... And thus easy to make a universal binary from? Or will this be harder to port once the Intel switch begins?
Good app, but I hope it can move with the Mac as Apple transitions to Intel processors. Seems like kind of a waste of effort if it's tied to a specific architecture, in light of Apples recent announcements.
My family's old Atari 400 (w/the cool keyboard upgrade, of course!) has been stored out at my parents for years... I'll have to dig that out and clean it up for future emergencies.
After all, where would the world be if we couldn't play Miner 2049'er down the road?
"A poll conducted by Ipsos on behalf of the Associated Press and AOL confirmed that 73% of movie viewers prefer to watch movies at home rather than at a theater."
"Despite this demand for home viewing, only 5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet."
Sounds like a couple of things are going on here:
The rental, industry is a goldmine
There's a huge untapped market here
To be honest, I think that the rental market is entirely driven by the big Media companies not meeting a demand for personalized content delivery.
Since what? The mid to late 70's, the average person has been able to both record TV, and to watch pre-recorded shows at their leisure. And as a result the rental business opened up as the middleman between Hollywood and the home consumer.
People don't rent movies for the sake of renting them though, they do so because there's no other way for them to watch what they want, when they want to. But rather than work towards a pay/delivery market, wherein the media companies offer everything, and charge you for what you use, The market grew up around a similar model as the thetre.
Only now they don't have to pay for theatre lot rent, utilities, movie attendants, movie projectors and such, instead you go to a rental store, and then "borrow" the movie, to watch in the theatre of your choice.
But you're still at their mercy... You pay the prices they set, for the movies they deem to let you see. Only now there's a few more variables in the mix. Instead of several theatres around town, each showing one or two movies, you now have dozens of movie rental places, all showing a portion of the movies which the big media companies have decided to let you view. Additionally, you no longer get a set prices... You get a variety of similar plans, each with their own peculiar business model:
You can have unlimited rentals on a monthly basis from these guys over here, but they only carry 65% of all the released material, and since it's mail order, you have to deal with planning your viewing. You can't just decide on the way home that you want to watch that movie you've had on your mind all day with these guys.
But you can order from their competitor, who charges a bit more, but carries 75% of all the possible releases, meaning you have a larger collection of movies to choose from. Or, you can go down the road to the local video rental place, where the movies are considerably more money, and who only carries about 35% of all possible releases, but where you also have the option of getting something within an hour or so, as opposed to a mail order place.
The point is that all of these differet methods and business's have grown due to the fact that Hollywood has not made it easy to see what you want, when you want to see it, at a reasonable cost. You can argue that this isn't feasible for many reasons also, but technology is no longer on e of these reasons, in theory at least.
And while digital cable & satellite systems are now beginning to offer "view on demand" movies, and PVR tuner units, it's still a case of us, the viewers, only being able to view what the broadcasters have decided to let us view, out of a much larger collection of material.
So while I like my Netflix, and I appreciate being able to go to Blockbuster to pick up something "on the fly", and while I really appreciate finally being able to order that movie via "On Demand" programming, without ever having to get up off the couch (come on... that's almost like excersize. Ick!) neither one make up for the fact that I often can't get what I'd like to see, when I'd like to see it, unless I happened to have purchased it, or recorded it, and have it handily available. Or, of course, unless I've planned ahead and added it to my rental queue, or planned a night around the programs schedule.
The end result, which this study in part proves, is that people prefer to stay home to watch movies, and if Hollywood
I'd rather use a browser configured to show me the world wide web as a bunch of hypertext documents, not as a bloated adware-infested and spyware-infested application that moves crap around inside the browser window and pops up windows.
Yes, but this is a discussion about JavaScript, not Flash.
I'm assuming that the infamous 1 GB Memory limit's still in place (as it was w/the original BeOS)?
Although many have pointed towards statements that this limit will be fixed/removed/corrected, I've not seen anything that indicates that this is the case.
And if it isn't, then Zeta's immediately (still?) relegated to hobby status. As the world moves towards multi-core CPU's, multiple gigs of ram, and 300+gb hard drives, hardware limitations such as this memory cap, and a lack of new drivers, means that fewer and fewer machines will be able to run it.
