Alternatively, you could purchase DEVONAgent, which searches many engines, and then integrates the results, removing redundant, and/or unrelated links before presenting you with the results (ordered by relevancy).
No, it's not free, and yes, it's only for the Mac, but it's a good example of how many people are finding the information they need, without getting bogged down in this "My site ranks higher than yours" mentality, which seems to be permeating Google lately. Copernic for the PC used to be free, and did something similar (integrating multiple searches into one set of results), but it lacks the functionality which DEVONAgent brings to the table (and if you're impressed with the Agent app, you should check out DEVONthink - It's one of my fave Mac programs, and ranks right up their with Quicksilver and Delicious Library, as a must-have app!)
I agree with the original poster... Google's results pretty much suck lately. Around November of last year, I began to notice this. Nowadays, it takes much longer to find the needle in that haystack! The 2nd post in this thread is nice (add "-buy, etc"), but it doesn't help if you're actually looking for something to buy.
If you're looking for a good system for testing webdev on a variety of systems, you can do no better than saving up to get an actual Mac!
For instance, on my Mac, I can test any Mac browser (Even going backwards to OS9), any PC Browser (either via Virtual PC, or via VNC, or a Remote Desktop session to a networked PC), or any Linux browser (same methods as with the Windows version).
Add to that the functionality and capabilities of OSX, and you have a developers paradise.
And if Webdev ain't your thing, all of the above applies for working on other development projects also!
I know they're expensive, but it's the single best computer investment I've ever made! If you're one who upgrades your PC annually, or semi-annually, do yourself a favor, skip that upgrade for a year, and get a Mac. Even a Mac mini... You'll probably still use your PC, via VNC or whatever, but you'll soon find yourself relegating that PC to more mundane, hands-off tasks (even if it's just running a P2P program in the background), as you discover how productive you can be using a Mac.
Totally off topic for this thread I realize, but from one developer to another, OSX is what everyone who is tweaking out their Windows boxes for more functionality, is looking for. And CherryOS just isn't gonna cut it! You need a real live Mac if you want to appreciate OSX.
... Which is why large corporations tend to hire Quality Assurance people. It's also why development teams tend to deploy to a testing environment before launching something live.
It's a very common concept in business, so why can't NASA seem to get it down?
I'm sure that there are many things to double check when it comes to spacecraft, but NASA has so many of these "human error" problems all the time, it seems. They really need to hire such a group now. If there's already a QA group for the project (which I am hoping/assuming there is), then you hire a second group to QA the first QA groups results. You can never have too many people reviewing your results, if perfection is your goal.
And NASA has to do this like yesterday! Every one of these "oops's" is seen as yet another mistake by those who fund such programs. True, NASA has had some success recently, in particular w/Mars related missions, but even those successes are peppered with failures... For example, the probe going into Saturns moons didn't run some tests because it was never turned on before it was launched. Sorry, I don't have a link off-hand, but I remember there were several articles I read at the time pointing out how months, if not years of planning were wasted due to this error.
And more oop's mean less funding for future projects... In todays world of cutbacks, NASA can't afford screwups like these.
As every Slashdot reader knows, the best way to advocate Linux is to belittle those who ask questions (preferably with over used abreviations like "RTFM", and "ROTFLMAO"), all the while making lame 'Winblows' jokes. Oh! And let's not forget that you must also belittle every developers efforts as trying to turn Linux into an MS clone.
Yet I didn't see these methods listed anywhere in the article. Perhaps the author should surf Slashdot, or OSNews a bit more before his next article.
I've been saying for awhile now (ever since the movie nazi's began throwing lawyers at people), that I would be more than happy to download "official" television shows from the various networks, even if they leave the commercials in. After all, that's always been the arguement that the networks have against p2p sharing of TV shows: They make their money off advertising, and if people are chopping uot commercials before uploading them, then the networks can't effectively determine who's seeing the advertising, nor how they should be charging for ad revenue.
So my theory is that if they leave these commercials in, yet make it so that I can remove them after watching, prior to burning to a storage medium, much like I used to do with VCR tapes, that I would be fine with such a move.
After all, their commercials would be getting viewed, either when I watch the show, or when I'm cutting them out, and they'd know who would be seeing the commercials based on how many downloads they get.
But there is NO WAY that I will pay for this. After all... I never had to pay for the right to record shows on my VCR, so why should I pay for the right to exercise my fair usage rights now that I'm working with digital media, instead of my old VCR?? If the commercials are in the downloads, then I am, in effect, seeing the same thing as the normal TV viewer would, albeit that the display times would be when it's convenient for me, not when the networks decide to show it.
To charge for this right would basically mean that I'm paying for content twice: Once when I pay my cable bill, and again when I downloaded what I want to watch. And, in theory, again when I pay my ISP for my internet connection.
Anything less than free is unaceptable, and anything that prevents me from doing what I want to with the download is equally unnaceptable. Charging money for this will only assure that TV shows continue to be downloaded through un-authorized means.
Off topic, but how is it that lately, the first posting of a message thread gets rated down as redundant? It's not a repeat of a previous post if it's the first...
Perhaps a better option would be to add a new rating of "Obvious", for when someone's posting something that the article obviously implies? Redundant seems... misleading, when used this way.
Nerds worldwide are both turned on, and frightened by the thought of more female co-workers...
