My pictures from 20 years ago are all safely stored on 5.25" floppy disks. It's a medium that will last forever!
Really, you had your photographs in digital form 20 years ago, smartass?;-)
My useless computer programs from 20 years ago (most of which really *aren't* worth shit, arguably not even to me) are now stored on insignificantly small portions of at least two CDs and a hard drive (i.e. three copies). As well as the original floppies, which were still not far short of 20 years old when I transferred the files off them.
The mere fact that the continuous range is caused by a chemical process and not an electrical process does not mean it isn't analog.
Are you sure that's why they said it? You're aware that individual grains within a photograph are either "exposed" or "unexposed", right?
Of course, the grain size and shape can vary continuously within certain ranges, as can the positioning. But it's not as (cough) black and white as you seem to think.
I didn't say it would work for every application. On the other hand, unless they can figure out some way of still making money from games, the vast majority of the industry aren't going to bother. (And the fact remains that while there may be some decent free/open source games out there, they're not in the same ballpark as commercial ones).
Of course, the common sense approach here is one that's already in use; fairly heavyweight client, but the game still goes through the servers, a la WoW. They couldn't charge for the client at all, but they'd probably just increase the subscription price to make up for it.
Problem is, you really can't make money by making software and hiding it from everyone.
Well... I thought that was what I was discussing. Obviously you can't make money by selling the application directly, but you can grant access to the service or sit on it and exploit the fact that you have a *tool* (i.e. a means to an end) that no-one else has.
And "carrying out a service on behalf of others"? Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean someone would write a program, hide it from everyone, but offer to run the software for them on their behalf?
I wouldn't put it like that. If (say) Pixar were the only people who had halfway-decent 3D software that no-one else did- or had the prospect of developing in the forseeable future- then they could either exploit that to make their own animations miles better than anyone else's.
Or (in response to your question), they could provide services on others' behalf. That might be the form of them finding out what the client wants and doing pretty much all the work themselves; models, rendering, characters, design etc. Or at the other extreme they might provide a rendering service.
As I acknowledged, this wouldn't work in all cases; it certainly wouldn't work for a web browser, as you implied.
I would hope in a hypothetical copyrightless future, good people would create free software alternatives to software-as-service.
Quite possibly. Nothing I said would contradict that; it was a rebuttal of one specific assertion you made- paraphrasing- that in a copyright-free world there could *never* be any benefit in not giving one's software away. Which- IMHO- is wrong as a blanket statement, and flawed as an argument against copyright in general. But in some circumstances it could still be beneficial to do so, and- as you said- some altruistic people might release their work freely anyway- nothing stopping that.
But in a theoretical world without copyright, there would be no reason not/i> to publish your source code - because you wouldn't be able to profit off of software sales in a world where anyone could legally copy your program for free.
That shows a lack of insight for a start.
They couldn't copy your software if no-one but you had access to it in the first place. You could sit on the software, using it for what it was intended for yourself (i.e. giving yourself an advantage in providing an end product, or possibly carrying out a service on behalf of others) and not letting anyone else have it at all.
Or you could force everyone to use the software through your servers (i.e. they only get access to the interface and the output, not the underlying code- just like a server-based web app or service).
No, you're probably not going to make as much money that way. But it's still a flaw in your idealised, lack-of-thought regurgitation of "in a copyright-free world, no-one will have reason to hold on to their code" argument.
And that's disregarding the fact that some worthwhile code *might* not be written in the first place if people couldn't make money off by selling it with the protection of copyright.
Now, one could argue these points in more depth. I'm not saying that I agree with them or that they couldn't be rebutted. (Because I know from experience that at least one kneejerking idiot will otherwise assume that I'm taking the opposite position to your argument rather than simply pointing out the glaring holes and omissions in it).
My issue was that you didn't even consider either of these rather obvious issues in the first place, which pretty much negates the value of your argument.
