I wonder if they can make a DVD that'll play in DVD players which will play music when in a CD player. I vaguely remember talk of something like that, but no idea if that ever materialized. Pity if they can't do that, that'd be really cool.
Oh well, maybe the DVD Audio will make stuff like that possible.
"That would be cool....but is it more expensive then just the CD without the DVD? If it is, there goes the appeal.."
No idea. I'm not a fan of Eminem. I can tell you that I'm the type of person to pay more for a DVD if it has 'Special Features'. As a matter of fact, I rarely buy DVDs that are without Special Features. (or they're uninteresting) When I get into a movie, I really get into it. I kinda figured that people who are really into bands are the same way.
"There's a store here (Big Lots, basically they sell somewhat crappy merchandise at great prices) that I go into whenever I'm getting my oil changed to pass the time."
He's exploring new music while he's getting his oil changed, and you're telling him to change his own oil. Not sure why you'd say 'Learn to change your own oil' and then follow up with "But I don't mean change it each and every time."
I can see why you were modded as off-topic, you're not making any sense. So were you trying to make some sort of point or was the moderator's judgement correct? So far I'm leaning towards the mod.
You guys are missing the point. I wasn't talking about legality, I was talking about copy protection. Even the 'perfectly protected' CD can't stop people from duplicating it. The song can always be re-performed.
"..but if CD's were only $3-4, I would be buying them impulsively with little regard as to whether I would even listen to it."
Heck, I'd settle for a "send us a list of MP3s you have and we'll send you a fair priced bill for digital use" service.
The RIAA would make a few bucks off me that way.
Re:FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 2
"This makes it completely unusable where privacy of data matters (patient medical data is a recent high-profile example, insert several others here)."
Fine argument except I don't have data pertinent to anybody. I'm not convinced that somebody couldn't get into my Windows box anyway, so what's the point in blocking MS off?
That's not the focus of my point, though. I don't care. I don't keep sensitive data no my computer. That's why it's not a reason for me to switch. It's a reason for me to not keep sensitive data on my machine.
"The record industry could lose a fortune if people stop buying CDs and make their own copies. Halderman reckons he has a solution for them. "Reduce the cost of new CDs; if discs cost only a few dollars each, buying them might be preferable to spending the time and effort to make copies or find them online."
So, in other words, the RIAA should respond to supply and demand.
"Why waste the money and resources to 'secure' the CD, and piss off and lose customers?"
I got a better question: Why try to 'protect' one of the easiest forms of media to duplicate?
I mean seriously, if they got to the point that it was possible to totally secure music so that it couldn't be copied (even with a mic to a speaker), what's to prevent an ameteur band from re-singing the song and recording their version of it?
Would it sound the same? Nope. Potentially, it could sound better. Look at the popularity of remixes today. I guarantee you, it'd just drive the need for RIAA independent people to surface.
What the RIAA should be doing is enticing their customers to buy the CDs in the stores. Didn't the recent Eminem album launch with a DVD in it? That's pretty damn cool. They should think about doing more stuff like that. Heck, include Video CD's with band interviews or remixes or something, I dunno. If you're having trouble making your product sell, make it more appealing.
"My task manager on this machine says IE weighs in at 22 MB. Explorer (part of IE) weighs in at 14 MB."
If you kill Explorer.exe, IExplore.exe still works just fine.
Explorer is not part of IE, it calls the same object that IE does to blit folders to the screen. Outlook, FrontPage, Common 'File/Save/Load' dialogs, and a bunch of VB apps also use this object. You can probably remove that object, but all those other apps will be crippled and will have to use their own method to interpret the graphics.
That's why I always thought the debate about removing IE was stupid. Sure you can remove it, if you want to make everybody else's life harder.
"My task manager on this machine says IE weighs in at 22 MB. Explorer (part of IE) weighs in at 14 MB."
Explorer is not part of IE. They both share a DLL that renders graphics such as a web page or folder view. This explains why IE cannot really be removed, a bunch of other MS apps call it as a generic 'put stuff on the screen' control.
Right now, IE is open to Slashdot and it's using a whole 10 megs. Most of that memory is being used to store the graphics etc on the site so that you can scroll without having to decode compressed images. The reason why yours is up to 20 megs is because you've been browsing a while.
I created an APP in VB and called the IE control. Total RAM used by the IE Control: 1.5 meg. It jumps up to 7 meg when I send it to Slashdot.