The discussions went something like...
on
Apple to Buy TiVo?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"You see we have this new computer that we think would be a nice machine to power a familys media needs... It'll handle DVD's, CD's, mp3's, and a ton of other formats. And it's small! A family could tuck is away somewhere our of the way, and control everything through say a Bluetooth enabled remote. And did I mention it's quiet? You could hear a pin drop with it running a foot away from you".
"Of course it would also nice if we could somehow integrate some PVR-like capabilities into our system... Time shifting and the like... Well say, that's what you boys do, now that I think about it. Look... You could sell media boxs for the next few years, until the cable companies, and the satellite companies put you out of business, Or... You could join up with me, and we can change the world!"
The sites being sent these letters should band together and file a counter suit for harrasment. There's clearly enough evidence to support that iSearch/Download are bad juju, and people/sites should not be threatened for making their opinions known.
...the judge owns a VCR. Try explaining to anyone who owns, or has owned a VCR, that they will be no longer be able to record the television shows that they're paing to see, and most people will end up with the correct conclusion: We pay for this service, and it's up to us when, and if we watch the shows.
It's so f'in ludicrous that the FCC thinks it can dictate what you watch, and when, but then still expect vendors to be able to charge us full price for a monthly subscription.
In fact, if something like this passed, I would propose a series of class action suits which would limit our monthly cable/sattelite bill to only that which we've watched! If we can't record shows, and watch them at a later time, then we shouldn't be charged for that which we're unable to watch, due to scheduling, conflicts, or personal choice!
Think about it... How fast will the cable providers be pounding on the FCC's door if they realize that they can only charge us for what we watch, on a per show basis! And if a bill like this passes, than that same logic applies to this: If I can't record and watch my TV at my leisure, then I shouldn't have to pay for something which I'm unable to watch due to federal legislation (and/or scheduling conflicts).
A country of television providers would be calling for the FCC's ass on a stake if this happened, and I don't think it'd be too hard to bring such a suite to court and win, if the FCC gets their way with the proposed limitations.
She gained a lot of publicity just recently by saying that the state will no longer provide free coffee for prisoners, which I highly support, but it's really just the latest in a long string decisions she's made that allow her to scrape a little bit more money away from the average working class person.
In case you weren't aware, this is the same lovely person who's been sending letters to online retailers around the country, trying to persuade them (it's not quite threatening them, but it's pretty darn close from what I've seen) into tracking all customers from Michigan, and then forcing those customers to pay taxes on out-of-state purchases.
My opinion is obviously that she's a real bitch to deal with, and that she treats the average citizen like crap, all the while avoiding any changes to the upper class, higher income bracket. As much as I like the aforemention coffee idea, it doesn't make up for the fact that she's screwing over her constituents in the name of a quick buck. It's doubly annoying when you contrast it with Michgan having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country currently, much less one of the higher crime rates (Look no further than Flint or Detroit for evidence of this...).
When Granholm starts looking into providing some services for her constituents, then I'll accept some of the increases, and penaltys that she's proposing.
I ran into another bill passed recently under her admnistration... My car got hit by another driver a couple of weeks ago... When we contacted the insurance companies, they said that under new Michigan laws, you are only able to get up to $500 from the guilty partys insurance company... So even though this guy was at fault, and he was very open about this fact, his insurance companies only obligated for up to half a grand, no matter the extent of the damage, and/or guilt of the insured. The excuse was given that this was a way lawmakers thought they could avoid frivilous lawsuits from happening, but instead it's prevent legitimate lawsuits, which would be up-holdable in other states, from ever happening here.
And do you know why this was done? Because too many people only have the bare minimum insurance coverage for their vehicles in this state, so owners of nice cars, who had full coverage but were driving poorly and hit a beater car, were upset about having to pay money out to repair what they considered to be a throw-away car... Any guess why so many of Michigans drivers only have the bare minimum of coverage? Look no further than our unemployment rate, and our average incomes... Again, one more example of Michigans laws protecting those with money, while screwing the working class over.
I know I sound bitter in this posting, but I seriously think that the state's in much worse shape now then when Engler was running the state (which is really saying something, asn he wasn't too impressive either!). The reason why all these laws are going into place is because the state has elected a former prosecutor for governor. Hire a money grubbing, self-centered lawyer for your governor and see what happens in your state!
I personally can't wait for the state elections to come up so that we can get back on track here... The goals of our governor is SO far off the goals of the people living in this state, who she's supposed to be working for!
Sorry for any mispellings... I just got up on my day off, but when I checked the headlines and saw this, I just had to reply. 8)=
"...is that really all that the future holds? More special effects, without any substantial improvements in usability?"
Improvements such as.... (?)
Don't think I'm singling you out, as I'm not, but why is it whenever someone posts articles regarding improvements to X, and really to Linux in general, that everyone comes out of the woodwork to complain, without offering any positive comments, or conclusions?
Your post goes into detail about how you don't want these effects, and run Blackbox still, but WTF do you want then? And I ask this to everyone when they complain about what developers are working on in Linux... Everyone can complain, but few are able to offer good input, let alone suggest how we get from point "a" to point "b".
Let's face it... Eye candy sells pc's (No... Not to you Blackbox users... You guys are probably happy running on a PII still). You want to know why the Amiga still gets the nod a lot of the time? Because it did things with graphics (aka 'Eye Candy'), which no one, on any platform, was doing at the time!
Yes, they had a multi-tasking environment, and a lot of other unique things about them (as a former Amiga owner, I can tell you that the pro's and con's were pretty equal in some ways... Lemme tell you that I don't miss the "black screen of death", with tis esoteric guru errors!), but the fact remains that the Amiga stood out from the pack due to its eye candy capabilities.