I've been considering the purchase of Delicious Monsters Library application, but have been putting it off since I don't really want to have to lug everything over to my computer for scanning (via an iView, or some other quick cam-like device).
I remember when Library was 1st coming out, I read some blog review of it, and the reviewer was talking about how they had a USB Barcode scanner which contained a small amount of memory onboard. This allowed them to wirelessly walk around the house scanning in barcodes, saving them to the units memory, and then when they plugged it into their Mac, it downloaded all the codes it had scanned and imported the items.
Sounds great, but I've never came across such a unit yet, and most of the USB-based devices I have seen are very expensive, especially when I just want one for "around the house" type scanning.
Does anyone know of a unit such as the one I've described? For that matter, can anyone recommend a decent, yet cheap, barcode scanner which would be compatible with a G5 Mac? -- Random Signature #2 Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey -- Random Signature #2 Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
it's very hard to "sell" a media file that has no copy protection
Wrong answer!!
It's very easy to sell a media file with no protection. Just ask mp3search.ru, or allofmp3.com. They sell a ton of them, and you know what? You can choose your own bit rate also!
Though both sites are in a grey area legal-wise (at least for us US buyers), they prove that if you give the people what they want (high quality tunes, which they can play on any mp3-capable device), that buyers will beat a path to your door. Er... site.
I think your point should have been worded "it's very hard to get an RIAA-based company to allow their music to be sold without any protection", because I can guarantee that if you offer people a non-DRM's copy of a song, along with a DRM-copy of the song, 9 times out of 10 (you always have one idiot out there), people will choose the non-DRM version, as they know they can play it wherever, and in whatever device they want to.
Nothing to see at Symphonys site unless you like "Bandwidth Exceeded" messages. Nothing but the home page displays now... everything else shows:
Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.symphonyos.com Port 80
Good job guys, you killed it. Now Linux has no defence against the onslaught of OSX. Are you happy?
For an encore I think we should now bring down the XFCE site as a means of showing our unity against OSX and Windows! Maybe after that we can move on and kill the KDE and Gnome sites as well.
The simpler the site, the cheaper it is to run. There are fewer elements which can malfunction on big days; and there are fewer parts which can be compromised by someone trying to gain unauthorised access."
They obviously subscribe to the "Keep It Simple Guv'ner" methodology at the BBC.
You know... The ones where someone we could care less about tells us how their Mac has changed their lives.
Those commercials annoyed me more than anything (although as I recall, there was a cute girl in one...). I imagine that MS's will be rather comical though.
"Windows is so stable, it allows me to get all of my work done quickly and easily..."
you played the fool on a site with some intelligent people - getting pissy will only make you a pissy fool
Intelligent people like yourself, who have to post their insults anonymously? Yeah... Keep telling yourself that you're important little man. Maybe someday someone other than your Mom will believe it too.
YOUR WORKAROUND ??? you can't be serious plugging a VIDEO cable between to VIDEO ports is your WORKAROUND ?
It is, and it works. Unlike your attempts at sarcasm, it would seem.
I use Javascript for a lot of things, and I constantly hear things like "Wow! I didn't know you could do that kind of stuff with Javascript", which to me just goes to show how uninformed people are about the language.
Additionally, anyone in the know is aware that a lot of the cool things you can do within OSX are attainable via Javascript(JS). Want to write a cool new Sherlock plugin? Use JS. Want to write a cool new widget for Tiger? Use JS.
As the trolls have already started pointing, Javascript is not Java. And who would want it that way? Not to feed the trolls, but to me JS is a great way to quickly get something done. Java on the other hand requires a lot more code to do the same types of things - Simple things that is. Java can scale better, and do things that Javascript cannot, but to me they're for two different types of applications. Plus, there's a helluva lot more overhead to Java to learn than there is for JS, and while those skills might come in handy, if I don't have to learn it, I'm not going to. Java's never been an overly "friendly" language to me. PHP on the other hand is, and it's an ideal backend for use with todays subject: Ajax!
