Somebody please, for the love of God, tell me how this is even remotely funny? Let alone +5 funny.
Hello and welcome to the kindergarten playground, don't bother with maturity around here, everyones too dense to pick up traits like that. Just scream "F*CK MICROSOFT!" all day long and you should be fine.
Thats the thing alot of people seem to miss, TiVo is the base for the DirecTiVo series (who knew?).
They don't lose anything at all by DTV bundling a PVR in, actually, I'd say they gain more than anything else. The more your company can focus on development, and less on putting hardware together the better off you are. And the wider your userbase is with the least amount of advertising on your part, the better off you are.
I wasn't even aware it "sucked". I do think it attracts a much more mainstream audience, as I pretty much detest MOST of the previous ST series that have been on TV, with the errant episode here or there drawing my attention.
When does something like this stop being illegal and start becoming a "our IP system sucks" issue to the mainstream?
I mean if it was murder thats one thing, but on something so subjective as this when does it become and issue of "40 million people can't be wrong".
Considering there is only 280 million people in the US and 40 million of those are downloadingmusic (arguably that 40 million is the 40 million CAPABLE of doing it, if more people understood how to do it I would bet you anything that number would be way higher).
I guess as long as RIAA's pocketbooks are fat enough we will still all be "criminals". What kills me is the consensus amongst some people that "its theft, plain and simple".
You show me a way to not buy 95% garbage and JUST get the songs I want and I will give you a little leeway. Show me a recording industry that doesn't behave like the mafia and I will give you a little leeway. Show me a RIAA that doesn't lie (look at their claims of financial loses due to P2P) cheat (look at how they try to push legislation allowing them to tamper with other people property when and how they feel like it, via DoS attacks, viruses, etc. etc.) and steal (look at the way artists are treated, look at the LONG history of artists being royally SHAFTED by the recording industry) and I will give your argument a little bit of leeway.
The arrangement isn't ideal, I will grant you that, but who's fault is that? Mine because I dont want to be fleeced anymore for a 95% bogus product? Or the recording industry's, who doesn't feel like changing, who wishes to restrict us and our liberties (note, not freedoms, liberties) because they are too antiquated to try to adapt?
Seriously....MS says "um, yeah we have our own platform for 3D Graphics so we are gonna focus on that instead of two at once." and everyone on/. is up in arms!
OMG! HOW DARE THEY!!!!
I hope you guys at least bought your copy of Linux Dinner before you began whoring it.
Oh shit here comes the -1 Troll mod's waiting to snap on anything pro-MS....or actually anything thats not vehemently ANTI MS and PRO Linux.
In my personal opinion I think OGL has been falling behind anyway, not nearly as many advances as there seems to be in DX. And I used to preffer to play anything and everything in OGL that supported it.
This sounds pretty much perfect for what I have been wanting to do for so long now.
I have long wanted a laptop, but don't neccisarily care for the screens out there, I don't like the weight, and I don't like people beeing able to see over my shoulder.
I've seen more and more LCD glasses being produced by companies for the whole "wearables" trend and while I like the glasses, the rest of the wearables concept still needs alot of work. If I could find a compatible set of glasses that could plug into the VGA out port on one of these "barebones" laptops that would be great for it. I couldn't get to the site so I assume it doesnt come with a mobo either? The post was kindy vague on that (most barebones PC's come with a mobo but none of the other stuffs). Hmmm, and I know you can get mobile CPU's on pricewatch rather easily.
This is quite interesting. Now if only the site would come back:)
I have to submit to a retina scan to get money from an ATM is the day I stop using an ATM.
One of the above posters mentioned that they already crteate and audit trail of your banking habits so why should this be such a big deal.
Because for one, I do not, DO NOT, want my bank to have a detailed copy of my retina on file. I see ABSOLUTELY no reason for that. As long as you aren't retarded and obvious about your PIN number there is not THAT much more to be gained by this, well, by us anyway.
I'm getting sick and damned tired of people using excuses like "I have nothing to hide" and "why not, it might be safer".
You not having anything to hide RIGHT NOW isn't the issue. What happens when (and I KNOW we can all see it coming eventually) our government steps out of line and we start getting trampled on?
