"In the case of the/. effect, each and every viewing of the webpage is deliberately instigated by a separate human being."
But what if a Lawyer made an argument along the lines of: "Slashdot intentionally posted a link to their site knowing that an overwhelming increase of traffic would hit my client's servers."? What if Blizzard, for example, attempted to sue Taco because of being flooded with too many hits (or negative emails) from opinions posted on Slashdot?
The difference between Slashdot and a news site such as CNN is that more opinions make their way to the front page. For example, remember the article that said MS kicked Sony out of CeBit? That's not what happened, but that was the view it posted.
"Isn't an unintentional attack an oxymoron? Like an intentional accident"
If I was doing a ballet move and slapped you in the face, would you rather label that as an accident or tell people that I used my powerful ballet technique to bitch slap you?
"Everyone at my company has upgraded to Windows 3.1. I don't know why Slashdot is still talking about DOS"
Though I would agree that DOS is probably inhibiting people from getting data off certain sites off the net, they're talking about DoS.
Here's a question, though: Let's say a company does something that the Slashdot community doesn't like. A link is posted to that site so that people could visit it. Slashdot has enough visitors that most sites come down pretty quickly with that much traffic. Could a company make a case that Slashdot is a DoS attack?
I'm not asking on a moral ground, but could a Lawyer actually get that to court?
To be clear I'm not asking:
- Would they win - Could they in the ideal world - Would it be ethical/moral to - Are they right in doing so
I'm asking if they could present a case and get it to court. Thoughts?
What another company has done...
on
PVR For Linux
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Just to be clear, what I'm about to talk about is a PVR, not a DVR, so the signal turns analog and then gets compressed again along the way. So this particular solution may be a little off topic, at first:
Ever hear of snapstream? (http://www.snapstream.com) If you have a TV Tuner card, this program turns your computer into a Tivo-Like device allowing one to capture TV Shows as.ASF files.
One of the features this software has is it can control your Satellite Dish or Digital Cable via Infa Red. It has a little cable or something connected to an IR emitter so it can set the channel for you. Theoretically, with this device, and IR controlled device could be tuned.
The problem is, as I mentioned above, is that you're going analog and then going digital again with the associated Degredation. (To be fair, I don't think it'd be bad.)
I imagine somebody COULD find a way to do a similar thing with Linux. If they were to take their satellite reciever apart, figure out which cable has the digital data (if that's possible... I'm not claiming to know what really goes on inside of these devices and imagine I'll be told it's not possible), and funnel it off to the computer, it wouldn't be that much bigger of step to add infa-red capability too.
Anybody wanna donate their reciever to experiment on? Heh
The simple solution to that is to use all I-frames and take the extra hit in bandwidth. It's still far better than uncompressed video.
Are the b's there indicating bi-directional frames? Didn't realize those were being used on a broadcast medium. Is that to deal with the problem of noise causing bit errors, you think?
"If you want a dongle that plugs in to your video port and gives 800x600x60Hz video at 16 bits, that works out to 460 Mbits of bandwidth"
They could easily get that down to a few megabits if they used a variant of MPEG2 or MPEG4. The downside is that real time encoding'd be a bitch, it'd require special hardware to do that.
Feasibly, though, somebody could do it. It'd be a little expensive, but I bet with an 802.11 card it'd be possible to xmit a stream of MPEG data wirelessly and decode it fast enough for it to be usable remotely.
It has been ages since I have used Lightwave on an Alpha machine.
I have a question: Do you have any statistics on how much faster the 64-bit version of LW was on the Alpha vs. IA-32?
The reason I ask is that I'm trying to figure out if the Itanium processor will be of any serious help with my future in 3D. It's not entirely clear, from what I've read, what 64-bit processing could do for 3D.
Assuming the facts are exactly as you presented them, I agree with you.
'They claim "false designation of origin". Don't know where this is coming from, don't remember seeing anything about it before.'
That reads to me like at some point they mislead people into thinking it was Blizzard created or endorsed. Since I'm not familiar with BnetD, I cannot verify if I am right or not.
As for whether or not Blizzard has any legal recourse, they still might. Getting back to my original point, it sounds like their service bypasses Blizzards 'check the serial # on the game' copy protection scheme. I'm not sure how they could file charges on a company about that, or even if they can. If that is the case, then I can certainly understand and sympathize with Blizzard for taking the actions they are.
Do I think they're being harsh? From what I know, yeah. I hate operating without a complete picture, however.
I'm curious what correspondences went on between Blizzard and BnetD following the lawsuit. That might shed some light on it.