But I digress... I was writing my own "Ajax" code until I came across this, which has allowed me to focus on my backend (typically PHP for me), and my front-end (The JS), and not have to worry about all the middleware that's making my dynamic app tick. I highly reccomend checking it out.
Also, it's worth noting that althogh Ajax is intended mainly for small bits of data to be sent back and forth, it does scale fairly well. I built an Ajax based random image slideshow, which has a PHP backend feeding the images to the browser one at a time, and it works great with multiple users!
Long story short, if you like the concept of Flash, but hate the overhead, and/or the spam/ad crap that Flash has given birth to, you should really check out the Ajax technologies... You can do a lot of the same types of things with Ajax as you can with Flash, but with the overhead of Flash, and without requiring that your users install Flash, and/or use a Flash-enabled browser. Not that everyone on/. doesn't just love their flash, of course. 8)
Remember when MS used to "innovate", and kind of be the tech leader (all stability problems, and MS bias's aside).
It sure does seem a lot like they're the "followers" these days...
This is at least the 2nd product I can think of off-hand, which was built to directly compete with Google, and which came out after Googles superior product(s) did. The other that immediately comes to mind is of course, their much ballyhoo'd search engine.
Add to that fact that MS is now working hard at just matching the capabilities to be found in Tiger (even though by the time Longhorn comes out, 10.5's also likely to have been released), and you can see that MS is quickly falling from leader, to follower, in that they're not first to market with ideas anymore. Instead, they're trying to compete with previously established products now, rather than being the innovators.
And yes, you can argue that MS has constantly "stole" ideas from other products, and then profited after the fact, with their own products (Xerox, Dos, even Apples GUI), but MS was the one pushing the techs at that time. Office, Windows, IE, and so on. They now seem much more the "I want some of that action too" followers, rather than the technology leaders they once were.
Err, do you know what DRM stands for? It stands for "Digital Rights Management". By implementing an additional digital -> analogue -> analogue conversion of course you will remove DRM since it's concerned with protecting _digital_ content.
That's why I love Slashdot... It's a place where you can freely exchange ideas, and tips without having to worry about smart-assed, holier than thou's coming by and trying to make themselves look smarter with their off the cuff "(Um|Er|Ahem), You know..." comments.
Oh shit! Wait, that's digg.com, isn't it! Slashdot's the one where all the wannabe smug guys try out their most belittling lines before using them to try and impress their IT counterparts. Damn... Wrong site!
So DRM stands for Digital rights Management, huh? And here I always thought it was short for "Do-Re-Mi". How stupid I feel now. Thanks for pointing out my ignorance Mr. Egotrip, sir! I will fly the straight and narrow now thanks to the likes of you.
Also if you have a straight digital-to-digital copy and you aren't further compressing using a lossy compression algorithm there will be _zero_ loss of quality.
Wow! You are full of obvious information today, aren't you? For the record, a straight digital-to-digital copy isn't possible due to the DRM, hence my workaround. But thanks for trying to parlay that into a "Stupid human" ego trip for yourself. Pat yourself smugly on the back for me too while you're at it.
DRM is always able to be circumvented. It's just a matter of how long it'll take, and how convenient the methods are. Not to mention that some quality degradation may occur, which wouldn't neccesarilly be the case with a straight digital-to-digital copy.
For instance, without knowing for sure (I haven't downloaded any of the BBC's content to try this), I'm guessing that converting to and from analog will remove the DRM. If this method doesn't work, it should give you some ideas about different things to try (it's removed DRM for me in the past):
You'll need 2 PC's, 1 with S-video out, and one with S-Video in.
Run the output of the "video out" PC through a cheap TBC unit, and back into the input of your 2nd PC
Hit play on one end, and record on the other, and Bob's your Uncle!
You could even run it through a TV to watch while you record it, if you wanted to!
Now this isn't the best setup if you're looking for perfect digital copies, but for 99% of the population, this'll meet the needs. Again, the point of all this is that DRM can always be circumvented. It's just a matter of how badly you want to do it, and what you're willing to go through for it.
If you're waiting for "does it all" software program to come along and let you un-DRM any DRM'd video, you'll probably be waiting for quite some time. If however, you're just looking to archive a copy for personal use, there's usually workarounds for these things.
