people who don't know the term wouldn't be interested anyway.
*meant as a polite request, not bittery sarcastic or anything*
"Think of software-defined radio letting you join different wireless networks that are decentralized and encrypted using something ala freenet [sourceforge.net]. "
I have a question: If you have two different sources broadcasting digitally on the same frequence, then you can seperate the two based on encryption standards or protocols, right? However, wouldn't having both transmitters sending data jam each other's signals? Seems to me like they'd have to hear each other and cooperate in order to work efficiently.
In other words, I don't think you can set up two 802.11 nodes with different SSID's and have them work at full capacity.
I'm really naieve here, so if anybody can explain to me if I'm wrong (or even right) I'd really appreciate it. My education on this topic is very basic.
"but is it the prototype model that can shoot while cloaked, and if so does that mean the pilot has to have an eye patch bolted to his face? "
It means that they'll build one and then delete the plans for it. When it gets destroyed, they'll conveniently forget how to build more of them to maintain continuity with our future. Heh.
"Just curious -- but how does that compare with the average price of new DVDs in Japan?"
Let's put it this way: When the PS2 was launched in Japan for roughly $300 US (err might have been closer to $400), it sold out simply because it could play DVD's.
Evidentally it was a cheaper DVD player than what was available at the time, and it played games to boot. That's why the PS2 sold 3 games for every 4 systems initially. Heh.
"(then get someone to add reverse-engineering fuel mixtures to the DMCA)"
That reminds me: Getting flipped off by somebody violates the DMCA. Hands are digital, and reading the act as an offensive gesture requires decrpyting its meaning.
"I just built an overclocked P4 running at 3.06 Ghz in order to accomplish some video work that most people with stock Macs can do out of the box. "
Care to substantiate that claim? If you had to overclock a P4, then I would assume you're doing something in real-time. Since you're doing 'video work' in real time, my first guess would be that you're doing DV stuff.
I started DV work on a P3 500 machine. I've seen real-time effects with video done on 1gig machines. (I.e. Newtek's Video Toaster 2)
Unfortunately, since your post is all claim and no data, I can only make assumptions. So ya wanna clarify why you needed to overclock a P4 to do what a Mac already does?
I'll tell you right now: I work in video and I work in 3D, Macs are nice but few are flocking towards them because they're quicker at anything.
"No one should feel at all emberrassed to have made such accusations, which appear on may fronts to be demonstrably true. "
Actually, nobody was running on any good info. As this article points out, it turns out that MS wasn't the only one involved. The news article that originally ran did not:
a.) Say what law was broken b.) How the Chinese Gov't was invovled c.) Provide a point of view other than MS shut a company down.
Lots of people went off half-cocked about what was going on and flung accusations left and right. And yes, they should be embarrased about it. You should never reach such extreme conclusions without at least doing a little research first. Whether their suspicions are right or wrong is not the issue, the issue is that they arrived at that conclusion ill-informed.
Check out this +5 post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=41966&c id=4422 793
"Another proof, if any more was needed, that US laws don't apply to US citizens only..."
Niether article says which law was used. In other words: Who says it's American Law? How do we know that Lik Sang didn't break Chinese law? The answer is: We don't. It is very clear that the injunction against them prevents them from discussing the case. So, because of this lack of info, lots of peeps make wild assumptions that MS did some Dr. Evil-esque superplot.
I'm not saying MS was right or wrong. I'm saying that I've seen a bunch of silly extremist crap flying around with no base in reality, and a bunch more people saying "yeah!! he's right!". With some people, the less they know, the more right they think they are.
"They should put the modchips in them - ie. bypass the console's security through the USB port..."
Though I have no doubt the XBOX could be exploited this way, I'm reasonbly sure that Sony and Nintendo couldn't be bypassed this way.
Actually I didn't really have anything interesting to say, I just wanted to make the "MS security is so bad that it could be infiltrated via the USB port" comment and obligatorily get modded up as interesting.
"...it turns out that it wasn't just Microsoft that filed the lawsuit - Sony and Nintendo both joined in. The end result is that the modchips are gone."
That must be plenty embarrasing to all the people that cried "MS is enforcing law in China!!!" when this whole BS started.
Why would somebody want to run Linux on an XBOX. Because 'they can'? Or because 'they can' run MAME or some other emulator on it?
I mean seriously: The screen is fuzzy, it's not significantly cheaper than a full-blown PC, and running it on the XBOX adds nothing to running a normal PC with it.
So tell me: Why run Linux at all? I'm not against mod-chips, but you all seriously need a better reason than "I wanna run Linux on it". How about "I wanna run Linux on it so I can make my XBOX into a cheap webserver."
I think you're just arguing with him because you're pro-DMCA. I don't think you're actually listening to him at all.
Few good rational arguments contain the phrase 'absolutely no reason'. He's pointed out good reasons to enact fair-use. He wants to try his hand at playing with the footage on the DVD. You are in no position to guage whether or not he can learn anything from it. He has a start point, he has an end point, and he wants to know how to go from beginning to end. If he didn't have a video camera, the DVD would be his only resort.