"So what? Blizzard has no legal right to do what they're trying to pull."
That's up to the courts to decide. Obviously they have some legal angle on it or it'd be thrown out.
"For example, if I give out $10 to every passerby in Manhattan and ask them to give me $20 tomorrow at the same place if they accept, it may well be that those people are going to break their agreement."
Actually if they agree to that, then you can pursue it in court. You gave them a loan and they didn't pay it back. Judge Judy'd be happy to help you there.
"...if they don't pay me back, I'll kill them..."
Your analogy is seriously flawed. It doesn't even come close to representing what's really going on between Blizzard and BnetD. A better analogy would be along the lines of "Somebody keeps pickpocketing me, so I filed a restraining order on them.".
I think the reason you didn't use that analogy is that it doesn't show Blizzard with devil-like horns on it's head.
"But hell, if I want to see some titties, I'll go to the fucking nudie bar and throw some money around. Those sluts will do anything for two hundred bucks."
I wondered if Bud Bundy posted here. Heh.
Don't measure intelligence by spelling
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 2
"If you're going to capitalize a word for emphasis, please at least make sure that you spell it right, at the risk of making yourself look Really Dumb.(TM)"
It's really rude to correct somebody when they are perfectly understandable. I certainly have no intention of judging anybody's intelligence by the way they spell.
BTW, if you're going to use the TM symbol, do it right: (TM) -- see, not too hard is it?
"They are certainly trying, but so far they are 0/1."
Yeah, I kept an eye on those articles. The problem is that MS sales people only have to impress the money spenders, not the engineers. If MS can put together a good PowerPoint Presentation, Unix has something to fear. It's not MS's technology, it's the knowledge of the decision makers.
It'd be interesting if somebody put together a website touting the benefits of Unix over MS in response to it. I'd hate MS to win by default because Unix isn't getting enough publicity.
Isn't Unix a 64-bit OS? (or could it be?) If so, then it most definitely has life for the forseable future.
I have a feeling that MS wants everybody to run a 64-bit Windows Variant in the server world when Itanium architecture becomes wide-spread. That's why they're pulling the whole "Unix is too expensive" bit. They may sort of have a case. If MS provides software that makes setting up a 64-bit server real easy, then they could claim you don't have to custom program it. I think the true cost is a wholly different story, however. If you're running Unix on a 64-bit server, isn't it likely that you're going to want a custom program anyway?
I dunno. I think the only think Unix needs to fear is MS using marketing against it. Anybody who pays attention to what Unix is and what it does is going to have a hard time being convinced that Unix is dead.
"Why isn't this processor farm being used for, say, bacterial genomics?"
You'd rather have potentially defective nuclear weapons at our disposal than advancing bacteria research?
I can see it now: "The United States was forced to launch a nuclear assault on Iraq today. Unfortunately, the first bomb that went off was powerful enough to scare birds away. In live television address, Saddam Hussein's speech was surprisingly short. 'Ha ha!', he said as he pointed in the general direction of the United States."
There's a pretty big difference between modelling a nuclear explosion (or an explosion of any kind) and performing Seti like research. For one thing, Seti can divvy up the data to process into really small chunks, making it easy to distribute it across a number of machines.
This cannot be done with an explosion of any kind. The reason is that you have LOTS of particles interacting with each other. For each interaction, every single particle needs to be re-calculated. This is why you cannot divvy up the data and spread it across a lot of machines. This is why you need to use a computer like this to do the calculation.
I'm not sure what kind of math is done for genome related stuff, so I cannot really comment on that. I'm willing to bet, though, they could spread it across as many machines as they need. If they need a machine like the one being used in this article, they could probably lease run time off it.
Well that sucks. I think you're right. If they're protecting the CD's, then that means that the MP3 version of a song has value aside from the CD version. (even though it doesn't, not that I'd pay for.)
That probably means that even if you have the CD version of the song, they'd still expect you to pay for the Mp3 version. That doesn't fly so high with me. I'm willing to pay a modest fee for them to deliver it to me, but the cost of an album's worth of Mp3's better not exceed the album.
I wish I could just buy a 'certificate' for a song. If I put a CD in my drive, then the songs on the CD earn a free certificate. Then I'd be free to download MP3's all I want, provided I can show I have a license for them. The certificate price of individual songs should be pretty cheap though.
That way, no matter how I recieved a song (i.e. copied a friend's, downloaded from the web, or bought a collection on CD), I could pay the company who produced it. If they're willing to treat me like an honest person, I'll respect them by paying for it.