You know why a lot of people (again... Not us typical Slashdotters, but the average Joe Computerguy) are drawn to the Mac? It's clean, well thought out, and it looks good on screen! You laugh at the puffs of Indiana Jones smoke comment, but one of the things which many people notice first about my Mac is the "puff of smoke" that appears when you drag an icon off the dock. Yeah, it's cheezy, and won't entertain anyone for too long, but it grabs the eye and sticks with you!
A lot of people in this thread, and elsewhere, point out how much they hate Windows, and its GUI, but look at one of the faster growing segements of consumer software: GUI Mods, and eye candy! People want a cool looking computer, and have shown that theyr'e willing to pay for this.
So when everyone's here knocking these guys for adding new and accelerated features to X, I applaud them! Will it win over new users? Very possibly, and even if it does not, it will show that Linux is capable of the same kind of cpu-waste than Windows and OSX is, which is important to a very large demographic of people.
And I hope that this also indicates that more hadrware vendors will be jumping on board soon too! I still find it very frustrating that if I want accelerated graphics in Linux, I have to either run it on older hardware (My old ATI Pro Wonder, and a CompUSA branded S3-Virge, for instance, will run in accelerated modes), or purchase an Nvidia card. I personally like ATI card, and have them in both my X86 boxes, as well as my Mac, and they perform great! Until you add Linux into the mix...
Under X, my 9600 card still will not run in accelerated mode when driving dual monitors. My OSX box and Windows however will handle this just fine.
My point is rather than berating people for developing something that you're not interested in (all the while alluding to the fact that they should be focused on something else, without quite saying what that something else is), why not focus on the potential increase in users of OSS software (Linux), and think about the hardware support and technology which will follow such an increase in usage. Or better yet, start learning how to code, and prove to the world that you're right. All's you're doing otherwise is whining IMHO, and potentially driving developers over to other platforms.
Think about it... You're an OSS developer trying your best to ignore the financial gains of developing for Windows or OSX, in favor of developing something the whole world can enjoy for free, and all's your target audience do
While this new scheme might thwart the software-based copiers, at least until new versions are released, I highly doubt it will get by such low-tech equipment as bideo stabilizers.
You can go to Best Buy, spend $40 on a Sima stabilizer (Note - This is a newer version than I have, but it should be the same. In fact at the Best Buy website, you'll see they're promoting a more expensive variation as being able to do DVD to DVD copies), and record while playing the video!
It might not be as high tech as the 20 minute software-based copies, but it works nonetheless, and if you're interested in watching said movie, you can record it while you watch it!
I honestly think that the only one getting suckered in by Macrovisions claims are the movie studios, since they're the ones continually spending tons of $$ on counter-piracy measures, only to watch each one eventually be circumvented by consumers who feel they should be able to back up their purchases.
Which brings up another good point: Doesn't this violate the "Fair usage" laws, on which VCR's were based? Is Macromedia basically stating that in order to backup my purchase, I must now become a criminal? Interesting stuff... Too bad I don't have the $$, or the lawyers to throw towards a class action suit.
I won't go too deeply into your posting, except for to point out the following:
If the press is denied the right to protect their sources, it automatically puts us into a totalitarian state, as far as the government will henceforth dictate what we see and hear. They already do to a point, but if you tell the lawmakers that all's they have to do is prove that a law was broken, in order to diseminate the details of who told who what, you'll soon see a flurry of new laws added to the books which will more or less prevent any opposing views from ever seeing the light of day.
Do you like all those wonderful stories of China cracking down on Internet cafes, and any non-China authorised news? I hope so, because this is an excellent example of what you're describing here: Government makes the law, and they decide who has broken them. At least in USA, we still have the ability to be judged by our peers, and to determine if a law is unfair, or is violation of our constitutional rights. Your post seems to indicate that we should go strictly by the books, and not bother to "look deeper" into the subject at hand with an open mind.
The point is, we either enforce rule of law as set by society in this country, or we don't. And yes, we can work to change law(s), protest against them, and use the legal system as a backdrop for that fight.
I agree with this, but disagree that it's as black and white as "We enforce, or we don't". Nothing will ever change if everyone just follows the written word of the law, without question. I'm not saying to go break laws, but I am pointing out that some laws were made by lawmakers to benefit them, not society as a whole.
I do agree that Apple has a right to do an investiagation, and to punish the person responsible, if they in fact did violate a signed non-disclosure agreement, but I disagree that Apple can just muscle in and demand information from someone who posted that information on a rumors site. There was never a "This is a fact, and we know so because Mr. XXX told us" type of story... It was a "Here's the latest rumor we've received on Apples forthcoming product" type of thing. If they had posted papers stamped "Confidential: You cannot reproduce this document based on your NDA, etc...", then they are clearly in violation of the law, but that's not what happened.
My last point is an obvious one: If you punish the people disseminating information anonymously (ie, the publishers) by making them reveal their sources all the time, then fewer and fewer people will be coming forth with information in the future. This has little implication when considered in this "Apple vs. the press" context, but think bigger, and consider where we'd be with informants on a bigger scale. Watergate anyone?
I fully agree that Apple has a right, and arguably a need to hunt down whomever broke the non-disclosure agreement with them. But they should do that by either tracking their releases better, and possibly tailoring them slightly differently so that they can tell who leaked the version they were given, or they should do so via good ol' nose-to-the-grindstone detective work. Not this bullying tactic that's become so hot in the last year or so (RIAA, MPAA, and so on).
