24fps is cinematic (big screen) frame rate. Unless you have just guzzled a case of Jolt Espresso, you probably aren't able to see the difference in a movie. 3D graphics sometimes need the extra kick to not look choppy, though.
Statements like that are what are wrong with us today.
When do you need to make cinema-quality video? I understand people wanting the cool technology, but at some point you have to be content. You have to accept that you can never have the newest/fastest/coolest/best thing for very long (unless you have a 7 figure disposable income).
People claim they can't live without Photoshop, and they actively obtain the newest version. But how many people stop to think "Gee, I've been using Photoshop for 8 years now, maybe I should save up and buy a copy."
I'm not a software purist, who has sent a check to every shareware developer whose program he has used more than twice. I won't say that I don't have any software I didn't pay for, (I use IE and Mozilla;) but I have paid for software I considered worthwhile. That includes a legal copy of Photoshop.
The reality is that we end up spending money on the software we don't own and don't need. If you ever bought a bigger hard drive instead of deleting LightWave, 3D Studio Max, and Maya, you spent money on that software. If you really use the software regularly, for more than playing around, it's probably worth investing money in. If you use it for an occupation, you have probably considered the legal implications.
I won't waste my time telling people not to steal software. Just consider the makers. If nobody bought Photoshop, Adobe would give up on it. If you and 9 friends all use Photoshop frequently, get together and buy it. Is it what Adobe wants? No. Is it better for Adobe than getting a copy on KaZaA? Yes.
Just my opinion.
-- Freedom of information doesn't mean information should be free. Just because you can read the book doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for it.
A worthwhile read, in my opinion. It seems some developers forget that there are other programs out there and try to build "The Only App You'll Ever Need".
Just imagine the suburbs in years to come... Huge expanses of similarly shaped houses all with sprayed solar cells on their roofs used to heat their swimming pools.
I suppose it all comes down to time. Time to start using multi-layer encryption - have three keys (this is a thought for authenticity verification - this document is encrypted/signed by 8 people at the company...) each encrypt over each other...
Maybe it's been done. I don't follow crypto that closely.
This is the promise not of centralized administration, but centralized information. Forget worrying about putting your documents on the file server - no matter what computer you sit down on has your document.
And terminals are a much better solution than NT administration - there is nothing like the pain I feel watching my profile download when I sit down at a new station. And my profile is only 1.4 MB. NT requires manipulation of local settings, synchronization, etc. Terminals don't have local storage to sync, no local settings to change.
(witness the NT systems here that re-image their own drives every week).
If weekly re-installation of the operating system is used to keep people from changing the system, then you need security settings. If it is used to keep the operating system functional, then you need a better operating system. Other than that it seems like something a Windows Admin might do for fun ("hey guys, check this out!").
Imaging now being at home. I presume you have a computer, maybe two. If they're the same OS, you probably have customized the interfacce identically. You probably move files back and forth between them depending on which you use. Now think about sitting down at either computer and changing settings for both at the same time. Having all the files in all the same places. All the same software installed. You update one program, both computers get the update... With me?
Did you miss that someone actually has to pay for the internet connection? Unless MCI*Worldcom themselves put up a wireless connectino and just let people leech off their bandwidth, it's not free.
Just because you don't pay for using your neighbor's broadband via 802.11 doesn't mean that they don't pay for it, or their telco/cable co.
You say don't let greed stand in the way. That's the problem plaguing us now with MP3s. Everyone says the RIAA is greedy and wants only money. That may be true, but are we not also greedy (and arrogant) for wanting everything for free?
-- Freedom of information doesn't mean information is free. Just 'cause you can legally read the book doesn't mean you don't have to buy the book.
Analogies aside, I agree. A few reminders from their own fact sheet (I highlight for effect):
It is ICANN's objective to operate as an
open, transparent, and consensus-based body that is broadly representative of the diverse stakeholder communities of the global Internet...
...a technical management and policy development body that is more formalized in structure, more transparent,
more accountable, and more fully reflective of the diversity of the world's Internet communities...
...As a technical coordinating body, ICANN's mandate is
not to "run the Internet."...