Let me be clear that I don't fully understand how the law operates. So I don't want you to feel like I'm debating this with you just to be right, I'm trying to learn about this myself.
Is copyright the issue here? Or is it a case of BnetD's reverse engineering of Warcraft or other Blizzard games is causing monetary damage to Blizzard. I think the latter is more likely to be a winning case for Blizzard, at least in a 'cease and desist' kind of way. If Blizzard made a case that BattleNet is a source of income (ad revenue?) then diverting people away from it could be a problem.
I don't think they've claimed this, but they might. If it's a case of copyright, then I'm not sure how they could sue for this and not use the DMCA. I'll leave that for other people to debate, I haven't read much of the article yet.
I do believe, though, that Blizzard had to act. If they had waited and more and more of these copycat programs showed up, then Blizzard'd have an uphill battle.
Just like in the case of the Neighbor's FAQ you pointed out, the longer it takes to do something about it, the less legal rights they have. Why? Let's say that your neighbor built a profitable lemonade stand on your property and you failed to do anything about it. Over time, his business would grow and grow. If you waited, you could find just the right time to make it the most expensive for him to have to either shut down or move. I think the laws are designed to prevent that kind of crap from going on. That's why Blizzard would have to act.
If somebody creates a program like BnetD, then Blizzard does nothing to stop it, how does the next guy know it's okay for him to do that? Blizzard could wait until so many people are doing it that they could rake in all kinds of $$$ if it went to court. That's why the law won't let it happen.
At least that's my point of view, please feel free to correct me as I'd like to understand this better.
... to turn off the cell phone part of it and have just the PDA on?
The only thing preventing me from buying one of these guys is that I'm concerned I can't use it on a plane. This may sound silly to some people, but I like the idea if simply carrying that aboard instead of my laptop. Since I already carry a cell-phone around everywhere I go, then that'd mean one less thing to carry.
The first record company to properly embrace the internet may be the first to recieve money from me when I end my boycott of the RIAA.
It's possible that they'll revamp Napster and turn it into something interesting. For example, what if they put up a server with tons of bandwidth and a ton of interesting songs available, complete with a reasonable per-song price. That'd be far better than any other record label is producing nowadays and would be a step in the right direction.
I just hope they don't put stupid restrictions on it like 'you have to use.WMA format' or 'you cannot legally burn it to a CD.'
Maybe I'm being over-imaginitive, but it'd be nice to see a music company show some interest in the new market created by the internet, instead of trying to shut it down.
Blizzard has to protect themselves. If they didn't sue to shut down BNetD, then other places could pop up doing the same things they did. If Blizzard didn't take a legal stand and say 'no', then they'd in effect be saying 'yes'. Then they couldn't defend themselves down the road.
It sucks for BnetD, and it sucks for the people that like it, but I don't see that Blizzard had a choice. If one of the problems that BnetD gets around is legal copies of games, then they are in effect damaging Blizzard's copy protection scheme. If they didn't file suit, it's possible that somebody who found a way around Blizzard's copy protection scheme couldn't be prosecuted.
"They fail to mention the reason that the Russians denied access was because their sattelite intelligence showed that the "specially built vehicle" was going to deposit four Tanyas and an Engineer. "
Well they do have a legit concern. Thanks to Edison, they could no longer legally build Tesla Coils.
I think JPEG2000 COULD take off. (notice I'm not saying would yet...)
There's a new market out there that is starved for bandwidth. The Wireless-PDA market. I think there is a wireless Internet Modem out there running at roughly 19kbps. A 5x reduction in size (that somebody else in this thread mentioned) would have a humungous impact on the ability to use these devices. If that's the case, then sites setting themselves up for PDAS would be quick to adopt JPG2k, assuming that the PDA's or Phones connecting to them could use it.
Lets say that happens. Let's say somebody like AvantGo takes advantage of it. It wouldn't take long for JPG2k to reach such popularity that the newer browsers start to support it.
It wouldn't be hard to do that. If JPG2k uses a different extension, then it'd be trivial to write code that assigns an alternative extension if the browser supports it. That'd be kind of neat, actually:
"if you want this site to come down faster, download the latest browser."
Slashdot Mirror
"So why are you claiming the media bastardizes the term when this author actually uses the correct terminology?"
Because the 'media' is a representation of the entire news broadcasting world and not the individual author?
"In the case of the /. effect, each and every viewing of the webpage is deliberately instigated by a separate human being."