The only thing that stays resident in RAM is the DLL that's cached. Same thing happens when you fire up Netscape or even Photoshop. You have control over that too if you want to play with registry settings.
Now, I just fired up Mozilla. It's eating up a whole 20 megs and I haven't done anything or gone anywhere yet.
So no: IE is not eating up that much memory. It's called quickly because MS made the control that does the browsing stuff come up quickly. They needed it to because if Explorer worked like Mozilla or Netscape did, moving files around on your computer would be painful.
Consider this: Calling IE doesn't call up a mail app or news reading app. That's one of the reasons it's slimmer.
I personally haven't had stability problems with any of my three machines. (1 work, 1 home, 1 laptop) Are you using Win9x, or 2k maybe? 2k right here.
Just curious. I could see QT going quirky on 98 or ME. I haven't used either in ages so I can't vouch for stability there.
I seem to have had a great deal of better luck with Microsoft products in general than most people and I'm trying to figure out if I have magic computers or something.
"If you don't have 256 MB of RAM, but you like to have your favourite browser loaded into memory 24x7 so it pops up as fast as IE, you'd need IE removed to free the (many) megabytes of RAM it wastes."
I'm not running at 256 megs of ram. I'm running at 128. Frankly, I don't think 2-3 megs are going to significantly improve my browsing experience. It would, however, severely impact my file operations in Windows. It'd also cause Outlook to bloat up a bit so it could interpret it's own HTML.
Sorry, not sold. IE's not my primary browser, but I have plenty of interest in not removing it.
"Believe me, like the rest of you, I love Mozilla, and I live by the tabbed browsing. But unfortunetly, there are a lot of things I do on the Internet that still force me to crawl back to IE."
Frankly, I didn't think the '101 things you can do with Mozilla' was that interesting. Most of the stuff there I'd only care about if I were doing web development today. In that case, yes it'd be really cool. But they're trying to oversell features that most people don't use. I just wanna browse the web, I don't care about color coded source viewing. I do care about the browser opening fast without hogging all the RAM. (Fortunately I'm an Opera user.)
"Even if it is true you aren't likely to win. IE is firmly now a component of the Windows operating system. Removing it will cause the seas to boil and the rivers to run red with blood."
Why do you need to remove IE to use another browser? Even if you could, why would you want to? I still need IE once in a while because some dumb-ass sites think they need to embed Quicktime movies inside their page. Never could quite get QT to work quite right in other browsers.
Re:FUD is bad for them, and bad for OSS too!
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"I think this speaks also to the fact that WE should not be anti-Microsoft, but be pro-OSS."
I've been saying that all along, only in a different context. Slashdot's behaviour of reporting flamebait MS stories isn't doing much good for the community's credibility. It feels like a "it's cool to hate Microsoft!" club.
Frankly, any story about MS these days causes lots of people to roll their eyes. Then, it's balanced with a "Hey look, another guy got Linux up and running!" story. It paints the picture that MS = Bad because Linux = good. Unfortunately, that won't do a whole lot to convince MS users to switch to Linux. It's a religious debate. Inject some professionalism and objectivity into Slashdot, and people will make their decisions more intelligently.
Let me put it another way: MS's updates to the SP3 EULA are an annoyance. They are not a reason to switch to Linux. However, Linux being free and not caring about how many copies I have is a reason to switch to Linux when I get my next computer. The difference is subtle, but it's there.
Choose your battles. Fight everything and you'll gain nothing.
Re:It's pretty fast...
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"It's nice to see someone make use of this as a way to download software."
Kazaa does that. Their mini-installer logged into the P2P network and pulled the files down from one of the peers. When I started Kazaa again, the first thing that happened was people started downloading it from me.
I thought it was kinda cool. Far less bandwidth use on their part.
Okay, so they're saying people shouldn't buy Tivo because people are going to stop buying Tivo. Aren't they causing people to stop buying Tivo by telling people Tivo will fail because people aren't going to buy it?
Anybody can make anything sound bad by lining up the negatives.
Slashdot Mirror
"If I give you audio books of the same book, one read by william shatner and another by star jones, are they really copies?"
Believe it or not, they can bust ya for it. That's why you have to pay royalties to perform somebody else's song.