For the record, you can optionally replace the "Play" PC above with any DVD player, and automatically archive un-Macrovisioned copies of your DVD's also! I think that the various software programs available do a quicker, and more efficient job of this, but the setup I've outlined above will work fine also, and you can make your copy while you're watching the video, if that's your thing.
This update still did not enable Quartz 2D-Extreme on my system, so on a hunch, I enabled it manually, as per this hint, and wow... Really nice!
I had temporarily enabled it under 10.4.0 via the debugging tool, but the speed difference was nowhere near what I'm getting after booting the entire OS with it enabled!
A lot of people are reporting bugs with this being enabled, which is likely why Apple still hasn't enabled it by default. But I've had absolutely 0 bugs so far - Which to be honest has only been about 2.5 hours, but still... It's enough to at least justify trying it out IMHO. Using the hint I reference above, you ocan always "reset" it to off, if you do run into problems.
For what it's worth, I'm going to be leaving this on unless some (any!) problems pop up tomorrow. It's very impressive! Even apps which I wouldn't think would be impacted, such as Remote Desktop (controlling an XP box from within OSX) are noticably faster.
For the record, I'm running a dual 2Ghz w/2gb of ram, and an ATI 9600. Your mileage may vary.
What many probably don't know is, that a big change is at hand
Like maybe making the thing fast enough to be usable, maybe?
You always hear the Freenet detractors talking about all the questionable content making its way to Freenet, but my question is "How the hell could you stand using Freenet long enough to view anything in the 1st place?". The thing's dead-dog slow, and I'm on a very fast broadband connection!
I love the concept, but unless this new revision brings speed to Freenet, it's a waste of time and effort to me. Secure and anonymous internet browsing is an important thing, but usability's should be just as important if they ever hope to bring this to fruition.
I don't want them to see my site the way they want to see it.
I had so many things to reply to you about... From not moving with the times, to being big brotherish, to just being an ignorant person for not allowing people to use/see the information the way they want to. You seem to be stuck on forcing "your way" of thinking down others throats, rather than letting your content speak for itself, so-to-speak.
But then I thought read what other people have said, so rather then second them, repeat what they've said, or point out your ignorance about what todays Internet users want, I figured it would just be easier to ask you for a list of these sites you're building.
Perhaps a 'blacklist' of sites which have disabled Greasemonkey is called for. Then, rather than waste our time surfing to your site and being disapointed by your heavy handed tactics, we could just avoid your sites altogether.
A "Greasemonkey friendly" list is also an option, but it'd probably be easier and much shorter to just list those who have chose to not allow Greasemonkey. Thoughts?
How many of us can testify to ashes between & under the keys? For some reason, the need to quickly type something often outweighs the logic of "Maybe I should ash this, or even set it down while I type this".
We've been down this PVR road many times here on/., and I don't know that this article's really adding anything that hasn't been said multiple times in other articles, but it's worth repeating that if you're going to build a Linux-based PVR system, do not plan being bale to use your ATI AIW card.
It just ain't going to cut it under Linux (blame about why this is goes back and forth, but the end result is that it just won't work). Instead, plan on investing in a Hauppage card. The 350 is a good place to start.
The subject says it all - This guy's living in his own world, while his kingdom's being attacked from all sides.
He doesn't see the barbarians at his gate, as he's too busy telling himself, and anyone who will listen to him, that he/Micrsoft's always the best option, no matter what! The guy should really get a reality check.
The era of ignoring your competitors, and thinking they'll just disappear is over. This is the information age, and the tides are a-turnin'! People who don't even use computers are aware of the MS alternatives these days, and those who do use computers are checking out the competition and realizing that they've been misled by the MS monopoly. Bill's insanely optimistic, pro-MS stance is just further evidence that he's out of touch with todays users, and their needs and wants.
Don't get me wrong... Bill sees the "needs" of the users, but he's wrong in thinking that whatever MS decides to shove down their throats will be acceptable, as it has been in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
... And thus easy to make a universal binary from? Or will this be harder to port once the Intel switch begins?