People still have rights in this country (maybe less than before Bush and his henchman took office, but nevertheless...), and it's just plain wrong to assume that because you have money, and a lot of lawyers, that whomever you want to go after is immediately assumed to be guilty. Similarly it's ridiculous to assume that every associate of the violaters is automatically equally guilty.
Ever since seeing Home Alone 3, I've thought that something like this would be a lot of fun (it never occured to me that it'd have practical applications also).
What would be even neater is if you could interface a computer with the remote and camera feed. You could, theoretically at least, take pictures of it's path through the house, and then write a small program to steer the vehicle around a pre-determined path, based on where in the cameras vision known objects are.
From there it wouldn't be too big of a chore to have the program notify you, or react differently, when unknown objects come into view, or if it gets into unknown territory. Just think, your own sub $100 roving security system!
Oh! And as for Home Alone 3... While it's by far not a great movie, it's actually pretty good, and is by far the best of the series (Yeah, I know that doesn't say much for it still...)
Any links to the firewire/controller related info? Such a "one connection" system would make me strongly consider replacing my x86 media box, which is by nature a rats nest of wires.
You people are still buying their products! If this guy wanted to know why people are still supporting Microsoft, he should start with his own home.
Rather than sitting there watching the PC, which you've paid money for, crash due to an insecure OS, which you also (presumably) paid money for, you've created your own answer: You should have done the research, and purchased a susperior product to begin with!
Or, perhaps you should have done some research and learned what it means to put an unprotected Windows box on the Net these days. But that wouldn't be as much fun as just plugging in, and surfing, huh?
Which really is the problem in a nutshell: It's easier to just buy a generic Windows box than actually learn about what you're doing, and make an educated decision about whether or not to purchase Windows.
And it's funny... These people are buying something that does nothing but frustrate and piss them off, and then they go out and write about how much their experience sucks. Perhaps if you'd bought a Mac, or learned about Linux, or just investigated what would meet your needs the best, your experience would be better, and rather than complaining to the masses about how you've wasted your money and time, you'd be raving about your new-found treasure, rather than joining the whining, but still loyal masses of Windows users.
To be fair, Windows serves a purpose, but if you don't understand how to set it up, or you don't know about, or care about virii, and spyware related issues, then you shouldn't be running Windows. The given example's a perfect one: Plugging a Windows box directly into the Internet (via cable, DSL, or even dial-up) is just stupid. You're waving a flag that says "I'm stupid, and I have a Windows PC. Come and get me!". A firewall is a requirement in this situation (preferably hardware-based, but software one's are good to have also, just so you're aware of what kind of traffic's going in and outta your box), as is a decent, and updated virus scanner.
But whatever... People who do this deserve the damage they get. They also deserve to pay the prices they do to get their machine's cleaned up! A lot of my side work is cleaning up machines for people who can't be bothered with any sense of responsobility for their actions and computer. And these are the same people who will be calling me in a couple of months after they screw their boxes up again, and ask me to come over and do it again.
It's just annoying after awhile though... It's Darwinism at work on a virtual level. People get what they deserve, and I refuse to feel sorry for them.
Now I'm only waiting for some conversations recording feature.
I'm not positive, as I haven't used Skype, but I think that Audio Hijack will likely record such items just fine. It wouldn't be automated, although it probably wouldn't be too hard to automate it with some Applescript, and maybe some Unix scripting on the backside.
You're kidding? These are the same people who introduced non-native species to counteract native pests, and that turned out good (he says, slapping away a Japanes ladybug-looking beetle). Ok... So maybe that's not a good example.
But what about how efficient our government is with paperwork and such? Surely that must have helped them in this case (he types, remembering that Nasa spent $12 billion dollars developing a pen that would work in space, rather than using a pencil as the Russians did)
But... But...
Well, at least they're consistent.
Seriously... Anyone who thinks government involvement in our personal life is a good thing is frickin' nuts! Watch the Republicans and Democrats fight with each other next election, and then think about whether or not you want these buffoons inserting themselves in our daily lives. You'll probably have time to ponder this as you're sweeping your (now legal) Spam from your inbox.
before surfing to Slashdot to check the headlines.
I remember seeing this kids picture when he was busted, and now that i've read his story, I've gotta say I feel sorry for him.
Not so much for his punishment, as much as his life thus far. His parents did get blamed by the judge for being neglectful, but I don't think that begins to explain how bad it was.
The guy was afraid to go outside. You can see in his photo that he's rather large, and not at all the typical 19 year old (He was what? 17 when he got busted?). It just looks like another case wherein a kid was an outcast, primarily due to a bad home situation, and rather than have friends or relatives to help him through, he retreated into his room, and kind of lived in his own world, which the parents did nothing to prevent, or try to help him outta.
Just sounds like a sad story... Kinda like you feel after watching one of those HBO Specials like "Black Tar Heroin" or something. It sucks that he is where he is, but what sucks worse is that there's lotsa other people out there in similar situations.
The Skatenigs said it best w/their debut album: "Stupid people shoudn't breed!".
Slashdot Mirror
Alternatively, you could purchase DEVONAgent, which searches many engines, and then integrates the results, removing redundant, and/or unrelated links before presenting you with the results (ordered by relevancy).