We are giving them every means they need to deal with us however they watn, whenever they want, track us and spy on us in any way they want. And for what? So credit card companies who are already insecure can CLAIM to be more secure (they obviously don't give a damn, look at the related article posted within the last week).
I DO NOT want my Iris matched against ANYTHING, period, unless they can gaurantee me without a doubt that the DB will NEVER, EVER, under ANY circumstances be read by ANYTHING other than the ATM (which is already BS because the gov. could force them to grant access and force them to deny it) and that IF there is a fraudulent purchase they will IMMEDIATELY credit back my account.
But since neither of those will happen, I refuse to let my bank scan my Iris'.
Hehehe, I would put Bush ABOVE Madonna, but it certainly not my favorite band of all time (and especially not the majority of their music that came out after Sixteen Stone, that was by far some of their better work, with the od smattering here and there).
Oh and one more thing.
Copyright may follow a particular work, but ownership follows the individual. If I own a copy of a Bush CD I can slap an MP3 on a CD-R and have it handed around by 50 people until it reaches, for instance, my workplace. So I could give it to a friend, who gives it to his girlfriend, who hands it to her brother who hops on the bus who gives it to the girl he's sitting next to who works in the building next to mine who drops it off with the man at the front desk who hands it to the mailroom kid who gives it to me. And I broke no laws.
Now if those people decide to make a copy of it for themselves along the way THEY are in violation.
Is misconception.
I mean on one hand you have people saying "but P2P has legal uses as well" then the other half saying "yeah but most of what it is really used for is illegal". And a bunch of other nonsense.
To be perfectly honest, those that say "the vast majority of whats on P2P is illegal" are incorrect.
You only hear about the stuff which is illegal but I know for a FACT that there are tons and tons of perfectly legal songs/movies/pictures/documents on the P2P networks I use most (FastTRAK and IRC primarily).
And then lets get into the bit about ownership.
Just because I put a song up for sharing on P2P doesn't make it illegal. RIAA would like you to think that it does, but in fact it doesn't.
Case in point, I wanted to copy my old copy of Bush - Sixteen Stone to my Nomad to listen to en route to work yesterday. Guess what. MAJOR gash on the BACKside of the disc, two whole tracks are unuseable.
Now with the RIAA approved method of doing business they get $18 just for me regaining access to something I already own.
In the REAL world however, I just fired up Kazaa Lite and got my two tracks back for NOTHING, the way it should be.
Now even though those tracks were procured from a P2P service, there was absolutely nothing illegal about what I did.
You are confusing the term illegal.
Illegal would be me downloading Madonnas latest song from KL even though I would never be caught dead buying her CD (talk about illegal....why is she still pretending she can sing?).
But me downloading a copy of Bush - Glycerine when I already own the CD is NOT illegal.
The bottom line is this. Just because it's online and everyone has access to it doesn't make it illegal, me downloading it when I didn't purchase it IS. But since it would cut into their bottom line too much RIAA spins it to where most people believe hosting media online is automatically illegal.
You are missing a very SERIOUS point. and one of my MAIN gripes with Tom's article.
Carmack CLEARLY stated, and was reassured of this by NVIDIA, that this "optimization" it is so lacking in was not optimization of developers code, but the drivers from NVIDIA.
So this is not, in reality, an issue of NVIDIA trying to monopolize the market, its them getting pissed because this benchmark doesn't behave like a normal game you'd buy off the shelf, it's running against a card that's be tweaked and wrung out for a good while on the driver side of things, and people are jumping to conclusions about it based on this faux benchmark.
I've said it before and I will say it again. If you want to call it the "Gamers Benchmark" it should be delivered in the same condition a game you'd buy off the shelf would be delivered in. Optimization and all!
If you don't like that, then don't call it a "Gamers Benchmark" call it what it is, a DX9 benchmark.
The only problem is, if you matched the number of records sold with that same amount of traffic to a high-speed content server, you would be talking about some hefty bills for your provider every months, and while it might not rack up as much money as pressing CD's you also wouldn't have the need to ever allow people to download music again (and I think in order for them to REALLY trump P2P they would have to come to a level where they offered repeated access to it. But I guess its not ABSOLUTELY neccisary. So it WILL still cost. And they will also need admins and staff to maintain their software and servers. Which also costs. No free lunches.