Good app, but I hope it can move with the Mac as Apple transitions to Intel processors. Seems like kind of a waste of effort if it's tied to a specific architecture, in light of Apples recent announcements.
My family's old Atari 400 (w/the cool keyboard upgrade, of course!) has been stored out at my parents for years... I'll have to dig that out and clean it up for future emergencies.
After all, where would the world be if we couldn't play Miner 2049'er down the road?
"Despite this demand for home viewing, only 5% admitted to downloading a movie from the internet."
Sounds like a couple of things are going on here:
To be honest, I think that the rental market is entirely driven by the big Media companies not meeting a demand for personalized content delivery.
Since what? The mid to late 70's, the average person has been able to both record TV, and to watch pre-recorded shows at their leisure. And as a result the rental business opened up as the middleman between Hollywood and the home consumer.
People don't rent movies for the sake of renting them though, they do so because there's no other way for them to watch what they want, when they want to. But rather than work towards a pay/delivery market, wherein the media companies offer everything, and charge you for what you use, The market grew up around a similar model as the thetre.
Only now they don't have to pay for theatre lot rent, utilities, movie attendants, movie projectors and such, instead you go to a rental store, and then "borrow" the movie, to watch in the theatre of your choice.
But you're still at their mercy... You pay the prices they set, for the movies they deem to let you see. Only now there's a few more variables in the mix. Instead of several theatres around town, each showing one or two movies, you now have dozens of movie rental places, all showing a portion of the movies which the big media companies have decided to let you view. Additionally, you no longer get a set prices... You get a variety of similar plans, each with their own peculiar business model:
You can have unlimited rentals on a monthly basis from these guys over here, but they only carry 65% of all the released material, and since it's mail order, you have to deal with planning your viewing. You can't just decide on the way home that you want to watch that movie you've had on your mind all day with these guys.
But you can order from their competitor, who charges a bit more, but carries 75% of all the possible releases, meaning you have a larger collection of movies to choose from. Or, you can go down the road to the local video rental place, where the movies are considerably more money, and who only carries about 35% of all possible releases, but where you also have the option of getting something within an hour or so, as opposed to a mail order place.
The point is that all of these differet methods and business's have grown due to the fact that Hollywood has not made it easy to see what you want, when you want to see it, at a reasonable cost. You can argue that this isn't feasible for many reasons also, but technology is no longer on e of these reasons, in theory at least.
And while digital cable & satellite systems are now beginning to offer "view on demand" movies, and PVR tuner units, it's still a case of us, the viewers, only being able to view what the broadcasters have decided to let us view, out of a much larger collection of material.
So while I like my Netflix, and I appreciate being able to go to Blockbuster to pick up something "on the fly", and while I really appreciate finally being able to order that movie via "On Demand" programming, without ever having to get up off the couch (come on... that's almost like excersize. Ick!) neither one make up for the fact that I often can't get what I'd like to see, when I'd like to see it, unless I happened to have purchased it, or recorded it, and have it handily available. Or, of course, unless I've planned ahead and added it to my rental queue, or planned a night around the programs schedule.
The end result, which this study in part proves, is that people prefer to stay home to watch movies, and if Hollywood
I'd rather use a browser configured to show me the world wide web as a bunch of hypertext documents, not as a bloated adware-infested and spyware-infested application that moves crap around inside the browser window and pops up windows.
Yes, but this is a discussion about JavaScript, not Flash.
256 MB RAM
I'm assuming that the infamous 1 GB Memory limit's still in place (as it was w/the original BeOS)?
Although many have pointed towards statements that this limit will be fixed/removed/corrected, I've not seen anything that indicates that this is the case.
And if it isn't, then Zeta's immediately (still?) relegated to hobby status. As the world moves towards multi-core CPU's, multiple gigs of ram, and 300+gb hard drives, hardware limitations such as this memory cap, and a lack of new drivers, means that fewer and fewer machines will be able to run it.
I've been considering the purchase of Delicious Monsters Library application, but have been putting it off since I don't really want to have to lug everything over to my computer for scanning (via an iView, or some other quick cam-like device).
