It is vitally important that this post gets filled immediately! Don't you know that, as we speak, hot chicks in skintight leather outfits are using nmap and ssh 'sploits to shut down huge portions of the powergrid?!
Oops. The American bit at the end of MPAA really should've given me a clue... Whatever the UK-specific lobbying group is called, it still represents the same faction: Hollywood studios.
Interesting link, as well. It also brings up an interesting problem; when you hate both sides, who do you root for? Stelios may be a total wanker, but I'm gonna' pick price-fixing over domain-name squabbling as the greater evil. That's a judgment call on my part, YMMV.
On the contrary, I was trying to state from the studios point of view why they have a problem with easyCinema's pricing scheme. Frankly, I do believe that they are engaging in price fixing, and find it rather appalling. On review, I don't think I made that very clear.
I hope you'll extend me the same pardon for being slightly shocked at finding a slashdotter who isn't entirely jaded and cynical in regards to the entertainment industry. It's almost...refreshing.
I see movie piracy and bootleging being a very large thorn in the side of studeos.
I think this is an entirely different issue to the topic on hand. This is a case of a company wishing to purchase redistribution rights at the going rate. No one is infringing on anyone's copyright. In fact, I think a far better parallel would be EULAs as opposed to P2P. The studios are regarding easyCinema as a licensee of their product, and as such have seen fit to dictate the manner in which it is redistributed. In fact, viewing in that manner, I think it brings into focus how complex this issue actually is.
If it can be shown that you can create an equal or greater 22x demand for tickets by lowering prices for tickets by 1/22th, isn't it common sence.
No, because now you have 22x the maintenance costs (i.e. 22x as many to people to clean up after, attend to, print tickets for, provide bathrooms for, etc.) for the same profit. There's a point of diminishing returns. If half the price brings in triple the customer, then you might have something. But at this point, I think that's mostly a mathematical quibble.
The big deal is that the studios, contrary to all evidence and public opinion, aren't necessarily always stupid and short-sighted. At least not in this instance, since it's in their best interest.
The "domino effect" you speak of is the competition of the free market. If a few theaters are drastically cheaper than the others, they will start to attract more business. The other theaters will all have to follow suit to maintain customers. The inevitable price war will whittle margins down to nothing.
What does that have to do with the studios? They sell their films to the theaters at a flat rate. When all the theaters are no longer pulling in the money like they used to, they can band together to demand lower prices. Thus, the studios have to start lowering their prices as well.
Yes, easyCinema, in their way, is trying to force the MPAA into signing a contract.
If, like most/. readers, you follow[ed] the myriad Microsoft court cases (or browse practically half of the YRO section) you'll remember that there are some things that ordinary companies can do that monopolies can't.
Normally a company can decide who it wants to do business with. That's just common sense, not to mention an important facet of the free market. A monopoly, on the other hand, by virtue of being the [near] sole provider of a resource cannot be allowed that luxury. To make a borderline facile analogy: Suppose a pharmaceutical company developed a cure for cancer, and cornered the market on same. Also assume that have, for our hypothetical purposes, a near-infinite supply of same. Would we allow that company to refuse the cure to certain people, even if they were willing to pay the specified price? Obviously, this isn't an exact analog to the situation (this situation would probably be brought under charges of discrimination, rather than monopolism), but it servers the purpose.
Is the MPAA a monopoly? While I'm sure a large percentage of Slashdotters have a very strong opinion on that subject, ulitmately it remains for the courts to decide.
Please... I didn't spend four years at Evil Medical School to work free. Thankyouverymuch.
Also, can someone please kludge up a serial/usb/bluetooth/etc. link up for this thing? Maybe we can attach them to those computers in the Korean PC Bangs. They'll force people to log off Counterstrike before they play themselves to death. /only half-serious.
Incompatibility
on
Ant Farm PC
·
· Score: 5, Funny
What Kevin failed to mention in his notes is a major flaw in this system...
Every piano has its own unique sound characteristics, even two identical makes and models built at nearly similar times. Tiny variations in the way the strings are wound, the way the hammers wear from use, etc., will change the way an instrument sounds.
A good performer is going to adapt to that, consciously or not, and his/her play style is going to subtly change to accentuate those quirks that enhance the overall sound of the composition and downplay those that intefere. These slight variations are not going to translate well to a whole different instrument even if you could transmit extremely accurate information, which the system almost certainly can't.
Remember the Monty Python sketch with the television program that would show blackmail videos and only stop when the person in question called in and made a payment? Maybe something similar could work with love bomb feeds?
"Ah, here's an interesting little number... This is a live feed from a 'bunker buster' bomb. If there's a Mr. S.H. of Baghdad listening, call now to pledge $50 million or this little beauty will turn up on the front steps of your presidential palace..."
dan
Of course, this could all be avoided if he knew "how not to be seen..."
While, as a general rule, "Standards be good," you have to bear in mind at least two points:
1) As has been previously stated (and will be again ad nauseum) some of the major players in this consortium have a horrible track record of user's rights. You can be sure the ulterior motive of this group has to do with profits than with end-user convenience. Technically, sure, that is the purpose of business (big or otherwise) but I don't remember anyhing in the rules the says they can't do things for the greater good...