But what if a Lawyer made an argument along the lines of: "Slashdot intentionally posted a link to their site knowing that an overwhelming increase of traffic would hit my client's servers."? What if Blizzard, for example, attempted to sue Taco because of being flooded with too many hits (or negative emails) from opinions posted on Slashdot?
The difference between Slashdot and a news site such as CNN is that more opinions make their way to the front page. For example, remember the article that said MS kicked Sony out of CeBit? That's not what happened, but that was the view it posted.
"Isn't an unintentional attack an oxymoron? Like an intentional accident"
If I was doing a ballet move and slapped you in the face, would you rather label that as an accident or tell people that I used my powerful ballet technique to bitch slap you?
"Everyone at my company has upgraded to Windows 3.1. I don't know why Slashdot is still talking about DOS"
Though I would agree that DOS is probably inhibiting people from getting data off certain sites off the net, they're talking about DoS.
Here's a question, though: Let's say a company does something that the Slashdot community doesn't like. A link is posted to that site so that people could visit it. Slashdot has enough visitors that most sites come down pretty quickly with that much traffic. Could a company make a case that Slashdot is a DoS attack?
I'm not asking on a moral ground, but could a Lawyer actually get that to court?
To be clear I'm not asking:
- Would they win
- Could they in the ideal world
- Would it be ethical/moral to
- Are they right in doing so
I'm asking if they could present a case and get it to court. Thoughts?
Just to be clear, what I'm about to talk about is a PVR, not a DVR, so the signal turns analog and then gets compressed again along the way. So this particular solution may be a little off topic, at first:
.ASF files.
Ever hear of snapstream? (http://www.snapstream.com) If you have a TV Tuner card, this program turns your computer into a Tivo-Like device allowing one to capture TV Shows as
One of the features this software has is it can control your Satellite Dish or Digital Cable via Infa Red. It has a little cable or something connected to an IR emitter so it can set the channel for you. Theoretically, with this device, and IR controlled device could be tuned.
The problem is, as I mentioned above, is that you're going analog and then going digital again with the associated Degredation. (To be fair, I don't think it'd be bad.)
I imagine somebody COULD find a way to do a similar thing with Linux. If they were to take their satellite reciever apart, figure out which cable has the digital data (if that's possible... I'm not claiming to know what really goes on inside of these devices and imagine I'll be told it's not possible), and funnel it off to the computer, it wouldn't be that much bigger of step to add infa-red capability too.
Anybody wanna donate their reciever to experiment on? Heh
The simple solution to that is to use all I-frames and take the extra hit in bandwidth. It's still far better than uncompressed video.
Are the b's there indicating bi-directional frames? Didn't realize those were being used on a broadcast medium. Is that to deal with the problem of noise causing bit errors, you think?
P.S. I apologize for misspelling 'bandwidth' heh
"If you want a dongle that plugs in to your video port and gives 800x600x60Hz video at 16 bits, that works out to 460 Mbits of bandwidth"
They could easily get that down to a few megabits if they used a variant of MPEG2 or MPEG4. The downside is that real time encoding'd be a bitch, it'd require special hardware to do that.
Feasibly, though, somebody could do it. It'd be a little expensive, but I bet with an 802.11 card it'd be possible to xmit a stream of MPEG data wirelessly and decode it fast enough for it to be usable remotely.
It has been ages since I have used Lightwave on an Alpha machine.
I have a question: Do you have any statistics on how much faster the 64-bit version of LW was on the Alpha vs. IA-32?
The reason I ask is that I'm trying to figure out if the Itanium processor will be of any serious help with my future in 3D. It's not entirely clear, from what I've read, what 64-bit processing could do for 3D.
Assuming the facts are exactly as you presented them, I agree with you.
'They claim "false designation of origin". Don't know where this is coming from, don't remember seeing anything about it before.'
That reads to me like at some point they mislead people into thinking it was Blizzard created or endorsed. Since I'm not familiar with BnetD, I cannot verify if I am right or not.
As for whether or not Blizzard has any legal recourse, they still might. Getting back to my original point, it sounds like their service bypasses Blizzards 'check the serial # on the game' copy protection scheme. I'm not sure how they could file charges on a company about that, or even if they can. If that is the case, then I can certainly understand and sympathize with Blizzard for taking the actions they are.
Do I think they're being harsh? From what I know, yeah. I hate operating without a complete picture, however.
I'm curious what correspondences went on between Blizzard and BnetD following the lawsuit. That might shed some light on it.
"So what? Blizzard has no legal right to do what they're trying to pull."