No, it's not free, and yes, it's only for the Mac, but it's a good example of how many people are finding the information they need, without getting bogged down in this "My site ranks higher than yours" mentality, which seems to be permeating Google lately. Copernic for the PC used to be free, and did something similar (integrating multiple searches into one set of results), but it lacks the functionality which DEVONAgent brings to the table (and if you're impressed with the Agent app, you should check out DEVONthink - It's one of my fave Mac programs, and ranks right up their with Quicksilver and Delicious Library, as a must-have app!)
I agree with the original poster... Google's results pretty much suck lately. Around November of last year, I began to notice this. Nowadays, it takes much longer to find the needle in that haystack! The 2nd post in this thread is nice (add "-buy, etc"), but it doesn't help if you're actually looking for something to buy.
Wow, I've never seen such a case of Mac envy!
Nothing like a 11 year old with a computer, I guess. Don't forget to wipe yerself little one...
This was announced earlier this week:6 NWDTHW
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/200503090262
If you're looking for a good system for testing webdev on a variety of systems, you can do no better than saving up to get an actual Mac!
For instance, on my Mac, I can test any Mac browser (Even going backwards to OS9), any PC Browser (either via Virtual PC, or via VNC, or a Remote Desktop session to a networked PC), or any Linux browser (same methods as with the Windows version).
Add to that the functionality and capabilities of OSX, and you have a developers paradise.
And if Webdev ain't your thing, all of the above applies for working on other development projects also!
I know they're expensive, but it's the single best computer investment I've ever made! If you're one who upgrades your PC annually, or semi-annually, do yourself a favor, skip that upgrade for a year, and get a Mac. Even a Mac mini... You'll probably still use your PC, via VNC or whatever, but you'll soon find yourself relegating that PC to more mundane, hands-off tasks (even if it's just running a P2P program in the background), as you discover how productive you can be using a Mac.
Totally off topic for this thread I realize, but from one developer to another, OSX is what everyone who is tweaking out their Windows boxes for more functionality, is looking for. And CherryOS just isn't gonna cut it! You need a real live Mac if you want to appreciate OSX.
... Which is why large corporations tend to hire Quality Assurance people. It's also why development teams tend to deploy to a testing environment before launching something live.
It's a very common concept in business, so why can't NASA seem to get it down?
I'm sure that there are many things to double check when it comes to spacecraft, but NASA has so many of these "human error" problems all the time, it seems. They really need to hire such a group now. If there's already a QA group for the project (which I am hoping/assuming there is), then you hire a second group to QA the first QA groups results. You can never have too many people reviewing your results, if perfection is your goal.
And NASA has to do this like yesterday! Every one of these "oops's" is seen as yet another mistake by those who fund such programs. True, NASA has had some success recently, in particular w/Mars related missions, but even those successes are peppered with failures... For example, the probe going into Saturns moons didn't run some tests because it was never turned on before it was launched. Sorry, I don't have a link off-hand, but I remember there were several articles I read at the time pointing out how months, if not years of planning were wasted due to this error.
And more oop's mean less funding for future projects... In todays world of cutbacks, NASA can't afford screwups like these.
As every Slashdot reader knows, the best way to advocate Linux is to belittle those who ask questions (preferably with over used abreviations like "RTFM", and "ROTFLMAO"), all the while making lame 'Winblows' jokes. Oh! And let's not forget that you must also belittle every developers efforts as trying to turn Linux into an MS clone.
Yet I didn't see these methods listed anywhere in the article. Perhaps the author should surf Slashdot, or OSNews a bit more before his next article.
I've been saying for awhile now (ever since the movie nazi's began throwing lawyers at people), that I would be more than happy to download "official" television shows from the various networks, even if they leave the commercials in. After all, that's always been the arguement that the networks have against p2p sharing of TV shows: They make their money off advertising, and if people are chopping uot commercials before uploading them, then the networks can't effectively determine who's seeing the advertising, nor how they should be charging for ad revenue.
So my theory is that if they leave these commercials in, yet make it so that I can remove them after watching, prior to burning to a storage medium, much like I used to do with VCR tapes, that I would be fine with such a move.
After all, their commercials would be getting viewed, either when I watch the show, or when I'm cutting them out, and they'd know who would be seeing the commercials based on how many downloads they get.
But there is NO WAY that I will pay for this. After all... I never had to pay for the right to record shows on my VCR, so why should I pay for the right to exercise my fair usage rights now that I'm working with digital media, instead of my old VCR?? If the commercials are in the downloads, then I am, in effect, seeing the same thing as the normal TV viewer would, albeit that the display times would be when it's convenient for me, not when the networks decide to show it.
To charge for this right would basically mean that I'm paying for content twice: Once when I pay my cable bill, and again when I downloaded what I want to watch. And, in theory, again when I pay my ISP for my internet connection.
Anything less than free is unaceptable, and anything that prevents me from doing what I want to with the download is equally unnaceptable. Charging money for this will only assure that TV shows continue to be downloaded through un-authorized means.
Off topic, but how is it that lately, the first posting of a message thread gets rated down as redundant? It's not a repeat of a previous post if it's the first...
Perhaps a better option would be to add a new rating of "Obvious", for when someone's posting something that the article obviously implies? Redundant seems... misleading, when used this way.
Nerds worldwide are both turned on, and frightened by the thought of more female co-workers...
"You see we have this new computer that we think would be a nice machine to power a familys media needs... It'll handle DVD's, CD's, mp3's, and a ton of other formats. And it's small! A family could tuck is away somewhere our of the way, and control everything through say a Bluetooth enabled remote. And did I mention it's quiet? You could hear a pin drop with it running a foot away from you".