I remember when Library was 1st coming out, I read some blog review of it, and the reviewer was talking about how they had a USB Barcode scanner which contained a small amount of memory onboard. This allowed them to wirelessly walk around the house scanning in barcodes, saving them to the units memory, and then when they plugged it into their Mac, it downloaded all the codes it had scanned and imported the items.
Sounds great, but I've never came across such a unit yet, and most of the USB-based devices I have seen are very expensive, especially when I just want one for "around the house" type scanning.
Does anyone know of a unit such as the one I've described? For that matter, can anyone recommend a decent, yet cheap, barcode scanner which would be compatible with a G5 Mac?
--
Random Signature #2
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
--
Random Signature #2
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
with a scathing editorial damning the most of the Mac Press
Well... At least it wasn't the least of the Mac Press.
8)=
it's very hard to "sell" a media file that has no copy protection
Wrong answer!!
It's very easy to sell a media file with no protection. Just ask mp3search.ru, or allofmp3.com. They sell a ton of them, and you know what? You can choose your own bit rate also!
Though both sites are in a grey area legal-wise (at least for us US buyers), they prove that if you give the people what they want (high quality tunes, which they can play on any mp3-capable device), that buyers will beat a path to your door. Er... site.
I think your point should have been worded "it's very hard to get an RIAA-based company to allow their music to be sold without any protection", because I can guarantee that if you offer people a non-DRM's copy of a song, along with a DRM-copy of the song, 9 times out of 10 (you always have one idiot out there), people will choose the non-DRM version, as they know they can play it wherever, and in whatever device they want to.
Anything else is just renting the song...
Nothing to see at Symphonys site unless you like "Bandwidth Exceeded" messages. Nothing but the home page displays now... everything else shows:
Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later. Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.symphonyos.com Port 80
Good job guys, you killed it. Now Linux has no defence against the onslaught of OSX. Are you happy?
For an encore I think we should now bring down the XFCE site as a means of showing our unity against OSX and Windows! Maybe after that we can move on and kill the KDE and Gnome sites as well.
8)=
The simpler the site, the cheaper it is to run. There are fewer elements which can malfunction on big days; and there are fewer parts which can be compromised by someone trying to gain unauthorised access."
They obviously subscribe to the "Keep It Simple Guv'ner" methodology at the BBC.
You know... The ones where someone we could care less about tells us how their Mac has changed their lives.
Those commercials annoyed me more than anything (although as I recall, there was a cute girl in one...). I imagine that MS's will be rather comical though.
"Windows is so stable, it allows me to get all of my work done quickly and easily..."
Hahahahaa.... They should be amusing.
you played the fool on a site with some intelligent people - getting pissy will only make you a pissy fool
Intelligent people like yourself, who have to post their insults anonymously? Yeah... Keep telling yourself that you're important little man. Maybe someday someone other than your Mom will believe it too.
YOUR WORKAROUND ??? you can't be serious plugging a VIDEO cable between to VIDEO ports is your WORKAROUND ?
It is, and it works. Unlike your attempts at sarcasm, it would seem.
I use Javascript for a lot of things, and I constantly hear things like "Wow! I didn't know you could do that kind of stuff with Javascript", which to me just goes to show how uninformed people are about the language.
/. doesn't just love their flash, of course. 8)
Additionally, anyone in the know is aware that a lot of the cool things you can do within OSX are attainable via Javascript(JS). Want to write a cool new Sherlock plugin? Use JS. Want to write a cool new widget for Tiger? Use JS.
As the trolls have already started pointing, Javascript is not Java. And who would want it that way? Not to feed the trolls, but to me JS is a great way to quickly get something done. Java on the other hand requires a lot more code to do the same types of things - Simple things that is. Java can scale better, and do things that Javascript cannot, but to me they're for two different types of applications. Plus, there's a helluva lot more overhead to Java to learn than there is for JS, and while those skills might come in handy, if I don't have to learn it, I'm not going to. Java's never been an overly "friendly" language to me. PHP on the other hand is, and it's an ideal backend for use with todays subject: Ajax!