That's up to the courts to decide. Obviously they have some legal angle on it or it'd be thrown out.
"For example, if I give out $10 to every passerby in Manhattan and ask them to give me $20 tomorrow at the same place if they accept, it may well be that those people are going to break their agreement."
Actually if they agree to that, then you can pursue it in court. You gave them a loan and they didn't pay it back. Judge Judy'd be happy to help you there.
"...if they don't pay me back, I'll kill them..."
Your analogy is seriously flawed. It doesn't even come close to representing what's really going on between Blizzard and BnetD. A better analogy would be along the lines of "Somebody keeps pickpocketing me, so I filed a restraining order on them.".
I think the reason you didn't use that analogy is that it doesn't show Blizzard with devil-like horns on it's head.
Just curious, I skimmed the press release and couldn't determine how they make it so much faster than existing RAM.
Is this something Intel could learn, or is it something that just requires tons more money?
*Concerned that this'll mainly be a big deal for super computers and not end users.*
"But hell, if I want to see some titties, I'll go to the fucking nudie bar and throw some money around. Those sluts will do anything for two hundred bucks."
I wondered if Bud Bundy posted here. Heh.
"If you're going to capitalize a word for emphasis, please at least make sure that you spell it right, at the risk of making yourself look Really Dumb.(TM)"
It's really rude to correct somebody when they are perfectly understandable. I certainly have no intention of judging anybody's intelligence by the way they spell.
BTW, if you're going to use the TM symbol, do it right: (TM) -- see, not too hard is it?
"They are certainly trying, but so far they are 0/1."
Yeah, I kept an eye on those articles. The problem is that MS sales people only have to impress the money spenders, not the engineers. If MS can put together a good PowerPoint Presentation, Unix has something to fear. It's not MS's technology, it's the knowledge of the decision makers.
It'd be interesting if somebody put together a website touting the benefits of Unix over MS in response to it. I'd hate MS to win by default because Unix isn't getting enough publicity.
Isn't Unix a 64-bit OS? (or could it be?) If so, then it most definitely has life for the forseable future.
I have a feeling that MS wants everybody to run a 64-bit Windows Variant in the server world when Itanium architecture becomes wide-spread. That's why they're pulling the whole "Unix is too expensive" bit. They may sort of have a case. If MS provides software that makes setting up a 64-bit server real easy, then they could claim you don't have to custom program it. I think the true cost is a wholly different story, however. If you're running Unix on a 64-bit server, isn't it likely that you're going to want a custom program anyway?
I dunno. I think the only think Unix needs to fear is MS using marketing against it. Anybody who pays attention to what Unix is and what it does is going to have a hard time being convinced that Unix is dead.
"Why isn't this processor farm being used for, say, bacterial genomics?"
You'd rather have potentially defective nuclear weapons at our disposal than advancing bacteria research?
I can see it now: "The United States was forced to launch a nuclear assault on Iraq today. Unfortunately, the first bomb that went off was powerful enough to scare birds away. In live television address, Saddam Hussein's speech was surprisingly short. 'Ha ha!', he said as he pointed in the general direction of the United States."
There's a pretty big difference between modelling a nuclear explosion (or an explosion of any kind) and performing Seti like research. For one thing, Seti can divvy up the data to process into really small chunks, making it easy to distribute it across a number of machines.
This cannot be done with an explosion of any kind. The reason is that you have LOTS of particles interacting with each other. For each interaction, every single particle needs to be re-calculated. This is why you cannot divvy up the data and spread it across a lot of machines. This is why you need to use a computer like this to do the calculation.
I'm not sure what kind of math is done for genome related stuff, so I cannot really comment on that. I'm willing to bet, though, they could spread it across as many machines as they need. If they need a machine like the one being used in this article, they could probably lease run time off it.
I dind't realize it was BMG that was doing that.
Well that sucks. I think you're right. If they're protecting the CD's, then that means that the MP3 version of a song has value aside from the CD version. (even though it doesn't, not that I'd pay for.)
That probably means that even if you have the CD version of the song, they'd still expect you to pay for the Mp3 version. That doesn't fly so high with me. I'm willing to pay a modest fee for them to deliver it to me, but the cost of an album's worth of Mp3's better not exceed the album.
I wish I could just buy a 'certificate' for a song. If I put a CD in my drive, then the songs on the CD earn a free certificate. Then I'd be free to download MP3's all I want, provided I can show I have a license for them. The certificate price of individual songs should be pretty cheap though.