Perhaps they need to take a look at their own beginnings. No one should become so powerful or important as to forget where they started.
I recommend a Sci-Fi theme. It's simple at first (pick an author/story and stick with it for a while) and can expand (how many different sco-fi movies/books/etc are there?). Comparatively, other things tend to run out when you expand. Plus, with Sci-Fi you can do exciting things like "All web servers will have robot names from Asimov".
Something to think about.
All resteraunts, convenience stores, and gas stations have just upped the low-end pricing of items (typically gum or cheap candy) from around $0.25 to $750.00. All more expensive items have been increased accordingly.
ZBS News reports that when questioned, the CFOs of PepsiCo, McDonalds, and Exxon all responded with "We can do whatever the hell we want".
In related news, the price of electricity had skyrocketed to $125 per kilowatt-hour. Many citizens say that electricity sure was nice, and they'll miss *bzzzt*...
Wouldn't that put them in a precarious legal position? Shut out the competition then open up your own shop? Wouldn't that invalidate their arguments?
They won't open up their "own" shop - it ends up as a sister company - that way they still push the same legal agenda but there are all sorts of wonderful tax breaks for certain business setups.
Of course, if they do manage to destroy Internet music, they could just partner with Napster and be the only option.
We are dealing with numerous issues at the same time in situations like these, and we need to deal with each piece before we can really solve this situation.
Values: At the heart of the whole debaucle are our values. Most of us have something (software, silverware, clothes, etc) that we didn't pay for, and we don't feel bad about it. Well, we all add up. And as a whole, we are getting worse. I'm not saying we should all go out and buy a new copy of Photoshop, but somehow we bastardized "freedom of information" into "information for free" - just because it's not illegal to read a book doesn't mean you can just take a copy.
Interests: We all have our own interests at heart, and alot of us try to consider other people, too. If not, no one would have subscribed to/. - they would use junkbuster. Well, the record companies are out to make money. And if they don't make any it will be alot harder to get any music, bought or downloaded. The problem is the RIAA has a huge infrastructure to support. The guy-down-the-street store can put out something as good for a comparable price, but he can't put out 200,000,000 no matter how hard he tries. The RIAA wants money because it wants it and because it needs to support itself.
Rights: Even though the Apple iPod is set up so you can't copy songs to a computer (and there's a big sticker on it that says "Don't Steal Music") there are already two programs out there that let you circumvent that. Is that bad? No. Should we use it? Maybe. The problem is that security is only as useful as the conscience of the people using it. If the RIAA managed to shut down every media sharing program but streaming Internet radio was still free, programs to turn the music into standard mp3s would circulate like wildfire. Normally people have a privilege for a long time to think of it as a right. But we think of large-scale essentially anonymous p2p file sharing as a right, and that hasn't been around more than a few years. Many think of free music as a right, even some artists. But until we reach Gene Roddenberry's dream of not needing money and all just getting along, that just doesn't work. We aren't fighting over exact dollar amounts (though that does come into it), we are fighting over privilege versus right. Not something new to anyone who ever had a drink, owned a gun, or voted.
Newness: In case nobody else seemed to notice, the Internet is still brand-spanking new by "real world" standards. When was the last time a college student had a idea and revolutionized the telephone - striking panic into huge corporations? We are still dealing with technology the capabilities of which are still being discovered. We are at a point where access is getting easier, but there are still few ways to connect the user to the experience. (I don't mean this in the Big Brother sense, I mean this in the sense that I have to log into/. at every friends house - no way for it to come with me.) Basically we need something between having a World Identification Number tatooed onto our eye that it logged in the International Database of Everything Online and the anonymous free-for-all that is the 'net today.
Alright, I'm down off my soapbox. Just remember that there are reasons, even if we don't know them. The goverment doesn't just keep secrets to piss us off, and the RIAA doesn't want our money just so we can complain about it. The RIAA wants our money so it can be there to complain about in the years to come.
Even Microsoft can - They made 3.1 (admittedly before the web was of much commercial importance), 95, NT, and CE. And 98, 2k, ME, and XP are all based on 95 or NT.