But I digress... I was writing my own "Ajax" code until I came across this, which has allowed me to focus on my backend (typically PHP for me), and my front-end (The JS), and not have to worry about all the middleware that's making my dynamic app tick. I highly reccomend checking it out.
Also, it's worth noting that althogh Ajax is intended mainly for small bits of data to be sent back and forth, it does scale fairly well. I built an Ajax based random image slideshow, which has a PHP backend feeding the images to the browser one at a time, and it works great with multiple users!
Long story short, if you like the concept of Flash, but hate the overhead, and/or the spam/ad crap that Flash has given birth to, you should really check out the Ajax technologies... You can do a lot of the same types of things with Ajax as you can with Flash, but with the overhead of Flash, and without requiring that your users install Flash, and/or use a Flash-enabled browser. Not that everyone on
Remember when MS used to "innovate", and kind of be the tech leader (all stability problems, and MS bias's aside).
It sure does seem a lot like they're the "followers" these days...
This is at least the 2nd product I can think of off-hand, which was built to directly compete with Google, and which came out after Googles superior product(s) did. The other that immediately comes to mind is of course, their much ballyhoo'd search engine.
Add to that fact that MS is now working hard at just matching the capabilities to be found in Tiger (even though by the time Longhorn comes out, 10.5's also likely to have been released), and you can see that MS is quickly falling from leader, to follower, in that they're not first to market with ideas anymore. Instead, they're trying to compete with previously established products now, rather than being the innovators.
And yes, you can argue that MS has constantly "stole" ideas from other products, and then profited after the fact, with their own products (Xerox, Dos, even Apples GUI), but MS was the one pushing the techs at that time. Office, Windows, IE, and so on. They now seem much more the "I want some of that action too" followers, rather than the technology leaders they once were.
I loved that song he did...
"Mother! Tell your children not to look my way..."
8)=
You can (potentially) circumvent this with the method described in this link.
In fact, this appears so easy to circumvent, that one would almost think that the RIAA came up with it as a copy protection scheme! 8)=
Err, do you know what DRM stands for? It stands for "Digital Rights Management". By implementing an additional digital -> analogue -> analogue conversion of course you will remove DRM since it's concerned with protecting _digital_ content.
That's why I love Slashdot... It's a place where you can freely exchange ideas, and tips without having to worry about smart-assed, holier than thou's coming by and trying to make themselves look smarter with their off the cuff "(Um|Er|Ahem), You know..." comments.
Oh shit! Wait, that's digg.com, isn't it! Slashdot's the one where all the wannabe smug guys try out their most belittling lines before using them to try and impress their IT counterparts. Damn... Wrong site!
So DRM stands for Digital rights Management, huh? And here I always thought it was short for "Do-Re-Mi". How stupid I feel now. Thanks for pointing out my ignorance Mr. Egotrip, sir! I will fly the straight and narrow now thanks to the likes of you.
Also if you have a straight digital-to-digital copy and you aren't further compressing using a lossy compression algorithm there will be _zero_ loss of quality.
Wow! You are full of obvious information today, aren't you? For the record, a straight digital-to-digital copy isn't possible due to the DRM, hence my workaround. But thanks for trying to parlay that into a "Stupid human" ego trip for yourself. Pat yourself smugly on the back for me too while you're at it.
I wondered where those guys hung out when they're not trashing others points of view over at OSNews!
Now we know.
For instance, without knowing for sure (I haven't downloaded any of the BBC's content to try this), I'm guessing that converting to and from analog will remove the DRM. If this method doesn't work, it should give you some ideas about different things to try (it's removed DRM for me in the past):
You'll need 2 PC's, 1 with S-video out, and one with S-Video in.
- Run the output of the "video out" PC through a cheap TBC unit, and back into the input of your 2nd PC
- Hit play on one end, and record on the other, and Bob's your Uncle!
You could even run it through a TV to watch while you record it, if you wanted to!Now this isn't the best setup if you're looking for perfect digital copies, but for 99% of the population, this'll meet the needs. Again, the point of all this is that DRM can always be circumvented. It's just a matter of how badly you want to do it, and what you're willing to go through for it.