"Of course it would also nice if we could somehow integrate some PVR-like capabilities into our system... Time shifting and the like... Well say, that's what you boys do, now that I think about it. Look... You could sell media boxs for the next few years, until the cable companies, and the satellite companies put you out of business, Or... You could join up with me, and we can change the world!"
The sites being sent these letters should band together and file a counter suit for harrasment. There's clearly enough evidence to support that iSearch/Download are bad juju, and people/sites should not be threatened for making their opinions known.
MHO, of course...
...the judge owns a VCR. Try explaining to anyone who owns, or has owned a VCR, that they will be no longer be able to record the television shows that they're paing to see, and most people will end up with the correct conclusion: We pay for this service, and it's up to us when, and if we watch the shows.
It's so f'in ludicrous that the FCC thinks it can dictate what you watch, and when, but then still expect vendors to be able to charge us full price for a monthly subscription.
In fact, if something like this passed, I would propose a series of class action suits which would limit our monthly cable/sattelite bill to only that which we've watched! If we can't record shows, and watch them at a later time, then we shouldn't be charged for that which we're unable to watch, due to scheduling, conflicts, or personal choice!
Think about it... How fast will the cable providers be pounding on the FCC's door if they realize that they can only charge us for what we watch, on a per show basis! And if a bill like this passes, than that same logic applies to this: If I can't record and watch my TV at my leisure, then I shouldn't have to pay for something which I'm unable to watch due to federal legislation (and/or scheduling conflicts).
A country of television providers would be calling for the FCC's ass on a stake if this happened, and I don't think it'd be too hard to bring such a suite to court and win, if the FCC gets their way with the proposed limitations.
"Granholm sucks!". Worst governer ever!
She gained a lot of publicity just recently by saying that the state will no longer provide free coffee for prisoners, which I highly support, but it's really just the latest in a long string decisions she's made that allow her to scrape a little bit more money away from the average working class person.
In case you weren't aware, this is the same lovely person who's been sending letters to online retailers around the country, trying to persuade them (it's not quite threatening them, but it's pretty darn close from what I've seen) into tracking all customers from Michigan, and then forcing those customers to pay taxes on out-of-state purchases.
My opinion is obviously that she's a real bitch to deal with, and that she treats the average citizen like crap, all the while avoiding any changes to the upper class, higher income bracket. As much as I like the aforemention coffee idea, it doesn't make up for the fact that she's screwing over her constituents in the name of a quick buck. It's doubly annoying when you contrast it with Michgan having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country currently, much less one of the higher crime rates (Look no further than Flint or Detroit for evidence of this...).
When Granholm starts looking into providing some services for her constituents, then I'll accept some of the increases, and penaltys that she's proposing.
I ran into another bill passed recently under her admnistration... My car got hit by another driver a couple of weeks ago... When we contacted the insurance companies, they said that under new Michigan laws, you are only able to get up to $500 from the guilty partys insurance company... So even though this guy was at fault, and he was very open about this fact, his insurance companies only obligated for up to half a grand, no matter the extent of the damage, and/or guilt of the insured. The excuse was given that this was a way lawmakers thought they could avoid frivilous lawsuits from happening, but instead it's prevent legitimate lawsuits, which would be up-holdable in other states, from ever happening here.
And do you know why this was done? Because too many people only have the bare minimum insurance coverage for their vehicles in this state, so owners of nice cars, who had full coverage but were driving poorly and hit a beater car, were upset about having to pay money out to repair what they considered to be a throw-away car... Any guess why so many of Michigans drivers only have the bare minimum of coverage? Look no further than our unemployment rate, and our average incomes... Again, one more example of Michigans laws protecting those with money, while screwing the working class over.
I know I sound bitter in this posting, but I seriously think that the state's in much worse shape now then when Engler was running the state (which is really saying something, asn he wasn't too impressive either!). The reason why all these laws are going into place is because the state has elected a former prosecutor for governor. Hire a money grubbing, self-centered lawyer for your governor and see what happens in your state!
I personally can't wait for the state elections to come up so that we can get back on track here... The goals of our governor is SO far off the goals of the people living in this state, who she's supposed to be working for!
Sorry for any mispellings... I just got up on my day off, but when I checked the headlines and saw this, I just had to reply. 8)=
"...is that really all that the future holds? More special effects, without any substantial improvements in usability?"
Improvements such as.... (?)
Don't think I'm singling you out, as I'm not, but why is it whenever someone posts articles regarding improvements to X, and really to Linux in general, that everyone comes out of the woodwork to complain, without offering any positive comments, or conclusions?
Your post goes into detail about how you don't want these effects, and run Blackbox still, but WTF do you want then? And I ask this to everyone when they complain about what developers are working on in Linux... Everyone can complain, but few are able to offer good input, let alone suggest how we get from point "a" to point "b".
Let's face it... Eye candy sells pc's (No... Not to you Blackbox users... You guys are probably happy running on a PII still). You want to know why the Amiga still gets the nod a lot of the time? Because it did things with graphics (aka 'Eye Candy'), which no one, on any platform, was doing at the time!
Yes, they had a multi-tasking environment, and a lot of other unique things about them (as a former Amiga owner, I can tell you that the pro's and con's were pretty equal in some ways... Lemme tell you that I don't miss the "black screen of death", with tis esoteric guru errors!), but the fact remains that the Amiga stood out from the pack due to its eye candy capabilities.