But when he is ignoring me for too long, acting stubborn, or just being an asshole, I will kick his ass. Hard.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I then have no problem with suing him, driving over there and storming the building,
Storming the building? Seriously?!
(Let's be honest... no.)
or DDOSing his servers, if I have fair proof that what he did was illegal/wrong.
Make up your mind. Are you going the legal route, the Hollywood fantasy "opening a can of whupass" that'll (at best) land you in the shit in real life and solve nothing route or the Internet geek vigilante route?
FWIW... this sort of thing is a PITA, as the legal route (#1) isn't always practical for jurisdictional and financial reasons, and the thieving, weasellish pricks might get away with it if relying on that alone. But suggesting #2 is just downright silly and makes you look like an ITG.
#3 has a lot of problems, mainly related to vigilantism in general. But yeah, I appreciate why people might be tempted to go down that route if legal recourse wasn't practical.
Anyway, you're right that people shouldn't cave in in the face of bullshit like this, but you're not doing yourself any favours with the ITG nonsense.
Continue to block the new app that violates the terms [..] while realizing that most of the "consumer backlash" is from a bunch of whiney shits, most of whom won't even buy the damned iPhone in the first place.
Actually, I suspect that most of the "bunch of whiney shits" certainly *will* hand over their money for an iPhone anyway- regardless of Apple's policies. Which in practice still means that Apple don't have to give a toss about them.
Can someone explain to me why they would give him a liver transplant now?
Yeah; his old liver was last year's model, and a new version in a range of smart-looking colours had just come out. Jobs didn't want to risk being seen as unfashionable or behind the times.
Also, he wants a kidney transplant as well, but the new kidneys don't work with the older model livers.
True, but if you can buy a ridiculous amount of capacity for not that much money, does it really matter? At least you have the choice of watching whatever you feel like from a wide selection.
Though I kind of agree with you, as my DVR is filling up with stuff I got it to automatically record because I... well, because I could. But then, if I had a 1TB model instead of a 250GB one, I probably wouldn't care, I'd just want better navigation.
I'm sure that MS will sell Windows 7 to OEMs to be shipped on new PCs - there probably won't be as much resistance as Vista saw
(Which I'm taking to mean that you think most people will be mostly happy to keep Windows 7 on new systems).
but unlike many of the previous Windows releases, most XP users generally seem to be pretty happy with the status quo to I'm not really expecting to see huge numbers of people flock to the shops to buy upgrades for their existing systems.
That may be a red herring then; as far as I'm aware, the majority of new OS installations nowadays occur on new computers rather then existing systems. In other words, most people get the new OS when it's installed on a new computer (doing all their "upgrades" in one go by buying a new computer).
So if it's offered on the new computer and they're happy (enough) with that, then Windows 7 will eventually be a success.
For the very simple reason that there's no clear indication that he's motivated by fandom of a rival format, as opposed to being someone who just thinks Blu-Ray is a crap idea. (Vitriol != Fanboyism)
Whether or not *your* comment was less "over the top" misses the point. You assumed- with no evidence- that the OP was a disgruntled HD-DVD owner and make an implied "ha ha, your format lost" comment.
And my assessment of the original post was somehow less reasonable to assume it was a fanboy comment?
That's correct. While the post was critical and mildly disparaging, there was nothing to indicate that fanboyism was behind it.
Whereas you (supposedly jokingly) assumed that the OP was an HD-DVD owner, the clear insinuation being that his argument was motivated by this. Despite there being no evidence of his owning HD-DVD, let alone it biasing his opinion.
Really, you are painting yourself into a corner here.
Saying that doesn't make it so.
The post I replied to was far more vitriolic than mine, and your response to me was also far more vitriolic.
So? We were talking about fanboyism, not vitriol. The latter isn't the exclusive preserve of fanboys, it's a common human trait. (Elementary logic; fanboyism generally implies vitriol, but the converse isn't true.).
