But if you're at a resturant, the mall, in a plane, train, bus, etc. where it is considered acceptable to carry on a conversation with the person(s) next to you, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to talk into a phone.
Well said.
I want to know where all these people are that can't use a phone without pissing everybody off. I live in Portland, Oregon. You can't throw a rock here without hitting 3 people with a cell phone. Yet, they are not a huge nuisance here. Occasionally a phone rings in a movie, that's usually taken care of pretty quick. I don't even have any stories about people being stupid with their phones at a movie. Restaraunts: no biggie. Lotsa ppl use their phones, there are not lotsa people raising their voices.
As a matter of fact, the only complaint I have about a cell phone user is an executive who likes to leave his phone on its loudest setting, and then the people who call him don't bother leaving a voice mail. Instead, they call again... and again... and again... In a cubicle environment, this is a no no. Is this a problem with him being a cell phone user? No, it's a problem with him being an executive. "My phone calls are important." Whatever.
So every time I hear these people getting upset, a big question mark appears over my head. Either people in Portland are far more polite with their phones than in some other areas (which is possible...) or the people posting all these anti-cell phone posts on Slashdot are exaggerating.
Bear in mind that I'm not challenging anybody's story, I just want to know why my experience is so different. If somebody can give me a good reason, then the next time I read somebody's "everybody who uses a cell phone is an ass" post my first instinct won't be to think "or you just need to grow a thicker skin."
"The worst, though, are people who use them in the restroom. "Ah, yeah, let's close that business deal. Hang on one second, will you? Unnnh! Unnhhhhhhh! [sploosh] oh yeah! Okay, now about those terms..."
Dude, I got into trouble with my gf once over that. Girlfriends are happy to give you all the details about their period, but use the cell phone from the toilet and you're the most disgusting man alive.
"It sounds like you are used to seeing poor quality encodes. There is an art to getting the best quality out of the bandwidth allocated."
The probable reason for the poor quality encode is that there is some need to play these movies on a television via DVD player. The choices for playback on a DVD player are not ideal. MPEG-1 (VCD) is rather old and is not as efficient. MPEG2 (SVCD) always seems to be used for higher bitrate stuff and is never/rarely used for the lower bitrate stuff like you'd need for a CD. I never did find out if that's because MPEG2's meant for high quality video or if it's because MPEG2 has issues at lower resolutions.
A nice solution to this problem would be a hacked XBOX....
I've seen quite a few 90 minute long movies squeezed into a 700 meg file. They all ran at 640 by 480 and artifacting is minimal.
Also, VHS quality is roughly 320 by 240. Once you start playing a TV, the difference isn't so noticable.
I set up a PVR using Snapstream and captured a few shows with it at 330 kbits. (4 hours per CD) Was the quality worse than VHS? Oh yeah, VHS was preferable in terms of quality. However, once the show starts, you forget all that. The loss in quality sounds bad until you've actually experienced that.
Then there are the benefits:
- I have the entire series of Quantum Leap sitting on my computer, chewing up about 12 gigs. I can call them up on a click's notice, or dump them to my laptop. (as a matter of fact, I found that rather entertaining on my last business trip.)
- Never had to change tapes. When the show was preempted or a duplicate episode aired, I just used the delete key and reclaimed my space.
- It'd take roughly 25 CD's to back up my current collection at 4 eps per CD. If I took the time to edit the commercials, that number would (in theory) get even smaller. A stack of 25 CD's a little bigger than 1 (one) VHS tape. It'd take roughly 16 tapes to cover the same amount of footage.
One thing I gave up with the Snapstream approach is the ability to pop in a DVD player and play. I have a computer hooked up to a TV, that's how I watch on a big screen. To be honest, though, I prefer to play off the HD and watch on my other monitor while I'm doing other stuff on the net. I reserve the TV for shows that I really want to dedicate full attention to.
In any case, it's quite workable. I can't wait until DVD's are wherre CDRs are today. There won't be any more quality debate, unless HDTV finally rolls out. heh.
"It's not really a pen, per se, since you cannot use it with regular paper. What good is the pen, since it can only be used with the special digital paper?"
I have an interesting use for it. I make 3D Models for a living. My process is this:
- Draw a few pictures of what I'm going to build. They sort of resemble blue-prints when I'm done. - Scan the drawings - ??? - Profit!