I wonder if they can make a DVD that'll play in DVD players which will play music when in a CD player. I vaguely remember talk of something like that, but no idea if that ever materialized. Pity if they can't do that, that'd be really cool.
Oh well, maybe the DVD Audio will make stuff like that possible.
Cheers man.
Heh. Cheers man. :)
'Why not try Pheonix [mozilla.org] then?'
I'm happy with Opera?
"That would be cool....but is it more expensive then just the CD without the DVD? If it is, there goes the appeal.."
No idea. I'm not a fan of Eminem. I can tell you that I'm the type of person to pay more for a DVD if it has 'Special Features'. As a matter of fact, I rarely buy DVDs that are without Special Features. (or they're uninteresting) When I get into a movie, I really get into it. I kinda figured that people who are really into bands are the same way.
Not really. Here's what he said:
"There's a store here (Big Lots, basically they sell somewhat crappy merchandise at great prices) that I go into whenever I'm getting my oil changed to pass the time."
He's exploring new music while he's getting his oil changed, and you're telling him to change his own oil. Not sure why you'd say 'Learn to change your own oil' and then follow up with "But I don't mean change it each and every time."
I can see why you were modded as off-topic, you're not making any sense. So were you trying to make some sort of point or was the moderator's judgement correct? So far I'm leaning towards the mod.
"You should learn to change your own oil."
And the benefit would be that you could spend more time doing something somebody else can do quickly and inexpensively?
You should back up your claims.
You guys are missing the point. I wasn't talking about legality, I was talking about copy protection. Even the 'perfectly protected' CD can't stop people from duplicating it. The song can always be re-performed.
"..but if CD's were only $3-4, I would be buying them impulsively with little regard as to whether I would even listen to it."
Heck, I'd settle for a "send us a list of MP3s you have and we'll send you a fair priced bill for digital use" service.
The RIAA would make a few bucks off me that way.
"This makes it completely unusable where privacy of data matters (patient medical data is a recent high-profile example, insert several others here)."
Fine argument except I don't have data pertinent to anybody. I'm not convinced that somebody couldn't get into my Windows box anyway, so what's the point in blocking MS off?
That's not the focus of my point, though. I don't care. I don't keep sensitive data no my computer. That's why it's not a reason for me to switch. It's a reason for me to not keep sensitive data on my machine.
So, in other words, the RIAA should respond to supply and demand.
"Why waste the money and resources to 'secure' the CD, and piss off and lose customers?"
I got a better question: Why try to 'protect' one of the easiest forms of media to duplicate?
I mean seriously, if they got to the point that it was possible to totally secure music so that it couldn't be copied (even with a mic to a speaker), what's to prevent an ameteur band from re-singing the song and recording their version of it?
Would it sound the same? Nope. Potentially, it could sound better. Look at the popularity of remixes today. I guarantee you, it'd just drive the need for RIAA independent people to surface.
What the RIAA should be doing is enticing their customers to buy the CDs in the stores. Didn't the recent Eminem album launch with a DVD in it? That's pretty damn cool. They should think about doing more stuff like that. Heck, include Video CD's with band interviews or remixes or something, I dunno. If you're having trouble making your product sell, make it more appealing.
"My task manager on this machine says IE weighs in at 22 MB. Explorer (part of IE) weighs in at 14 MB."
If you kill Explorer.exe, IExplore.exe still works just fine.
Explorer is not part of IE, it calls the same object that IE does to blit folders to the screen. Outlook, FrontPage, Common 'File/Save/Load' dialogs, and a bunch of VB apps also use this object. You can probably remove that object, but all those other apps will be crippled and will have to use their own method to interpret the graphics.
That's why I always thought the debate about removing IE was stupid. Sure you can remove it, if you want to make everybody else's life harder.
"My task manager on this machine says IE weighs in at 22 MB. Explorer (part of IE) weighs in at 14 MB."
Explorer is not part of IE. They both share a DLL
that renders graphics such as a web page or folder view. This explains why IE cannot really be removed, a bunch of other MS apps call it as a generic 'put stuff on the screen' control.
Right now, IE is open to Slashdot and it's using a whole 10 megs. Most of that memory is being used to store the graphics etc on the site so that you can scroll without having to decode compressed images. The reason why yours is up to 20 megs is because you've been browsing a while.
I created an APP in VB and called the IE control. Total RAM used by the IE Control: 1.5 meg. It jumps up to 7 meg when I send it to Slashdot.