Tell me what was "fanboyish" about my comment, bearing in mind that I owned neither format, and amn't overly invested in the success or failure of either. (I'll probably get a Blu-Ray burner if and when the price falls below US $80-100).
I didn't think that the OP was *that* vitriolic, but you were the one who made the kneejerk fanboy-mentality assumption (er... "joke"), not him.
It didn't come across as obviously such, and there wasn't enough there to criticise someone for not spotting that it was meant to be a "joke". Not least because there's nothing obviously funny about it(!)
On the contrary, it was perfectly reasonable (and likely) to assume that it was a typical format-war-fanboyism comment.
Fanboys assume that any form of criticism is an attack driven by the same stupid partisan, blinkered mentality that they have...
The irony in the above sentence is astounding.
Not really; that would only be the case if my assumption (incorrect or not) was driven by a fanboyish mentality.
But imagine TWO networks could carry the iPhone at the same time with the same deal from Apple: instant cutthroat competition for people like this! Apple should wake up and do this.
Only if there's more money in it for Apple that way; remember that (IIRC) Apple get a cut of the money AT&T are raking in. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have the exclusivity agreement if they didn't feel it was ultimately to their benefit.
The other thing to change is that the durability of DVDs has made rental prices drop
It also made retail prices of box-set material drop; particularly things like complete television seasons/series and sets of films.
In the VHS days, with (say) TV programmes, you used to get between 1 and 2 hours and 2-3 episodes on a single tape (*), sold individually at around £15 (**). Bulky for shops to store and sell; also bulky for customers and expensive and inconvenient for them to buy anything like a complete run. (If available; outside the most popular TV series, complete runs weren't always available in the pre-DVD era. Often only "best ofs" or selected episodes or compilations came out).
And VHS quality wasn't the best for collecting.
By contrast, DVDs can be held in a very small amount of space if the appropriate box/case is used, and complete seasons are available- even for more obscure shows- at a tiny fraction of the price that they would have cost on VHS. Often with bonus material, and with picture quality usually only limited by the source footage.
You can get a lot of stuff on DVD very cheap, and without it taking up a lot of space in your house. And yet, even if- on a per-episode basis- they're selling it way cheaper than they did in the VHS days, I'm willing to bet that they make *way* more money off it since people are more likely to buy the complete runs- a nice way to exploit the archive of classic series.
(FWIW, there's less scope for Blu-Ray- and HD media in general- to take this further, since many classic series weren't made with HD in mind- or were even partly or completely shot on SD media anyway, and won't benefit significantly from HD treatment. Unless they do something like the original Star Trek with improved effects, which I assume is too expensive for the majority of TV series. They could always use the improved capacity to squeeze more SD shows onto a single disc- I assume that the Blu-Ray spec *would* allow this- but I suspect that for marketing reasons they won't do that.)
(*) It always annoyed me that blank PAL VHS tapes came in standard 3 and 4 hour lengths with no apparent problems, yet prerecorded video tapes would rarely go over 2. I believe this marketing format originated with NTSC VHS's shorter running time, but it's still annoying.
(**) Typical price towards the end of prerecorded VHS's commercial life.
So.... how's that HD-DVD player working out for you?
Who said he had an HD-DVD player? There was nothing there to indicate that beyond your own assumption.
Regardless of whether your base assertion is true (the other reply indicates that it might be US-specific), your implication that the other guy's comment was motivated as the result of jealousy from a disgruntled HD-DVD adopter or fanboy says more about you than it does about him.
Fanboys assume that any form of criticism is an attack driven by the same stupid partisan, blinkered mentality that they have, and of course, they enjoy the opportunity to gloat at any perceived victory.
Even if the guy's comment was incorrect and/or badly thought out, it doesn't mean that he's a pissed-off HD-DVD fanboy. Sheesh...
I can state definitively that the instant it is possible to part with AT&T we would do so. Don't get me wrong, we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts, but listen up AT&T, you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass.