2) Certain parties who shall remain nameless (*cough* Microsoft *cough*) have long had a problem with "maintaining standards." Maybe being part of the defining committee will go some ways towards alleviating the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome, but ultimately I think that any mythical "standards" produced from this will invariably produce a dozen variants of the original. Anyone who's used IE's interpretation of HTML knows this...
Essentially, I suppose I'm saying that when this many 800lb. gorillas get into a room together, the only thing that came come out of it is a more worries for us bananas^H^H^H^H^H^H^H customers.
That's nothing. Wait for the Platinum-Iridium Special Limited Edition of Star Wars I-VI where Yoda is re-rendered wearing a red hat, and R2-D2 is replaced by Tux the penguin...
(Yeah, I know, they both fund some open source efforts too. But this whole "everything is either Microsoft or free-as-in-lint" dichotomy is too simple for anyone but retarded schoolchildren.)
In the context of the article, I think it's rather more of a Closed Source vs. Open Source debate. When we're talking about using taxpayer money, there's a very real question of what sort of Return On Investment that we as taxpayers receive.
When using Microsoft (or any closed source provider)products, the end result is that the software fulfills it's function and the government agency (whatever it may be) provides the service it is charged to carry out. By using an open source alternative (one that is equally as effective as it's closed-source counterpart, to be fair) the taxpayers not only receive the government service but also the code that now becomes part of the public domain. It's a Value Added purchase, and makes better sense socially and financially.
This kind of functionality for no cost is like the sun rising in the west, Americans building skyscrapers, women running for president. It just doesn't happen anymore yet in one act of rebellion you can download it right now.
Yup. They said it went against the laws of God and man... Engineering feats and social change be damned; Chromakey in a tarball obviously heralds the dawn of the Third Age of Mankind.:)
Seriously, though. This is very cool. It's nice to see *nix come up with a free alternative to Adobe "Hey, let's throw Skylarov in the pokey" Premiere.
Well, now I finally realize at whom all those "Collect Calling" ads are targeted. Surely any life-form high than a goose would not be swayed to use a service promoted by Carrot Top.
Although none of the articles makes specific mention to this ever being used in commercial flight, I'm willing to ignore that for the sake of the following observations:
It's unnerving enough to consider flying on a craft that being shot at. Especially in light of the comment in the article about bits of the wing being shot off to guide flight.
But what really worries me is this quote from the nature article:
Then, in 1997, researchers at the US Air Force Research Laboratory in California used a high-power infrared laser to propel a saucer-sized aluminium craft for a few seconds.
Forget about the inevitable nutcase X-files type eferences; I'm not ever planning on boarding a Flying AOL disc .
Slashdot Mirror
What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you. -- Nietzsche
Classic.
And naturally, the "terorists" are using 'nix...
Interesting link, as well. It also brings up an interesting problem; when you hate both sides, who do you root for? Stelios may be a total wanker, but I'm gonna' pick price-fixing over domain-name squabbling as the greater evil. That's a judgment call on my part, YMMV.
On the contrary, I was trying to state from the studios point of view why they have a problem with easyCinema's pricing scheme. Frankly, I do believe that they are engaging in price fixing, and find it rather appalling. On review, I don't think I made that very clear.
I hope you'll extend me the same pardon for being slightly shocked at finding a slashdotter who isn't entirely jaded and cynical in regards to the entertainment industry. It's almost...refreshing.
I see movie piracy and bootleging being a very large thorn in the side of studeos.
I think this is an entirely different issue to the topic on hand. This is a case of a company wishing to purchase redistribution rights at the going rate. No one is infringing on anyone's copyright. In fact, I think a far better parallel would be EULAs as opposed to P2P. The studios are regarding easyCinema as a licensee of their product, and as such have seen fit to dictate the manner in which it is redistributed. In fact, viewing in that manner, I think it brings into focus how complex this issue actually is.
If it can be shown that you can create an equal or greater 22x demand for tickets by lowering prices for tickets by 1/22th, isn't it common sence.
No, because now you have 22x the maintenance costs (i.e. 22x as many to people to clean up after, attend to, print tickets for, provide bathrooms for, etc.) for the same profit. There's a point of diminishing returns. If half the price brings in triple the customer, then you might have something. But at this point, I think that's mostly a mathematical quibble.
The "domino effect" you speak of is the competition of the free market. If a few theaters are drastically cheaper than the others, they will start to attract more business. The other theaters will all have to follow suit to maintain customers. The inevitable price war will whittle margins down to nothing.
What does that have to do with the studios? They sell their films to the theaters at a flat rate. When all the theaters are no longer pulling in the money like they used to, they can band together to demand lower prices. Thus, the studios have to start lowering their prices as well.
If, like most /. readers, you follow[ed] the myriad Microsoft court cases (or browse practically half of the YRO section) you'll remember that there are some things that ordinary companies can do that monopolies can't.