You know why a lot of people (again... Not us typical Slashdotters, but the average Joe Computerguy) are drawn to the Mac? It's clean, well thought out, and it looks good on screen! You laugh at the puffs of Indiana Jones smoke comment, but one of the things which many people notice first about my Mac is the "puff of smoke" that appears when you drag an icon off the dock. Yeah, it's cheezy, and won't entertain anyone for too long, but it grabs the eye and sticks with you!
A lot of people in this thread, and elsewhere, point out how much they hate Windows, and its GUI, but look at one of the faster growing segements of consumer software: GUI Mods, and eye candy! People want a cool looking computer, and have shown that theyr'e willing to pay for this.
So when everyone's here knocking these guys for adding new and accelerated features to X, I applaud them! Will it win over new users? Very possibly, and even if it does not, it will show that Linux is capable of the same kind of cpu-waste than Windows and OSX is, which is important to a very large demographic of people.
And I hope that this also indicates that more hadrware vendors will be jumping on board soon too! I still find it very frustrating that if I want accelerated graphics in Linux, I have to either run it on older hardware (My old ATI Pro Wonder, and a CompUSA branded S3-Virge, for instance, will run in accelerated modes), or purchase an Nvidia card. I personally like ATI card, and have them in both my X86 boxes, as well as my Mac, and they perform great! Until you add Linux into the mix...
Under X, my 9600 card still will not run in accelerated mode when driving dual monitors. My OSX box and Windows however will handle this just fine.
My point is rather than berating people for developing something that you're not interested in (all the while alluding to the fact that they should be focused on something else, without quite saying what that something else is), why not focus on the potential increase in users of OSS software (Linux), and think about the hardware support and technology which will follow such an increase in usage. Or better yet, start learning how to code, and prove to the world that you're right. All's you're doing otherwise is whining IMHO, and potentially driving developers over to other platforms.
Think about it... You're an OSS developer trying your best to ignore the financial gains of developing for Windows or OSX, in favor of developing something the whole world can enjoy for free, and all's your target audience do
Was I the only one who read this headline and thought "How could the Unibomber want to help with a Star Trek series?"
Kaminski, Strazynski... Whatever.
While this new scheme might thwart the software-based copiers, at least until new versions are released, I highly doubt it will get by such low-tech equipment as bideo stabilizers.
You can go to Best Buy, spend $40 on a Sima stabilizer (Note - This is a newer version than I have, but it should be the same. In fact at the Best Buy website, you'll see they're promoting a more expensive variation as being able to do DVD to DVD copies), and record while playing the video!
It might not be as high tech as the 20 minute software-based copies, but it works nonetheless, and if you're interested in watching said movie, you can record it while you watch it!
I honestly think that the only one getting suckered in by Macrovisions claims are the movie studios, since they're the ones continually spending tons of $$ on counter-piracy measures, only to watch each one eventually be circumvented by consumers who feel they should be able to back up their purchases.
Which brings up another good point: Doesn't this violate the "Fair usage" laws, on which VCR's were based? Is Macromedia basically stating that in order to backup my purchase, I must now become a criminal? Interesting stuff... Too bad I don't have the $$, or the lawyers to throw towards a class action suit.
- If the press is denied the right to protect their sources, it automatically puts us into a totalitarian state, as far as the government will henceforth dictate what we see and hear. They already do to a point, but if you tell the lawmakers that all's they have to do is prove that a law was broken, in order to diseminate the details of who told who what, you'll soon see a flurry of new laws added to the books which will more or less prevent any opposing views from ever seeing the light of day.
-
The point is, we either enforce rule of law as set by society in this country, or we don't. And yes, we can work to change law(s), protest against them, and use the legal system as a backdrop for that fight.
-
I do agree that Apple has a right to do an investiagation, and to punish the person responsible, if they in fact did violate a signed non-disclosure agreement, but I disagree that Apple can just muscle in and demand information from someone who posted that information on a rumors site. There was never a "This is a fact, and we know so because Mr. XXX told us" type of story... It was a "Here's the latest rumor we've received on Apples forthcoming product" type of thing. If they had posted papers stamped "Confidential: You cannot reproduce this document based on your NDA, etc...", then they are clearly in violation of the law, but that's not what happened.
-
My last point is an obvious one: If you punish the people disseminating information anonymously (ie, the publishers) by making them reveal their sources all the time, then fewer and fewer people will be coming forth with information in the future. This has little implication when considered in this "Apple vs. the press" context, but think bigger, and consider where we'd be with informants on a bigger scale. Watergate anyone?
I fully agree that Apple has a right, and arguably a need to hunt down whomever broke the non-disclosure agreement with them. But they should do that by either tracking their releases better, and possibly tailoring them slightly differently so that they can tell who leaked the version they were given, or they should do so via good ol' nose-to-the-grindstone detective work. Not this bullying tactic that's become so hot in the last year or so (RIAA, MPAA, and so on).Do you like all those wonderful stories of China cracking down on Internet cafes, and any non-China authorised news? I hope so, because this is an excellent example of what you're describing here: Government makes the law, and they decide who has broken them. At least in USA, we still have the ability to be judged by our peers, and to determine if a law is unfair, or is violation of our constitutional rights. Your post seems to indicate that we should go strictly by the books, and not bother to "look deeper" into the subject at hand with an open mind.
I agree with this, but disagree that it's as black and white as "We enforce, or we don't". Nothing will ever change if everyone just follows the written word of the law, without question. I'm not saying to go break laws, but I am pointing out that some laws were made by lawmakers to benefit them, not society as a whole.