So basically you like the iPhone so much that as long as the exclusivity agreement's in place, you'll put up with any amount of AT&T's crap and paying them anyway.
So presumably if the iPhone moves exclusively to another network, you'll go with *them* too.
Therefore, AT&T and/or other networks have no reason to care about or pay attention to your complaints or threats, only to ensure that they have (and continue to have) the iPhone exclusivity agreement.
If you demanded personal money from me just so I could get you to your the job for which you are paid, you sure as hell had better not need anything from me, ever. Including a funding request for your project.
Euh... seriously, anyone pulling this kind of BS shouldn't be expecting to be paid, full stop.
I only went to work there because my previous job had been outsourced, so I needed at least some sort of income.
You were chancing your arm for someone who actually needed the job, then.
Not denying that some the people you worked for were (possibly) assholes and/or tightfisted, but that's still pretty unprofessional and may explain why- as you point out elsewhere- they were trying to find an excuse to can you.
Plus, you made it easy for them if that's what they wanted- particularly if it can be easily shown that you *were* giving favourable treatment to people who handed over the readies. Yeah, in some ways it's only a fine line between informal a-24-pack-of-expensive-German-lager-might-help mutual backscratching and what you were doing openly, but it's an obvious one that makes all the difference when it's your job on the line and you were fairly direct about it.
It was the way to "encourage" non-priority stuff away. Most people in the office looked at it as a joke, but they knew we were way under paid, so a few bucks here and there helped.
Personally, I think it's reasonable to expect people to treat you with respect and (in the real world) of course people are going to be more favourable to those who show them that respect. Not arguing that.
However, if your story is true, operating a personal bribe/tip jar for people within the company isn't as funny as you try to make out- if it was really that tongue-in-cheek, you'd have given the money to charity or something.
I'd be pretty resentful if someone within the company was trying to wring money from me, in that passive-aggressive "ha ha, it's only a joke, laugh" manner- especially if I was just some random sod trying to get my job done properly.
Back before floppy discs we used to buy blank cassettes and use a twin tape deck to copy mate's games for the BBC B and Spectrum.
True, but remember that you can only do that for a limited number of generations because it's an analogue (and unverified) copy- of the representation of a digital signal- that degrades slightly every time. That limits the number of copies (in theory).
To do a true digital copy, you'd have to regenerate the digital signal each time, rather than just blindly copying its underlying analogue representation. This is obviously how disks work anyway, but for cassettes- digital storage piggybacked onto a medium designed for analogue use- you'd have to load the content into the computer, then write it out again to get a truly "fresh" copy.
Also, 2k was not a Consumer OS. It was a business OS. XP was the next in the consumer OS line. 2k != 9x/XP lines, hence better.
That's correct in terms of marketing, but misleading and missing the point.
Technically, and in terms of lineage, XP (NT 5.1) was the successor to Windows 2000 (NT 5.0), which in turn succeeded NT 4.0.
Even the consumer-oriented XP Home is based on the NT line, not the 9x line (which ended with Windows ME.)
Which brings me to my other point- MS's original intention *was* (I believe) that what became Windows 2000 would replace both existing consumer and business versions of Windows. In the event, this didn't happen, and we had to wait a couple more years for the two lines to be unified as the NT-based Windows XP.
But FWIW, XP is apparently not that different to 2000 at a basic level; it doesn't even have a new major number.
Oh, that's very fascinating to me. I read a lot myself. Some people think I'm too intellectual but I think it's a fabulous way to spend your spare time. I also play raquetball. Do you have any hobbies?
Slashdot Mirror
My pictures from 20 years ago are all safely stored on 5.25" floppy disks. It's a medium that will last forever!
Really, you had your photographs in digital form 20 years ago, smartass? ;-)
My useless computer programs from 20 years ago (most of which really *aren't* worth shit, arguably not even to me) are now stored on insignificantly small portions of at least two CDs and a hard drive (i.e. three copies). As well as the original floppies, which were still not far short of 20 years old when I transferred the files off them.