That way, no matter how I recieved a song (i.e. copied a friend's, downloaded from the web, or bought a collection on CD), I could pay the company who produced it. If they're willing to treat me like an honest person, I'll respect them by paying for it.
Thanks!! Much appreciated. :)
Let me be clear that I don't fully understand how the law operates. So I don't want you to feel like I'm debating this with you just to be right, I'm trying to learn about this myself.
Is copyright the issue here? Or is it a case of BnetD's reverse engineering of Warcraft or other Blizzard games is causing monetary damage to Blizzard. I think the latter is more likely to be a winning case for Blizzard, at least in a 'cease and desist' kind of way. If Blizzard made a case that BattleNet is a source of income (ad revenue?) then diverting people away from it could be a problem.
I don't think they've claimed this, but they might. If it's a case of copyright, then I'm not sure how they could sue for this and not use the DMCA. I'll leave that for other people to debate, I haven't read much of the article yet.
I do believe, though, that Blizzard had to act. If they had waited and more and more of these copycat programs showed up, then Blizzard'd have an uphill battle.
Just like in the case of the Neighbor's FAQ you pointed out, the longer it takes to do something about it, the less legal rights they have. Why? Let's say that your neighbor built a profitable lemonade stand on your property and you failed to do anything about it. Over time, his business would grow and grow. If you waited, you could find just the right time to make it the most expensive for him to have to either shut down or move. I think the laws are designed to prevent that kind of crap from going on. That's why Blizzard would have to act.
If somebody creates a program like BnetD, then Blizzard does nothing to stop it, how does the next guy know it's okay for him to do that? Blizzard could wait until so many people are doing it that they could rake in all kinds of $$$ if it went to court. That's why the law won't let it happen.
At least that's my point of view, please feel free to correct me as I'd like to understand this better.
... to turn off the cell phone part of it and have just the PDA on?
The only thing preventing me from buying one of these guys is that I'm concerned I can't use it on a plane. This may sound silly to some people, but I like the idea if simply carrying that aboard instead of my laptop. Since I already carry a cell-phone around everywhere I go, then that'd mean one less thing to carry.
Anybody know if this is possible?
The first record company to properly embrace the internet may be the first to recieve money from me when I end my boycott of the RIAA.
.WMA format' or 'you cannot legally burn it to a CD.'
It's possible that they'll revamp Napster and turn it into something interesting. For example, what if they put up a server with tons of bandwidth and a ton of interesting songs available, complete with a reasonable per-song price. That'd be far better than any other record label is producing nowadays and would be a step in the right direction.
I just hope they don't put stupid restrictions on it like 'you have to use
Maybe I'm being over-imaginitive, but it'd be nice to see a music company show some interest in the new market created by the internet, instead of trying to shut it down.
Blizzard has to protect themselves. If they didn't sue to shut down BNetD, then other places could pop up doing the same things they did. If Blizzard didn't take a legal stand and say 'no', then they'd in effect be saying 'yes'. Then they couldn't defend themselves down the road.
It sucks for BnetD, and it sucks for the people that like it, but I don't see that Blizzard had a choice. If one of the problems that BnetD gets around is legal copies of games, then they are in effect damaging Blizzard's copy protection scheme. If they didn't file suit, it's possible that somebody who found a way around Blizzard's copy protection scheme couldn't be prosecuted.
"They fail to mention the reason that the Russians denied access was because their sattelite intelligence showed that the "specially built vehicle" was going to deposit four Tanyas and an Engineer. "
Well they do have a legit concern. Thanks to Edison, they could no longer legally build Tesla Coils.
... that 'visible butt crack' will become a stereotype for lan-geeks?
Heh I can't wait to start trying on overalls to compliment my new toolbox PC!
I think JPEG2000 COULD take off. (notice I'm not saying would yet...)
There's a new market out there that is starved for bandwidth. The Wireless-PDA market. I think there is a wireless Internet Modem out there running at roughly 19kbps. A 5x reduction in size (that somebody else in this thread mentioned) would have a humungous impact on the ability to use these devices. If that's the case, then sites setting themselves up for PDAS would be quick to adopt JPG2k, assuming that the PDA's or Phones connecting to them could use it.
Lets say that happens. Let's say somebody like AvantGo takes advantage of it. It wouldn't take long for JPG2k to reach such popularity that the newer browsers start to support it.
It wouldn't be hard to do that. If JPG2k uses a different extension, then it'd be trivial to write code that assigns an alternative extension if the browser supports it. That'd be kind of neat, actually:
"if you want this site to come down faster, download the latest browser."
Hmmmmmm...