The only thing that stays resident in RAM is the DLL that's cached. Same thing happens when you fire up Netscape or even Photoshop. You have control over that too if you want to play with registry settings.
Now, I just fired up Mozilla. It's eating up a whole 20 megs and I haven't done anything or gone anywhere yet.
So no: IE is not eating up that much memory. It's called quickly because MS made the control that does the browsing stuff come up quickly. They needed it to because if Explorer worked like Mozilla or Netscape did, moving files around on your computer would be painful.
Consider this: Calling IE doesn't call up a mail app or news reading app. That's one of the reasons it's slimmer.
I personally haven't had stability problems with any of my three machines. (1 work, 1 home, 1 laptop) Are you using Win9x, or 2k maybe? 2k right here.
Just curious. I could see QT going quirky on 98 or ME. I haven't used either in ages so I can't vouch for stability there.
I seem to have had a great deal of better luck with Microsoft products in general than most people and I'm trying to figure out if I have magic computers or something.
"If you don't have 256 MB of RAM, but you like to have your favourite browser loaded into memory 24x7 so it pops up as fast as IE, you'd need IE removed to free the (many) megabytes of RAM it wastes."
I'm not running at 256 megs of ram. I'm running at 128. Frankly, I don't think 2-3 megs are going to significantly improve my browsing experience. It would, however, severely impact my file operations in Windows. It'd also cause Outlook to bloat up a bit so it could interpret it's own HTML.
Sorry, not sold. IE's not my primary browser, but I have plenty of interest in not removing it.
"Believe me, like the rest of you, I love Mozilla, and I live by the tabbed browsing. But unfortunetly, there are a lot of things I do on the Internet that still force me to crawl back to IE."
Frankly, I didn't think the '101 things you can do with Mozilla' was that interesting. Most of the stuff there I'd only care about if I were doing web development today. In that case, yes it'd be really cool. But they're trying to oversell features that most people don't use. I just wanna browse the web, I don't care about color coded source viewing. I do care about the browser opening fast without hogging all the RAM. (Fortunately I'm an Opera user.)
"Even if it is true you aren't likely to win. IE is firmly now a component of the Windows operating system. Removing it will cause the seas to boil and the rivers to run red with blood."
Why do you need to remove IE to use another browser? Even if you could, why would you want to? I still need IE once in a while because some dumb-ass sites think they need to embed Quicktime movies inside their page. Never could quite get QT to work quite right in other browsers.
"I think this speaks also to the fact that WE should not be anti-Microsoft, but be pro-OSS."
I've been saying that all along, only in a different context. Slashdot's behaviour of reporting flamebait MS stories isn't doing much good for the community's credibility. It feels like a "it's cool to hate Microsoft!" club.
Frankly, any story about MS these days causes lots of people to roll their eyes. Then, it's balanced with a "Hey look, another guy got Linux up and running!" story. It paints the picture that MS = Bad because Linux = good. Unfortunately, that won't do a whole lot to convince MS users to switch to Linux. It's a religious debate. Inject some professionalism and objectivity into Slashdot, and people will make their decisions more intelligently.
Let me put it another way: MS's updates to the SP3 EULA are an annoyance. They are not a reason to switch to Linux. However, Linux being free and not caring about how many copies I have is a reason to switch to Linux when I get my next computer. The difference is subtle, but it's there.
Choose your battles. Fight everything and you'll gain nothing.
"It's nice to see someone make use of this as a way to download software."
Kazaa does that. Their mini-installer logged into the P2P network and pulled the files down from one of the peers. When I started Kazaa again, the first thing that happened was people started downloading it from me.
I thought it was kinda cool. Far less bandwidth use on their part.
"Okay, CD sales are down. Suggestions?"
"I know!! Let's lock up our CDs so that the customers buying them can't do what they want with them. That'll recoup our losses!"
Okay, so they're saying people shouldn't buy Tivo because people are going to stop buying Tivo. Aren't they causing people to stop buying Tivo by telling people Tivo will fail because people aren't going to buy it?
Anybody can make anything sound bad by lining up the negatives.
"Who is going to run a server on 7k/sec?"
Anybody who uses ATTBI as their provider because Qworst is their only broadband alternative.
Compaq definitely made lots of money from MS. Packard Bell, well they just sucked.
Your post begs the timeless question: "So?"