The mere fact that the continuous range is caused by a chemical process and not an electrical process does not mean it isn't analog.
Are you sure that's why they said it? You're aware that individual grains within a photograph are either "exposed" or "unexposed", right?
Of course, the grain size and shape can vary continuously within certain ranges, as can the positioning. But it's not as (cough) black and white as you seem to think.
I didn't say it would work for every application. On the other hand, unless they can figure out some way of still making money from games, the vast majority of the industry aren't going to bother. (And the fact remains that while there may be some decent free/open source games out there, they're not in the same ballpark as commercial ones).
Of course, the common sense approach here is one that's already in use; fairly heavyweight client, but the game still goes through the servers, a la WoW. They couldn't charge for the client at all, but they'd probably just increase the subscription price to make up for it.
Problem is, you really can't make money by making software and hiding it from everyone.
Well... I thought that was what I was discussing. Obviously you can't make money by selling the application directly, but you can grant access to the service or sit on it and exploit the fact that you have a *tool* (i.e. a means to an end) that no-one else has.
And "carrying out a service on behalf of others"? Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean someone would write a program, hide it from everyone, but offer to run the software for them on their behalf?
I wouldn't put it like that. If (say) Pixar were the only people who had halfway-decent 3D software that no-one else did- or had the prospect of developing in the forseeable future- then they could either exploit that to make their own animations miles better than anyone else's.
Or (in response to your question), they could provide services on others' behalf. That might be the form of them finding out what the client wants and doing pretty much all the work themselves; models, rendering, characters, design etc. Or at the other extreme they might provide a rendering service.
As I acknowledged, this wouldn't work in all cases; it certainly wouldn't work for a web browser, as you implied.
I would hope in a hypothetical copyrightless future, good people would create free software alternatives to software-as-service.
Quite possibly. Nothing I said would contradict that; it was a rebuttal of one specific assertion you made- paraphrasing- that in a copyright-free world there could *never* be any benefit in not giving one's software away. Which- IMHO- is wrong as a blanket statement, and flawed as an argument against copyright in general. But in some circumstances it could still be beneficial to do so, and- as you said- some altruistic people might release their work freely anyway- nothing stopping that.
But in a theoretical world without copyright, there would be no reason not/i> to publish your source code - because you wouldn't be able to profit off of software sales in a world where anyone could legally copy your program for free.
That shows a lack of insight for a start.
They couldn't copy your software if no-one but you had access to it in the first place. You could sit on the software, using it for what it was intended for yourself (i.e. giving yourself an advantage in providing an end product, or possibly carrying out a service on behalf of others) and not letting anyone else have it at all.
Or you could force everyone to use the software through your servers (i.e. they only get access to the interface and the output, not the underlying code- just like a server-based web app or service).
No, you're probably not going to make as much money that way. But it's still a flaw in your idealised, lack-of-thought regurgitation of "in a copyright-free world, no-one will have reason to hold on to their code" argument.
And that's disregarding the fact that some worthwhile code *might* not be written in the first place if people couldn't make money off by selling it with the protection of copyright.
Now, one could argue these points in more depth. I'm not saying that I agree with them or that they couldn't be rebutted. (Because I know from experience that at least one kneejerking idiot will otherwise assume that I'm taking the opposite position to your argument rather than simply pointing out the glaring holes and omissions in it).
My issue was that you didn't even consider either of these rather obvious issues in the first place, which pretty much negates the value of your argument.
But when he is ignoring me for too long, acting stubborn, or just being an asshole, I will kick his ass. Hard.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I then have no problem with suing him, driving over there and storming the building,
Storming the building? Seriously?!
(Let's be honest... no.)
or DDOSing his servers, if I have fair proof that what he did was illegal/wrong.