Sorry, you're not convincing me that he has nothing to gain from it. I've used ripped material for similar purposes with testing some motion tracking software. Saved me a bundle on renting steadycam equipment. Now I know what it'd take to effectively use that software, I didn't have to shell out an arm and a leg to find out with my own equipment.
There is a free motion-tracking program out there called 'Icarus'. I think it'd be cool to rip a DVD of popular movie scenes and use it to insert a Star Wars poster on the wall of Captain Picard's office.
You're right, though, the DMCA prohibits that type of stuff. Funny thing is, the same technique to do what I described was used in Episode II. They digitally touched up some sets using a similar process.
Slashdot Mirror
That was an interesting and well written post. You can imagine how startled I was to read your nickname. Heh. :)
"Wait a minute? I do... and so far it seems to work... BLOODY HELL! How am I supposed to make a point of how Microsoft's intentions are evil (which they clearly are), when I can't find a good example where trusted 'fill in the blank' doesn't work... Anyone??? ?"
I'm puzzled how this is more 'flamebait' than 'interesting'. I think he makes a good point. There's nothing wrong with stopping and asking "Why should I follow the anti-MS stampede?". If you guys knee-jerk against every single thing that MS says or does, then how's anybody going to take you seriously when they do something that's really really bad.
As for my response: The main reason I'm against this is that the wrong problem is getting solved, and the consumers get burned for it. The problem is not that computers need to be restricted so that Hollywood can feel safe with digital content, the problem is that Hollywood needs to learn how to make it in this market.
Hollywood doesn't understand that people are happy to pay for service, but they can't pay until the service is provided. Right now, I could go download a bunch of movies from kazaa. What would that experience be like? Well, I get varying quality, unreliable connections, and it takes hours (sometimes days) to get a movie to come down. Now if I could pay $5 to download a guaranteed high quality movie at a speed of 100KB/s, why would I even care about Kazaa?
If the internet got to the point that p2p could work that fast, then the pressure is on Hollywood to provide a better service. "The first 100 people to buy this movie will also recieve a still from the movie..." or something like that.
PC's and the Internet are marketing opportunities, they are not exploits designed to put Hollywood out of business. If they're not willing to get with the times, then they don't have any reason to get computers regulated with technology like Palladium.
... not all of us instantly know what a 'cylcotron' is, and the sites that articles link to aren't always avaialable due to /. traffic.
/., please consider defining what the device is and why it's interesting. At the very least, link to a glossary term somewhere on the net that explains it. Please don't assume that a.) We all know what everything means or b.) That the people who don't know the term wouldn't be interested anyway.
So, please, when you post an article to
*meant as a polite request, not bittery sarcastic or anything*
Just wanted to let you know that I found that to be an interesting read. I'd mod it up if I could. :)
"Think of software-defined radio letting you join different wireless networks that are decentralized and encrypted using something ala freenet [sourceforge.net]. "
I have a question: If you have two different sources broadcasting digitally on the same frequence, then you can seperate the two based on encryption standards or protocols, right? However, wouldn't having both transmitters sending data jam each other's signals? Seems to me like they'd have to hear each other and cooperate in order to work efficiently.
In other words, I don't think you can set up two 802.11 nodes with different SSID's and have them work at full capacity.
I'm really naieve here, so if anybody can explain to me if I'm wrong (or even right) I'd really appreciate it. My education on this topic is very basic.
"but is it the prototype model that can shoot while cloaked, and if so does that mean the pilot has to have an eye patch bolted to his face? "
It means that they'll build one and then delete the plans for it. When it gets destroyed, they'll conveniently forget how to build more of them to maintain continuity with our future. Heh.
Hey! It's R2-D2's cousin: SUX-2BU.
Okay, dumb joke, but it beats the inevitable "That robot sucks!" jokes.
I metamoderated in your favor as well. Mods need to learn not to be so literal about 'off-topic'.
"Just curious -- but how does that compare with the average price of new DVDs in Japan?"
Let's put it this way: When the PS2 was launched in Japan for roughly $300 US (err might have been closer to $400), it sold out simply because it could play DVD's.
Evidentally it was a cheaper DVD player than what was available at the time, and it played games to boot. That's why the PS2 sold 3 games for every 4 systems initially. Heh.
"It's still only 10 hours. I betcha that the price difference for this baby will be a lot more than if you just stock up on extra batteries"
Fuel Cells are for mobile apps. The problem with the batteries approach is you have to shutdown and restart to replace them.
In other words, it won't suit your needs, but if you're a businessman flying overseas it's a wonderful gift.
This type of thing really is for the corporate customer, not so much for the consumer.
"(then get someone to add reverse-engineering fuel mixtures to the DMCA)"
That reminds me: Getting flipped off by somebody violates the DMCA. Hands are digital, and reading the act as an offensive gesture requires decrpyting its meaning.
"Isn't that humor stuff supposed to be funny? Btw, research shows that humor is likely to be 87.3% less funy if it is labled as such. "
That beats the 97.164% less funny if nobody sees it because it was modded as 'off-topic'.