In fairness, it is most likely more diffcult to remove IE from XP, as they have now built the interface somewhat on the basis that IE would be readily available. But the rigged tests weren't XP.
It may have simply been a way of delaying the process so they could get something like XP out. By the time any action could be taken, the browser is so important to the OS that it really can't be removed.
They do a little more than that, but that's their primary focus. Their mission statement is two paragraphs, one about protecting officials, their families, etc, and the second one follows:
The Secret Service is charged with the detection and arrest of any person committing any offense against the laws of the United States relating to coins, currency, stamps, Government bonds, checks, credit/debt card fraud, computer fraud, false identification crimes, and other obligations or securities of the United States. The mission of the Secret Service also includes investigations related to certain criminal violations of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the Federal Land Bank Act, and the Government Losses in Shipment Act.
I remember when 16K was everything you could possibly want. Of course, business apps weren't really prevalent at that point. But 128K was DEFINATELY enough.
at HP abandoned standard OS printing systems long ago for their own print spooler, print monitor, etc? The sad part is they are unneeded (Windows will print without them - Macs sadly still use 'em). I was disappointed when Apple switched to HP printers and didn't manage to talk HP out of their horrendous drivers.
Apple has been in the practice of seeking out or attempting to create standards to for years - it's nice to see them embracing pre-existing standards. The integration of BSD and MacOS is a great thing for both communities, and I hope to see more announcements like this in the future!
Slashdot Mirror
24fps is cinematic (big screen) frame rate. Unless you have just guzzled a case of Jolt Espresso, you probably aren't able to see the difference in a movie. 3D graphics sometimes need the extra kick to not look choppy, though.
Statements like that are what are wrong with us today.
When do you need to make cinema-quality video? I understand people wanting the cool technology, but at some point you have to be content. You have to accept that you can never have the newest/fastest/coolest/best thing for very long (unless you have a 7 figure disposable income).
People claim they can't live without Photoshop, and they actively obtain the newest version. But how many people stop to think "Gee, I've been using Photoshop for 8 years now, maybe I should save up and buy a copy."
I'm not a software purist, who has sent a check to every shareware developer whose program he has used more than twice. I won't say that I don't have any software I didn't pay for, (I use IE and Mozilla ;) but I have paid for software I considered worthwhile. That includes a legal copy of Photoshop.
The reality is that we end up spending money on the software we don't own and don't need. If you ever bought a bigger hard drive instead of deleting LightWave, 3D Studio Max, and Maya, you spent money on that software. If you really use the software regularly, for more than playing around, it's probably worth investing money in. If you use it for an occupation, you have probably considered the legal implications.
I won't waste my time telling people not to steal software. Just consider the makers. If nobody bought Photoshop, Adobe would give up on it. If you and 9 friends all use Photoshop frequently, get together and buy it. Is it what Adobe wants? No. Is it better for Adobe than getting a copy on KaZaA? Yes.
Just my opinion.
--
Freedom of information doesn't mean information should be free. Just because you can read the book doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for it.
Back in September Macworld had an opinion piece by Andy Ihnatko about making great software.
A worthwhile read, in my opinion. It seems some developers forget that there are other programs out there and try to build "The Only App You'll Ever Need".
Just imagine the suburbs in years to come... Huge expanses of similarly shaped houses all with sprayed solar cells on their roofs used to heat their swimming pools.
And a sigh of releif is heard by all those late night surfers...
I suppose it all comes down to time. Time to start using multi-layer encryption - have three keys (this is a thought for authenticity verification - this document is encrypted/signed by 8 people at the company...) each encrypt over each other...
Maybe it's been done. I don't follow crypto that closely.
This is the promise not of centralized administration, but centralized information. Forget worrying about putting your documents on the file server - no matter what computer you sit down on has your document.
And terminals are a much better solution than NT administration - there is nothing like the pain I feel watching my profile download when I sit down at a new station. And my profile is only 1.4 MB. NT requires manipulation of local settings, synchronization, etc. Terminals don't have local storage to sync, no local settings to change.
If weekly re-installation of the operating system is used to keep people from changing the system, then you need security settings. If it is used to keep the operating system functional, then you need a better operating system. Other than that it seems like something a Windows Admin might do for fun ("hey guys, check this out!").