Make up your mind. Are you going the legal route, the Hollywood fantasy "opening a can of whupass" that'll (at best) land you in the shit in real life and solve nothing route or the Internet geek vigilante route?
FWIW... this sort of thing is a PITA, as the legal route (#1) isn't always practical for jurisdictional and financial reasons, and the thieving, weasellish pricks might get away with it if relying on that alone. But suggesting #2 is just downright silly and makes you look like an ITG.
#3 has a lot of problems, mainly related to vigilantism in general. But yeah, I appreciate why people might be tempted to go down that route if legal recourse wasn't practical.
Anyway, you're right that people shouldn't cave in in the face of bullshit like this, but you're not doing yourself any favours with the ITG nonsense.
Continue to block the new app that violates the terms [..] while realizing that most of the "consumer backlash" is from a bunch of whiney shits, most of whom won't even buy the damned iPhone in the first place.
Actually, I suspect that most of the "bunch of whiney shits" certainly *will* hand over their money for an iPhone anyway- regardless of Apple's policies. Which in practice still means that Apple don't have to give a toss about them.
how about food libraries?
Yeah, but what happens after the food has been "used" and needs to be returned?
On second thoughts, I don't want to think about that.
Can someone explain to me why they would give him a liver transplant now?
Yeah; his old liver was last year's model, and a new version in a range of smart-looking colours had just come out. Jobs didn't want to risk being seen as unfashionable or behind the times.
Also, he wants a kidney transplant as well, but the new kidneys don't work with the older model livers.
True, but if you can buy a ridiculous amount of capacity for not that much money, does it really matter? At least you have the choice of watching whatever you feel like from a wide selection.
Though I kind of agree with you, as my DVR is filling up with stuff I got it to automatically record because I... well, because I could. But then, if I had a 1TB model instead of a 250GB one, I probably wouldn't care, I'd just want better navigation.
they need to hook up to get their fucking idiot box working again
Oh, I'm sorry... you were doing really well, and you blew it right at the last minute. ;-)
Any mention of "idiot box" results in an automatic link to this article and Godwinning of the original post. (^_^)
I'm sure that MS will sell Windows 7 to OEMs to be shipped on new PCs - there probably won't be as much resistance as Vista saw
(Which I'm taking to mean that you think most people will be mostly happy to keep Windows 7 on new systems).
but unlike many of the previous Windows releases, most XP users generally seem to be pretty happy with the status quo to I'm not really expecting to see huge numbers of people flock to the shops to buy upgrades for their existing systems.
That may be a red herring then; as far as I'm aware, the majority of new OS installations nowadays occur on new computers rather then existing systems. In other words, most people get the new OS when it's installed on a new computer (doing all their "upgrades" in one go by buying a new computer).
So if it's offered on the new computer and they're happy (enough) with that, then Windows 7 will eventually be a success.
So this [..] isn't fanboy-ish.
In itself, no.
For the very simple reason that there's no clear indication that he's motivated by fandom of a rival format, as opposed to being someone who just thinks Blu-Ray is a crap idea. (Vitriol != Fanboyism)
Whether or not *your* comment was less "over the top" misses the point. You assumed- with no evidence- that the OP was a disgruntled HD-DVD owner and make an implied "ha ha, your format lost" comment.
Smacks of the fanboy mentality to me.
And my assessment of the original post was somehow less reasonable to assume it was a fanboy comment?
That's correct. While the post was critical and mildly disparaging, there was nothing to indicate that fanboyism was behind it.
Whereas you (supposedly jokingly) assumed that the OP was an HD-DVD owner, the clear insinuation being that his argument was motivated by this. Despite there being no evidence of his owning HD-DVD, let alone it biasing his opinion.
Really, you are painting yourself into a corner here.
Saying that doesn't make it so.
The post I replied to was far more vitriolic than mine, and your response to me was also far more vitriolic.