And while they may not rule out collecting information about other software, they DO plainly state that they do not collect any information which could be used to identify you.
And even though they did not list it, that includes IP addresses. So they WOULD be in breach of their agreement there.
Which brings another thing to mind. Is this to say that they do not keep access logs for the webserver running windowsupdate.microsoft.com? Because if they do keep those logs, that could technically be a breach. But that seems a rather grey area considering it's not the Windows Update software that is actually logging that info....hmmm.
I think/.'ers get a little too high strung sometims on this whole privacy thing. Then again I guess it's not being paranoid if everyone really is out to get you huh?
Maybe I am just not paranoid enough but what exactly is the problem here?
I could understand if they didn't take the tags off (and indeed thats what I was worried about) or if they didn't de-activate them. But what exactly can they tell about you before you hit the door? (or more accurately the register, where I read most of the tags are deactivated.)
They don't have your CC# or any other informationa bout you, all they know is someone picked it up off the shelf. The same their their current inventory system could easily tell them, albeit it with more human intervention and alot less accuracy.
Personally as long as they deactivate these tags (or better yet, remove them) I don't care. Because until I buy it they haven't infringed upon my privacy in any way I can tell. Because I am not linked to that product yet. So them being able to tell that a Gillete Machwhatever just walked out the door doesnt make much difference, unless they correlate that in some way with me having been the one to buy it (which is again equally as possible to do anyway).
Everytime I see an article like this on/. I can just see all the *nix zealots sharpening their axes.
It's a bloody spectacle, usually filled with much name calling and even more personal attacks on Bill Gates. Eh, hell with em, I guess if you are that bloody rich you should be able to BUY thick skin:)
HAHAHAHAHA omg, that is TOO funny, -1 Flamebait.
Well at least I was RIGHT!
Nothing but a bunch of MS bashing retards in here, I have NO IDEA why people consider some of you to be immature.
Throw a little medicine back your way and you flip
Hey I figure there are enough of you under-sexed wierdos running around screaming about anything MS regardless of the merit of your statements that maybe some of us need to run interference yelling insults about Linux, also regardless of their merit.
That is exactly the part this guys doesnt understand. But first things first.
I dont know what software you have been buying but neither my copy of Win 95, nor 98, nor 2000 nor XP came in a sealed sleeve that gave me access to the EULA before breaking said seal.
BUT that is moot because the EULA itself is, in a sense, fraudulent. Because it states that I CAN (not maybe, or "varies by retailer") return the product to the place of purchase. However MS never actually got involved with the retailer to make certain that this WAS the case. So seeing as how this bit of fabricated nonsense turned out to be wrong, why should anything in the EULA be upheld? You cannot pick and choose what is applicable in the EULA, it's either a legally binding document, in its entirety, or it is not, there is no middle ground there. If you dont like it, don't put it in the EULA (except then they WOULD be screwed because either no-one would buy it OR the government wouldn't allow such an arrangement to be binding).
And lets not forget that just because I put in an EULA that by installing my software you agree to section 4.2b wherein I state that I now have the right to control certain user actions, and I call you up and say that one of these "user actions" is that you have to walk off a cliff. The law isn't going to uphold that. just because you put it on paper and have someone sign it doesn't make it legal. That is what the laws are for (haha, supposedly) to ensure that you have a baseline set of rights, and the manufacturer can either go with those rights (the bare minimum) OR they can grant you further rights.
So I can say that, even though legally I am not bound to, I will warranty the product for 3 years after purchase, I cannot say that, in contradiction to an existing law (this is just hypothetical) I won't warranty it as all.
I can extend but not remove your rights. And I can give warnings about the proper and improper use of the product. So it is perfectly fine for me to say I will prosecute you for copyright infringements under law, but not ok for me to say you can never tell asian americans with a second cousin name Lou that you own the software.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, they sure don't.
And what's more, you can use DVArchive to copy content over to your PC, and not only that you can stream it to your PC.
Between my ReplayTV 4xxx and my modded XBox I am a very happy camper.
Somebody please, for the love of God, tell me how this is even remotely funny? Let alone +5 funny.