Normally a company can decide who it wants to do business with. That's just common sense, not to mention an important facet of the free market. A monopoly, on the other hand, by virtue of being the [near] sole provider of a resource cannot be allowed that luxury. To make a borderline facile analogy: Suppose a pharmaceutical company developed a cure for cancer, and cornered the market on same. Also assume that have, for our hypothetical purposes, a near-infinite supply of same. Would we allow that company to refuse the cure to certain people, even if they were willing to pay the specified price? Obviously, this isn't an exact analog to the situation (this situation would probably be brought under charges of discrimination, rather than monopolism), but it servers the purpose.
Is the MPAA a monopoly? While I'm sure a large percentage of Slashdotters have a very strong opinion on that subject, ulitmately it remains for the courts to decide.
Please... I didn't spend four years at Evil Medical School to work free. Thankyouverymuch.
Also, can someone please kludge up a serial/usb/bluetooth/etc. link up for this thing? Maybe we can attach them to those computers in the Korean PC Bangs. They'll force people to log off Counterstrike before they play themselves to death.
/only half-serious.
It's incompatible with RAID arrays.
Yes, I'm ashamed of myself for that one :)
Not one reference to Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age!!!
I know it's tangentially related at best, but c'mon people: This is Slashdot fer cryin' out loud!
Is this brought to us via the Osaka (Robotic) Seafood Concern?
A good performer is going to adapt to that, consciously or not, and his/her play style is going to subtly change to accentuate those quirks that enhance the overall sound of the composition and downplay those that intefere. These slight variations are not going to translate well to a whole different instrument even if you could transmit extremely accurate information, which the system almost certainly can't.
1 LoC (Library of Congress) = 10 Terabytes = 10,000 Gigabytes
That's 0.000125LoC/sec, or roughly 2.22 hours to transfer the entire contents across 10GigE.
Wow.
"Ah, here's an interesting little number... This is a live feed from a 'bunker buster' bomb. If there's a Mr. S.H. of Baghdad listening, call now to pledge $50 million or this little beauty will turn up on the front steps of your presidential palace..."
dan
Of course, this could all be avoided if he knew "how not to be seen..."
1) As has been previously stated (and will be again ad nauseum) some of the major players in this consortium have a horrible track record of user's rights. You can be sure the ulterior motive of this group has to do with profits than with end-user convenience. Technically, sure, that is the purpose of business (big or otherwise) but I don't remember anyhing in the rules the says they can't do things for the greater good...
2) Certain parties who shall remain nameless (*cough* Microsoft *cough*) have long had a problem with "maintaining standards." Maybe being part of the defining committee will go some ways towards alleviating the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome, but ultimately I think that any mythical "standards" produced from this will invariably produce a dozen variants of the original. Anyone who's used IE's interpretation of HTML knows this...
Essentially, I suppose I'm saying that when this many 800lb. gorillas get into a room together, the only thing that came come out of it is a more worries for us bananas^H^H^H^H^H^H^H customers.
That's nothing. Wait for the Platinum-Iridium Special Limited Edition of Star Wars I-VI where Yoda is re-rendered wearing a red hat, and R2-D2 is replaced by Tux the penguin...
In the context of the article, I think it's rather more of a Closed Source vs. Open Source debate. When we're talking about using taxpayer money, there's a very real question of what sort of Return On Investment that we as taxpayers receive.
When using Microsoft (or any closed source provider)products, the end result is that the software fulfills it's function and the government agency (whatever it may be) provides the service it is charged to carry out. By using an open source alternative (one that is equally as effective as it's closed-source counterpart, to be fair) the taxpayers not only receive the government service but also the code that now becomes part of the public domain. It's a Value Added purchase, and makes better sense socially and financially.
What? You mean we're not in the Matrix? And that red pill I took was only Nyquil?
Anyone or anything that stands up to prevent the next BLINK tag from running rampant on the net deserves some respect...
"We'll be phasing out our AS/400 line in favor of the mother of all Big Iron," quoted one researcher.
IBM expects the greatest benefit will come to those using Codeweaver and, surprisingly, certain gamers.
Yup. They said it went against the laws of God and man... Engineering feats and social change be damned; Chromakey in a tarball obviously heralds the dawn of the Third Age of Mankind. :)
Seriously, though. This is very cool. It's nice to see *nix come up with a free alternative to Adobe "Hey, let's throw Skylarov in the pokey" Premiere.
Can you hear me now? QUACK! Can you hear me now? dan QUACK!
Well, now I finally realize at whom all those "Collect Calling" ads are targeted. Surely any life-form high than a goose would not be swayed to use a service promoted by Carrot Top.
No, no. It's luggage you're thinking of.
It's unnerving enough to consider flying on a craft that being shot at. Especially in light of the comment in the article about bits of the wing being shot off to guide flight.
But what really worries me is this quote from the nature article:
Forget about the inevitable nutcase X-files type eferences; I'm not ever planning on boarding a Flying AOL disc .
And you can quote me on that.