So? We were talking about fanboyism, not vitriol. The latter isn't the exclusive preserve of fanboys, it's a common human trait. (Elementary logic; fanboyism generally implies vitriol, but the converse isn't true.).
Tell me what was "fanboyish" about my comment, bearing in mind that I owned neither format, and amn't overly invested in the success or failure of either. (I'll probably get a Blu-Ray burner if and when the price falls below US $80-100).
I didn't think that the OP was *that* vitriolic, but you were the one who made the kneejerk fanboy-mentality assumption (er... "joke"), not him.
It was a joke.
It didn't come across as obviously such, and there wasn't enough there to criticise someone for not spotting that it was meant to be a "joke". Not least because there's nothing obviously funny about it(!)
On the contrary, it was perfectly reasonable (and likely) to assume that it was a typical format-war-fanboyism comment.
Fanboys assume that any form of criticism is an attack driven by the same stupid partisan, blinkered mentality that they have...
The irony in the above sentence is astounding.
Not really; that would only be the case if my assumption (incorrect or not) was driven by a fanboyish mentality.
But imagine TWO networks could carry the iPhone at the same time with the same deal from Apple: instant cutthroat competition for people like this! Apple should wake up and do this.
Only if there's more money in it for Apple that way; remember that (IIRC) Apple get a cut of the money AT&T are raking in. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have the exclusivity agreement if they didn't feel it was ultimately to their benefit.
The other thing to change is that the durability of DVDs has made rental prices drop
It also made retail prices of box-set material drop; particularly things like complete television seasons/series and sets of films.
In the VHS days, with (say) TV programmes, you used to get between 1 and 2 hours and 2-3 episodes on a single tape (*), sold individually at around £15 (**). Bulky for shops to store and sell; also bulky for customers and expensive and inconvenient for them to buy anything like a complete run. (If available; outside the most popular TV series, complete runs weren't always available in the pre-DVD era. Often only "best ofs" or selected episodes or compilations came out).
And VHS quality wasn't the best for collecting.
By contrast, DVDs can be held in a very small amount of space if the appropriate box/case is used, and complete seasons are available- even for more obscure shows- at a tiny fraction of the price that they would have cost on VHS. Often with bonus material, and with picture quality usually only limited by the source footage.
You can get a lot of stuff on DVD very cheap, and without it taking up a lot of space in your house. And yet, even if- on a per-episode basis- they're selling it way cheaper than they did in the VHS days, I'm willing to bet that they make *way* more money off it since people are more likely to buy the complete runs- a nice way to exploit the archive of classic series.
(FWIW, there's less scope for Blu-Ray- and HD media in general- to take this further, since many classic series weren't made with HD in mind- or were even partly or completely shot on SD media anyway, and won't benefit significantly from HD treatment. Unless they do something like the original Star Trek with improved effects, which I assume is too expensive for the majority of TV series. They could always use the improved capacity to squeeze more SD shows onto a single disc- I assume that the Blu-Ray spec *would* allow this- but I suspect that for marketing reasons they won't do that.)
(*) It always annoyed me that blank PAL VHS tapes came in standard 3 and 4 hour lengths with no apparent problems, yet prerecorded video tapes would rarely go over 2. I believe this marketing format originated with NTSC VHS's shorter running time, but it's still annoying.
(**) Typical price towards the end of prerecorded VHS's commercial life.
BluRay is penetrating at double the rate DVD did.
So.... how's that HD-DVD player working out for you?
Who said he had an HD-DVD player? There was nothing there to indicate that beyond your own assumption.
Regardless of whether your base assertion is true (the other reply indicates that it might be US-specific), your implication that the other guy's comment was motivated as the result of jealousy from a disgruntled HD-DVD adopter or fanboy says more about you than it does about him.
Fanboys assume that any form of criticism is an attack driven by the same stupid partisan, blinkered mentality that they have, and of course, they enjoy the opportunity to gloat at any perceived victory.