Hello and welcome to the kindergarten playground, don't bother with maturity around here, everyones too dense to pick up traits like that. Just scream "F*CK MICROSOFT!" all day long and you should be fine.
Thats the thing alot of people seem to miss, TiVo is the base for the DirecTiVo series (who knew?). They don't lose anything at all by DTV bundling a PVR in, actually, I'd say they gain more than anything else. The more your company can focus on development, and less on putting hardware together the better off you are. And the wider your userbase is with the least amount of advertising on your part, the better off you are.
I read /., does taco read /.? Apparently not.
I wasn't even aware it "sucked". I do think it attracts a much more mainstream audience, as I pretty much detest MOST of the previous ST series that have been on TV, with the errant episode here or there drawing my attention.
When does something like this stop being illegal and start becoming a "our IP system sucks" issue to the mainstream?
I mean if it was murder thats one thing, but on something so subjective as this when does it become and issue of "40 million people can't be wrong".
Considering there is only 280 million people in the US and 40 million of those are downloadingmusic (arguably that 40 million is the 40 million CAPABLE of doing it, if more people understood how to do it I would bet you anything that number would be way higher).
I guess as long as RIAA's pocketbooks are fat enough we will still all be "criminals". What kills me is the consensus amongst some people that "its theft, plain and simple".
You show me a way to not buy 95% garbage and JUST get the songs I want and I will give you a little leeway. Show me a recording industry that doesn't behave like the mafia and I will give you a little leeway. Show me a RIAA that doesn't lie (look at their claims of financial loses due to P2P) cheat (look at how they try to push legislation allowing them to tamper with other people property when and how they feel like it, via DoS attacks, viruses, etc. etc.) and steal (look at the way artists are treated, look at the LONG history of artists being royally SHAFTED by the recording industry) and I will give your argument a little bit of leeway.
The arrangement isn't ideal, I will grant you that, but who's fault is that? Mine because I dont want to be fleeced anymore for a 95% bogus product? Or the recording industry's, who doesn't feel like changing, who wishes to restrict us and our liberties (note, not freedoms, liberties) because they are too antiquated to try to adapt?
Seriously....MS says "um, yeah we have our own platform for 3D Graphics so we are gonna focus on that instead of two at once." and everyone on /. is up in arms!
OMG! HOW DARE THEY!!!!
I hope you guys at least bought your copy of Linux Dinner before you began whoring it.
Oh shit here comes the -1 Troll mod's waiting to snap on anything pro-MS....or actually anything thats not vehemently ANTI MS and PRO Linux.
In my personal opinion I think OGL has been falling behind anyway, not nearly as many advances as there seems to be in DX. And I used to preffer to play anything and everything in OGL that supported it.
Youare the stupidest sonofab!tch I have ever encountered online....and thats saying something.
This sounds pretty much perfect for what I have been wanting to do for so long now.
:)
I have long wanted a laptop, but don't neccisarily care for the screens out there, I don't like the weight, and I don't like people beeing able to see over my shoulder.
I've seen more and more LCD glasses being produced by companies for the whole "wearables" trend and while I like the glasses, the rest of the wearables concept still needs alot of work. If I could find a compatible set of glasses that could plug into the VGA out port on one of these "barebones" laptops that would be great for it. I couldn't get to the site so I assume it doesnt come with a mobo either? The post was kindy vague on that (most barebones PC's come with a mobo but none of the other stuffs). Hmmm, and I know you can get mobile CPU's on pricewatch rather easily.
This is quite interesting. Now if only the site would come back
Yes I do.
I have to submit to a retina scan to get money from an ATM is the day I stop using an ATM.
One of the above posters mentioned that they already crteate and audit trail of your banking habits so why should this be such a big deal.
Because for one, I do not, DO NOT, want my bank to have a detailed copy of my retina on file. I see ABSOLUTELY no reason for that. As long as you aren't retarded and obvious about your PIN number there is not THAT much more to be gained by this, well, by us anyway.
I'm getting sick and damned tired of people using excuses like "I have nothing to hide" and "why not, it might be safer".
You not having anything to hide RIGHT NOW isn't the issue. What happens when (and I KNOW we can all see it coming eventually) our government steps out of line and we start getting trampled on?