People still have rights in this country (maybe less than before Bush and his henchman took office, but nevertheless...), and it's just plain wrong to assume that because you have money, and a lot of lawyers, that whomever you want to go after is immediately assumed to be guilty. Similarly it's ridiculous to assume that every associate of the violaters is automatically equally guilty.
Ever since seeing Home Alone 3, I've thought that something like this would be a lot of fun (it never occured to me that it'd have practical applications also).
What would be even neater is if you could interface a computer with the remote and camera feed. You could, theoretically at least, take pictures of it's path through the house, and then write a small program to steer the vehicle around a pre-determined path, based on where in the cameras vision known objects are.
From there it wouldn't be too big of a chore to have the program notify you, or react differently, when unknown objects come into view, or if it gets into unknown territory. Just think, your own sub $100 roving security system!
Oh! And as for Home Alone 3... While it's by far not a great movie, it's actually pretty good, and is by far the best of the series (Yeah, I know that doesn't say much for it still...)
Any links to the firewire/controller related info? Such a "one connection" system would make me strongly consider replacing my x86 media box, which is by nature a rats nest of wires.
When Mankind can prove it can live in equilibrium oni Earth, then it can spread
So what you're saying is that we're stuck here on this planet forever?
You people are still buying their products! If this guy wanted to know why people are still supporting Microsoft, he should start with his own home.
Rather than sitting there watching the PC, which you've paid money for, crash due to an insecure OS, which you also (presumably) paid money for, you've created your own answer: You should have done the research, and purchased a susperior product to begin with!
Or, perhaps you should have done some research and learned what it means to put an unprotected Windows box on the Net these days. But that wouldn't be as much fun as just plugging in, and surfing, huh?
Which really is the problem in a nutshell: It's easier to just buy a generic Windows box than actually learn about what you're doing, and make an educated decision about whether or not to purchase Windows.
And it's funny... These people are buying something that does nothing but frustrate and piss them off, and then they go out and write about how much their experience sucks. Perhaps if you'd bought a Mac, or learned about Linux, or just investigated what would meet your needs the best, your experience would be better, and rather than complaining to the masses about how you've wasted your money and time, you'd be raving about your new-found treasure, rather than joining the whining, but still loyal masses of Windows users.
To be fair, Windows serves a purpose, but if you don't understand how to set it up, or you don't know about, or care about virii, and spyware related issues, then you shouldn't be running Windows. The given example's a perfect one: Plugging a Windows box directly into the Internet (via cable, DSL, or even dial-up) is just stupid. You're waving a flag that says "I'm stupid, and I have a Windows PC. Come and get me!". A firewall is a requirement in this situation (preferably hardware-based, but software one's are good to have also, just so you're aware of what kind of traffic's going in and outta your box), as is a decent, and updated virus scanner.
But whatever... People who do this deserve the damage they get. They also deserve to pay the prices they do to get their machine's cleaned up! A lot of my side work is cleaning up machines for people who can't be bothered with any sense of responsobility for their actions and computer. And these are the same people who will be calling me in a couple of months after they screw their boxes up again, and ask me to come over and do it again.
It's just annoying after awhile though... It's Darwinism at work on a virtual level. People get what they deserve, and I refuse to feel sorry for them.
Now I'm only waiting for some conversations recording feature. I'm not positive, as I haven't used Skype, but I think that Audio Hijack will likely record such items just fine. It wouldn't be automated, although it probably wouldn't be too hard to automate it with some Applescript, and maybe some Unix scripting on the backside.
Just a thought...
You're kidding? These are the same people who introduced non-native species to counteract native pests, and that turned out good (he says, slapping away a Japanes ladybug-looking beetle). Ok... So maybe that's not a good example.
But what about how efficient our government is with paperwork and such? Surely that must have helped them in this case (he types, remembering that Nasa spent $12 billion dollars developing a pen that would work in space, rather than using a pencil as the Russians did)
But... But...
Well, at least they're consistent.
Seriously... Anyone who thinks government involvement in our personal life is a good thing is frickin' nuts! Watch the Republicans and Democrats fight with each other next election, and then think about whether or not you want these buffoons inserting themselves in our daily lives. You'll probably have time to ponder this as you're sweeping your (now legal) Spam from your inbox.
If buttholes are peepshows, then the 'nigs are the windows to this fuckin ridiculous world.
Dude, if I'd have been drinkin' milk, it'd be comin' out my nose right now! 8)=
before surfing to Slashdot to check the headlines.
I remember seeing this kids picture when he was busted, and now that i've read his story, I've gotta say I feel sorry for him.
Not so much for his punishment, as much as his life thus far. His parents did get blamed by the judge for being neglectful, but I don't think that begins to explain how bad it was.
The guy was afraid to go outside. You can see in his photo that he's rather large, and not at all the typical 19 year old (He was what? 17 when he got busted?). It just looks like another case wherein a kid was an outcast, primarily due to a bad home situation, and rather than have friends or relatives to help him through, he retreated into his room, and kind of lived in his own world, which the parents did nothing to prevent, or try to help him outta.
Just sounds like a sad story... Kinda like you feel after watching one of those HBO Specials like "Black Tar Heroin" or something. It sucks that he is where he is, but what sucks worse is that there's lotsa other people out there in similar situations.
The Skatenigs said it best w/their debut album: "Stupid people shoudn't breed!".