..you could join the Army and visit the Middle East. Sunny skies, high tech environment, and the lucky winner can play a game of "Whack the Laden"!
*hopes that joke wasn't in too bad of taste, midly bad taste is acceptable*
So... Apple doesn't want their convention to be in the Big Apple?
"You won't bathe, so there will be no need to waste power on hot water."
Nothing comes with Linux drivers, so the CD-ROM doesn't spin up as much.
Heh, it's a joke, laugh.
"I just built an overclocked P4 running at 3.06 Ghz in order to accomplish some video work that most people with stock Macs can do out of the box. "
Care to substantiate that claim? If you had to overclock a P4, then I would assume you're doing something in real-time. Since you're doing 'video work' in real time, my first guess would be that you're doing DV stuff.
I started DV work on a P3 500 machine. I've seen real-time effects with video done on 1gig machines. (I.e. Newtek's Video Toaster 2)
Unfortunately, since your post is all claim and no data, I can only make assumptions. So ya wanna clarify why you needed to overclock a P4 to do what a Mac already does?
I'll tell you right now: I work in video and I work in 3D, Macs are nice but few are flocking towards them because they're quicker at anything.
Everybody knows that Windows machines use less power than Linux because they're not running as much.
There, I made the obligatory Slashdot 'Windows is unstable' joke. This should render the rest of the stale jokes -1, Redundant.
You're an ASS.
"No one should feel at all emberrassed to have made such accusations, which appear on may fronts to be demonstrably true. "
c id=4422 793
Actually, nobody was running on any good info. As this article points out, it turns out that MS wasn't the only one involved. The news article that originally ran did not:
a.) Say what law was broken
b.) How the Chinese Gov't was invovled
c.) Provide a point of view other than MS shut a company down.
Lots of people went off half-cocked about what was going on and flung accusations left and right. And yes, they should be embarrased about it. You should never reach such extreme conclusions without at least doing a little research first. Whether their suspicions are right or wrong is not the issue, the issue is that they arrived at that conclusion ill-informed.
Check out this +5 post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=41966&
"Another proof, if any more was needed, that US laws don't apply to US citizens only..."
Niether article says which law was used. In other words: Who says it's American Law? How do we know that Lik Sang didn't break Chinese law? The answer is: We don't. It is very clear that the injunction against them prevents them from discussing the case. So, because of this lack of info, lots of peeps make wild assumptions that MS did some Dr. Evil-esque superplot.
I'm not saying MS was right or wrong. I'm saying that I've seen a bunch of silly extremist crap flying around with no base in reality, and a bunch more people saying "yeah!! he's right!". With some people, the less they know, the more right they think they are.
"They should put the modchips in them - ie. bypass the console's security through the USB port..."
Though I have no doubt the XBOX could be exploited this way, I'm reasonbly sure that Sony and Nintendo couldn't be bypassed this way.
Actually I didn't really have anything interesting to say, I just wanted to make the "MS security is so bad that it could be infiltrated via the USB port" comment and obligatorily get modded up as interesting.
"...it turns out that it wasn't just Microsoft that filed the lawsuit - Sony and Nintendo both joined in. The end result is that the modchips are gone."
That must be plenty embarrasing to all the people that cried "MS is enforcing law in China!!!" when this whole BS started.
Why would somebody want to run Linux on an XBOX. Because 'they can'? Or because 'they can' run MAME or some other emulator on it?
I mean seriously: The screen is fuzzy, it's not significantly cheaper than a full-blown PC, and running it on the XBOX adds nothing to running a normal PC with it.
So tell me: Why run Linux at all? I'm not against mod-chips, but you all seriously need a better reason than "I wanna run Linux on it". How about "I wanna run Linux on it so I can make my XBOX into a cheap webserver."
I think you're just arguing with him because you're pro-DMCA. I don't think you're actually listening to him at all.
Few good rational arguments contain the phrase 'absolutely no reason'. He's pointed out good reasons to enact fair-use. He wants to try his hand at playing with the footage on the DVD. You are in no position to guage whether or not he can learn anything from it. He has a start point, he has an end point, and he wants to know how to go from beginning to end. If he didn't have a video camera, the DVD would be his only resort.
Sorry, you're not convincing me that he has nothing to gain from it. I've used ripped material for similar purposes with testing some motion tracking software. Saved me a bundle on renting steadycam equipment. Now I know what it'd take to effectively use that software, I didn't have to shell out an arm and a leg to find out with my own equipment.
There is a free motion-tracking program out there called 'Icarus'. I think it'd be cool to rip a DVD of popular movie scenes and use it to insert a Star Wars poster on the wall of Captain Picard's office.
You're right, though, the DMCA prohibits that type of stuff. Funny thing is, the same technique to do what I described was used in Episode II. They digitally touched up some sets using a similar process.
Linux isn't living up to any of the claims that MS or Apple are making. So why does Slashdot care? Heh.
*Flame Shields Activated*