We are giving them every means they need to deal with us however they watn, whenever they want, track us and spy on us in any way they want. And for what? So credit card companies who are already insecure can CLAIM to be more secure (they obviously don't give a damn, look at the related article posted within the last week).
I DO NOT want my Iris matched against ANYTHING, period, unless they can gaurantee me without a doubt that the DB will NEVER, EVER, under ANY circumstances be read by ANYTHING other than the ATM (which is already BS because the gov. could force them to grant access and force them to deny it) and that IF there is a fraudulent purchase they will IMMEDIATELY credit back my account.
But since neither of those will happen, I refuse to let my bank scan my Iris'.
Hehehe, I would put Bush ABOVE Madonna, but it certainly not my favorite band of all time (and especially not the majority of their music that came out after Sixteen Stone, that was by far some of their better work, with the od smattering here and there).
Oh and one more thing.
Copyright may follow a particular work, but ownership follows the individual. If I own a copy of a Bush CD I can slap an MP3 on a CD-R and have it handed around by 50 people until it reaches, for instance, my workplace. So I could give it to a friend, who gives it to his girlfriend, who hands it to her brother who hops on the bus who gives it to the girl he's sitting next to who works in the building next to mine who drops it off with the man at the front desk who hands it to the mailroom kid who gives it to me. And I broke no laws.
Now if those people decide to make a copy of it for themselves along the way THEY are in violation.
Get my jist?
Is misconception. I mean on one hand you have people saying "but P2P has legal uses as well" then the other half saying "yeah but most of what it is really used for is illegal". And a bunch of other nonsense. To be perfectly honest, those that say "the vast majority of whats on P2P is illegal" are incorrect. You only hear about the stuff which is illegal but I know for a FACT that there are tons and tons of perfectly legal songs/movies/pictures/documents on the P2P networks I use most (FastTRAK and IRC primarily).
And then lets get into the bit about ownership. Just because I put a song up for sharing on P2P doesn't make it illegal. RIAA would like you to think that it does, but in fact it doesn't.
Case in point, I wanted to copy my old copy of Bush - Sixteen Stone to my Nomad to listen to en route to work yesterday. Guess what. MAJOR gash on the BACKside of the disc, two whole tracks are unuseable.
Now with the RIAA approved method of doing business they get $18 just for me regaining access to something I already own.
In the REAL world however, I just fired up Kazaa Lite and got my two tracks back for NOTHING, the way it should be.
Now even though those tracks were procured from a P2P service, there was absolutely nothing illegal about what I did.
You are confusing the term illegal.
Illegal would be me downloading Madonnas latest song from KL even though I would never be caught dead buying her CD (talk about illegal....why is she still pretending she can sing?).
But me downloading a copy of Bush - Glycerine when I already own the CD is NOT illegal.
The bottom line is this. Just because it's online and everyone has access to it doesn't make it illegal, me downloading it when I didn't purchase it IS. But since it would cut into their bottom line too much RIAA spins it to where most people believe hosting media online is automatically illegal.
You are missing a very SERIOUS point. and one of my MAIN gripes with Tom's article.
Carmack CLEARLY stated, and was reassured of this by NVIDIA, that this "optimization" it is so lacking in was not optimization of developers code, but the drivers from NVIDIA.
So this is not, in reality, an issue of NVIDIA trying to monopolize the market, its them getting pissed because this benchmark doesn't behave like a normal game you'd buy off the shelf, it's running against a card that's be tweaked and wrung out for a good while on the driver side of things, and people are jumping to conclusions about it based on this faux benchmark.
I've said it before and I will say it again. If you want to call it the "Gamers Benchmark" it should be delivered in the same condition a game you'd buy off the shelf would be delivered in. Optimization and all!
If you don't like that, then don't call it a "Gamers Benchmark" call it what it is, a DX9 benchmark.
The only problem is, if you matched the number of records sold with that same amount of traffic to a high-speed content server, you would be talking about some hefty bills for your provider every months, and while it might not rack up as much money as pressing CD's you also wouldn't have the need to ever allow people to download music again (and I think in order for them to REALLY trump P2P they would have to come to a level where they offered repeated access to it. But I guess its not ABSOLUTELY neccisary. So it WILL still cost. And they will also need admins and staff to maintain their software and servers. Which also costs. No free lunches.