If you're waiting for "does it all" software program to come along and let you un-DRM any DRM'd video, you'll probably be waiting for quite some time. If however, you're just looking to archive a copy for personal use, there's usually workarounds for these things.
For the record, you can optionally replace the "Play" PC above with any DVD player, and automatically archive un-Macrovisioned copies of your DVD's also! I think that the various software programs available do a quicker, and more efficient job of this, but the setup I've outlined above will work fine also, and you can make your copy while you're watching the video, if that's your thing.
This update still did not enable Quartz 2D-Extreme on my system, so on a hunch, I enabled it manually, as per this hint, and wow... Really nice!
I had temporarily enabled it under 10.4.0 via the debugging tool, but the speed difference was nowhere near what I'm getting after booting the entire OS with it enabled!
A lot of people are reporting bugs with this being enabled, which is likely why Apple still hasn't enabled it by default. But I've had absolutely 0 bugs so far - Which to be honest has only been about 2.5 hours, but still... It's enough to at least justify trying it out IMHO. Using the hint I reference above, you ocan always "reset" it to off, if you do run into problems.
For what it's worth, I'm going to be leaving this on unless some (any!) problems pop up tomorrow. It's very impressive! Even apps which I wouldn't think would be impacted, such as Remote Desktop (controlling an XP box from within OSX) are noticably faster.
For the record, I'm running a dual 2Ghz w/2gb of ram, and an ATI 9600. Your mileage may vary.
What many probably don't know is, that a big change is at hand
Like maybe making the thing fast enough to be usable, maybe?
You always hear the Freenet detractors talking about all the questionable content making its way to Freenet, but my question is "How the hell could you stand using Freenet long enough to view anything in the 1st place?". The thing's dead-dog slow, and I'm on a very fast broadband connection!
I love the concept, but unless this new revision brings speed to Freenet, it's a waste of time and effort to me. Secure and anonymous internet browsing is an important thing, but usability's should be just as important if they ever hope to bring this to fruition.
I don't want them to see my site the way they want to see it.
I had so many things to reply to you about... From not moving with the times, to being big brotherish, to just being an ignorant person for not allowing people to use/see the information the way they want to. You seem to be stuck on forcing "your way" of thinking down others throats, rather than letting your content speak for itself, so-to-speak.
But then I thought read what other people have said, so rather then second them, repeat what they've said, or point out your ignorance about what todays Internet users want, I figured it would just be easier to ask you for a list of these sites you're building.
Perhaps a 'blacklist' of sites which have disabled Greasemonkey is called for. Then, rather than waste our time surfing to your site and being disapointed by your heavy handed tactics, we could just avoid your sites altogether.
A "Greasemonkey friendly" list is also an option, but it'd probably be easier and much shorter to just list those who have chose to not allow Greasemonkey. Thoughts?
How many of us can testify to ashes between & under the keys? For some reason, the need to quickly type something often outweighs the logic of "Maybe I should ash this, or even set it down while I type this".
In my experience at least...
We've been down this PVR road many times here on /., and I don't know that this article's really adding anything that hasn't been said multiple times in other articles, but it's worth repeating that if you're going to build a Linux-based PVR system, do not plan being bale to use your ATI AIW card.
It just ain't going to cut it under Linux (blame about why this is goes back and forth, but the end result is that it just won't work). Instead, plan on investing in a Hauppage card. The 350 is a good place to start.
The subject says it all - This guy's living in his own world, while his kingdom's being attacked from all sides.
He doesn't see the barbarians at his gate, as he's too busy telling himself, and anyone who will listen to him, that he/Micrsoft's always the best option, no matter what! The guy should really get a reality check.
The era of ignoring your competitors, and thinking they'll just disappear is over. This is the information age, and the tides are a-turnin'! People who don't even use computers are aware of the MS alternatives these days, and those who do use computers are checking out the competition and realizing that they've been misled by the MS monopoly. Bill's insanely optimistic, pro-MS stance is just further evidence that he's out of touch with todays users, and their needs and wants.
Don't get me wrong... Bill sees the "needs" of the users, but he's wrong in thinking that whatever MS decides to shove down their throats will be acceptable, as it has been in the past.