Even if the guy's comment was incorrect and/or badly thought out, it doesn't mean that he's a pissed-off HD-DVD fanboy. Sheesh...
I can state definitively that the instant it is possible to part with AT&T we would do so. Don't get me wrong, we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts, but listen up AT&T, you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass.
So basically you like the iPhone so much that as long as the exclusivity agreement's in place, you'll put up with any amount of AT&T's crap and paying them anyway.
So presumably if the iPhone moves exclusively to another network, you'll go with *them* too.
Therefore, AT&T and/or other networks have no reason to care about or pay attention to your complaints or threats, only to ensure that they have (and continue to have) the iPhone exclusivity agreement.
If you demanded personal money from me just so I could get you to your the job for which you are paid, you sure as hell had better not need anything from me, ever. Including a funding request for your project.
Euh... seriously, anyone pulling this kind of BS shouldn't be expecting to be paid, full stop.
I only went to work there because my previous job had been outsourced, so I needed at least some sort of income.
You were chancing your arm for someone who actually needed the job, then.
Not denying that some the people you worked for were (possibly) assholes and/or tightfisted, but that's still pretty unprofessional and may explain why- as you point out elsewhere- they were trying to find an excuse to can you.
Plus, you made it easy for them if that's what they wanted- particularly if it can be easily shown that you *were* giving favourable treatment to people who handed over the readies. Yeah, in some ways it's only a fine line between informal a-24-pack-of-expensive-German-lager-might-help mutual backscratching and what you were doing openly, but it's an obvious one that makes all the difference when it's your job on the line and you were fairly direct about it.
It was the way to "encourage" non-priority stuff away. Most people in the office looked at it as a joke, but they knew we were way under paid, so a few bucks here and there helped.
Personally, I think it's reasonable to expect people to treat you with respect and (in the real world) of course people are going to be more favourable to those who show them that respect. Not arguing that.
However, if your story is true, operating a personal bribe/tip jar for people within the company isn't as funny as you try to make out- if it was really that tongue-in-cheek, you'd have given the money to charity or something.
I'd be pretty resentful if someone within the company was trying to wring money from me, in that passive-aggressive "ha ha, it's only a joke, laugh" manner- especially if I was just some random sod trying to get my job done properly.
Back before floppy discs we used to buy blank cassettes and use a twin tape deck to copy mate's games for the BBC B and Spectrum.
True, but remember that you can only do that for a limited number of generations because it's an analogue (and unverified) copy- of the representation of a digital signal- that degrades slightly every time. That limits the number of copies (in theory).
To do a true digital copy, you'd have to regenerate the digital signal each time, rather than just blindly copying its underlying analogue representation. This is obviously how disks work anyway, but for cassettes- digital storage piggybacked onto a medium designed for analogue use- you'd have to load the content into the computer, then write it out again to get a truly "fresh" copy.
Also, 2k was not a Consumer OS. It was a business OS. XP was the next in the consumer OS line. 2k != 9x/XP lines, hence better.
That's correct in terms of marketing, but misleading and missing the point.
Technically, and in terms of lineage, XP (NT 5.1) was the successor to Windows 2000 (NT 5.0), which in turn succeeded NT 4.0.
Even the consumer-oriented XP Home is based on the NT line, not the 9x line (which ended with Windows ME.)
Which brings me to my other point- MS's original intention *was* (I believe) that what became Windows 2000 would replace both existing consumer and business versions of Windows. In the event, this didn't happen, and we had to wait a couple more years for the two lines to be unified as the NT-based Windows XP.
But FWIW, XP is apparently not that different to 2000 at a basic level; it doesn't even have a new major number.
the poptarts is from the Russians
You mean like tATu?
Print is dead.
Oh, that's very fascinating to me. I read a lot myself. Some people think I'm too intellectual but I think it's a fabulous way to spend your spare time. I also play raquetball. Do you have any hobbies?