Doesn't RIAA stand for Recording Industry Association of America?
Isn't AOL/Time Warner a member of the Recording industry?
Could RIAA really demand fees from a member????
And while they may not rule out collecting information about other software, they DO plainly state that they do not collect any information which could be used to identify you.
And even though they did not list it, that includes IP addresses. So they WOULD be in breach of their agreement there.
Which brings another thing to mind. Is this to say that they do not keep access logs for the webserver running windowsupdate.microsoft.com? Because if they do keep those logs, that could technically be a breach. But that seems a rather grey area considering it's not the Windows Update software that is actually logging that info....hmmm.
Exactly.
/.'ers get a little too high strung sometims on this whole privacy thing. Then again I guess it's not being paranoid if everyone really is out to get you huh?
I think
Maybe I am just not paranoid enough but what exactly is the problem here?
I could understand if they didn't take the tags off (and indeed thats what I was worried about) or if they didn't de-activate them. But what exactly can they tell about you before you hit the door? (or more accurately the register, where I read most of the tags are deactivated.)
They don't have your CC# or any other informationa bout you, all they know is someone picked it up off the shelf. The same their their current inventory system could easily tell them, albeit it with more human intervention and alot less accuracy.
Personally as long as they deactivate these tags (or better yet, remove them) I don't care. Because until I buy it they haven't infringed upon my privacy in any way I can tell. Because I am not linked to that product yet. So them being able to tell that a Gillete Machwhatever just walked out the door doesnt make much difference, unless they correlate that in some way with me having been the one to buy it (which is again equally as possible to do anyway).
Everytime I see an article like this on /. I can just see all the *nix zealots sharpening their axes.
:)
It's a bloody spectacle, usually filled with much name calling and even more personal attacks on Bill Gates. Eh, hell with em, I guess if you are that bloody rich you should be able to BUY thick skin
HAHAHAHAHA omg, that is TOO funny, -1 Flamebait. Well at least I was RIGHT! Nothing but a bunch of MS bashing retards in here, I have NO IDEA why people consider some of you to be immature. Throw a little medicine back your way and you flip
LINUX SUCKS!!!!
Hey I figure there are enough of you under-sexed wierdos running around screaming about anything MS regardless of the merit of your statements that maybe some of us need to run interference yelling insults about Linux, also regardless of their merit.
If I were them I would start by taking aim at your spelling skills. :)
That is exactly the part this guys doesnt understand. But first things first. I dont know what software you have been buying but neither my copy of Win 95, nor 98, nor 2000 nor XP came in a sealed sleeve that gave me access to the EULA before breaking said seal. BUT that is moot because the EULA itself is, in a sense, fraudulent. Because it states that I CAN (not maybe, or "varies by retailer") return the product to the place of purchase. However MS never actually got involved with the retailer to make certain that this WAS the case. So seeing as how this bit of fabricated nonsense turned out to be wrong, why should anything in the EULA be upheld? You cannot pick and choose what is applicable in the EULA, it's either a legally binding document, in its entirety, or it is not, there is no middle ground there. If you dont like it, don't put it in the EULA (except then they WOULD be screwed because either no-one would buy it OR the government wouldn't allow such an arrangement to be binding). And lets not forget that just because I put in an EULA that by installing my software you agree to section 4.2b wherein I state that I now have the right to control certain user actions, and I call you up and say that one of these "user actions" is that you have to walk off a cliff. The law isn't going to uphold that. just because you put it on paper and have someone sign it doesn't make it legal. That is what the laws are for (haha, supposedly) to ensure that you have a baseline set of rights, and the manufacturer can either go with those rights (the bare minimum) OR they can grant you further rights. So I can say that, even though legally I am not bound to, I will warranty the product for 3 years after purchase, I cannot say that, in contradiction to an existing law (this is just hypothetical) I won't warranty it as all. I can extend but not remove your rights. And I can give warnings about the proper and improper use of the product. So it is perfectly fine for me to say I will prosecute you for copyright infringements under law, but not ok for me to say you can never tell asian americans with a second cousin name Lou that you own the software.