Imaging now being at home. I presume you have a computer, maybe two. If they're the same OS, you probably have customized the interfacce identically. You probably move files back and forth between them depending on which you use. Now think about sitting down at either computer and changing settings for both at the same time. Having all the files in all the same places. All the same software installed. You update one program, both computers get the update... With me?
That is why I think it's cool. Any other takers?
Good taste has officially died and has been replaced with morbid curiosity.
Did you miss that someone actually has to pay for the internet connection? Unless MCI*Worldcom themselves put up a wireless connectino and just let people leech off their bandwidth, it's not free.
Just because you don't pay for using your neighbor's broadband via 802.11 doesn't mean that they don't pay for it, or their telco/cable co.
You say don't let greed stand in the way. That's the problem plaguing us now with MP3s. Everyone says the RIAA is greedy and wants only money. That may be true, but are we not also greedy (and arrogant) for wanting everything for free?
-- Freedom of information doesn't mean information is free. Just 'cause you can legally read the book doesn't mean you don't have to buy the book.
Analogies aside, I agree. A few reminders from their own fact sheet (I highlight for effect):
Perhaps they need to take a look at their own beginnings. No one should become so powerful or important as to forget where they started.
Every so often governements become too controlling and revolutions occur. Too little input, sweeping changes, public insensitivity, the like.
What would you do if the Congress said "general elections are so much trouble - all that counting... We'll just pick our successors from now on..."
And if you're afraid of losing freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, what would you do if they revoked your right to vote?
I recommend a Sci-Fi theme. It's simple at first (pick an author/story and stick with it for a while) and can expand (how many different sco-fi movies/books/etc are there?). Comparatively, other things tend to run out when you expand. Plus, with Sci-Fi you can do exciting things like "All web servers will have robot names from Asimov". Something to think about.
All resteraunts, convenience stores, and gas stations have just upped the low-end pricing of items (typically gum or cheap candy) from around $0.25 to $750.00. All more expensive items have been increased accordingly.
ZBS News reports that when questioned, the CFOs of PepsiCo, McDonalds, and Exxon all responded with "We can do whatever the hell we want".
In related news, the price of electricity had skyrocketed to $125 per kilowatt-hour. Many citizens say that electricity sure was nice, and they'll miss *bzzzt*...
They won't open up their "own" shop - it ends up as a sister company - that way they still push the same legal agenda but there are all sorts of wonderful tax breaks for certain business setups.
Of course, if they do manage to destroy Internet music, they could just partner with Napster and be the only option.
ARGH!
We are dealing with numerous issues at the same time in situations like these, and we need to deal with each piece before we can really solve this situation.
Alright, I'm down off my soapbox. Just remember that there are reasons, even if we don't know them. The goverment doesn't just keep secrets to piss us off, and the RIAA doesn't want our money just so we can complain about it. The RIAA wants our money so it can be there to complain about in the years to come.
Even Microsoft can - They made 3.1 (admittedly before the web was of much commercial importance), 95, NT, and CE. And 98, 2k, ME, and XP are all based on 95 or NT.
In fairness, it is most likely more diffcult to remove IE from XP, as they have now built the interface somewhat on the basis that IE would be readily available. But the rigged tests weren't XP.
It may have simply been a way of delaying the process so they could get something like XP out. By the time any action could be taken, the browser is so important to the OS that it really can't be removed.
Of course, I could be paranoid.
They do a little more than that, but that's their primary focus. Their mission statement is two paragraphs, one about protecting officials, their families, etc, and the second one follows:
Just a tidbit.
Then came PowerPoint.
Now to make the invisible monitor...
at HP abandoned standard OS printing systems long ago for their own print spooler, print monitor, etc? The sad part is they are unneeded (Windows will print without them - Macs sadly still use 'em). I was disappointed when Apple switched to HP printers and didn't manage to talk HP out of their horrendous drivers.
But I digress.
Apple has been in the practice of seeking out or attempting to create standards to for years - it's nice to see them embracing pre-existing standards. The integration of BSD and MacOS is a great thing for both communities, and I hope to see more announcements like this in the future!