Okay, I'm kidding about the profit part. It would be a huge time saver for me if I could just link the pen to my computer and send the data down to the computer. If it stores the data in vector format, then it means that I can drastically thin down the lines, re-print the image, then draw finer details of it.
So not only would this save me time (it should be faster than scanning for what I do...) but it also provides me a capability I don't have today. (again, assuming they store the data in vectors. Their site is none too clear on that issue.)
"Its like condensing this quote from the Bible: "Thou shalt not kill." to this: "Thou shalt... kill."
Ever notice how people tend to enhance their point by using a colorful metaphor? It's like when car dealerships use over-powered search lights so that people cannot go anywhere without seeing them.
"Oh that's okqya, sometimes I have to type something when i havn't had any coffee yet. The result is usua;llly somethong like thios. SOmehow my fingers (adn my brain) need vcoffee to type somewaht corectly."
Anybody else amazed this wasn't followed by a string of replies along the lines of "I'm too intelligent to read a post with a typo in it."?
"sfotware activation is precisely 0 on the new factor. Its been around for more than 20 years. If not longer. I fail to see why its relevant to at diatribe against Paladium/MS. "
For individual apps? Yes. However, we're talking about your entire computer needing activation. Not cool.
"Palladium is no more DRM than PGP is DRM, or RSA is DRM. DRM is DRM."
The reasons to despise either are the same. Enough said.
"Palladium is not DRM. Palladium is hardware enforced encryption."
Palladium is a set of digital rights for what processes on your computer will and won't do. Go read the FAQ here and tell me that doesn't sound like DRM.
"No one is forcing you, or will force you to use anything related to Palladium (well maybe your boss, but he's probably a jackass)."
Question: Can you still run Windows 95 in today's world? You can't say yes without saying "as long as I give up a few things...". If you're a Windows user, you are not running Windows 95 or Windows 3.1 comfortably.
"False. Windows XP can phone home for you, or you can do it yourself. Big deal. "
False? You restated his point and said 'false'. Heh. And yes, it is a big deal. MS can not only deny you from using Windows XP, but your computer's existence is dependent on them remaining in business. They'll eventually cancel support for XP (like they did with Win95), and you'll have no option to continue running it. MS has turned Windows into a subscription model without anybody really realizing that.
"That check box clicking thing got you down? Whats wrong with software that offers to keep itself current? On the one hand you say MS sucks for its security problems, and then on other hand when they design software to help reduce exploitability after a compromise is found you freak out. You cant have it both ways."
Narrow view alert! Heh. What if the auto-update dealie is hijacked? What if the update will break something else on your machine? What if you already fixed the vulnerability another way and don't want to potentially add new problems to your machine?
"I have no idea what you are talking about, but its definately not related to Palladium."
DRM cannot work without Palladium. Palladium will give DRM the toolset it needs in order to work. In a sense, Palladium is DRM (or at least it does the same job), and it is very much a concern.
Palladium isn't directly DRM, but it can (and probably will) be used to enforce restriction technologies. Here's an excerpt from MS's FAQ on the topic:
"The goal with "Palladium" is to help protect software from software; that is, to provide a set of features and services that a software application can use to defend against malicious software also running on the machine (viruses running in the main operating system, keyboard sniffers, frame grabbers, etc). "Palladium" is not designed to provide defenses against hardware-based attacks that originate from someone in control of the local machine. "
Here's the address of that FAQ: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/news/pal lfaq2.asp?frame=true#a
Palladium != DRM (confusion on my part), but the features of it very easily pave the way for it. If you can't use 'frame grabbers' for example, then you can only take screen grabs of programs that allow it. That alone is enough to turn me off. I'm an artist. I use images from all kinds of sources in all kinds of ways. (legally, of course)
In any case, yes I made an error in my post. I wouldn't say it's off-topic, though. (assuming that is where you were going...)
"As soon as they start to make high quality movies available for download, what's to stop people from sharing them on Kazaa? "
I thought I had already covered that in my previous post. I guess I can go into a little more detail:
Pay them money, and you can get the video pretty fast. Go through Kazaa, it can take hours, even days for it to come through. In other words, Hollywood actually provides a service.
Secondly, what's to convince me to share a movie? "Dude, if you want the movie, go buy it." I wouldn't have to keep my computer constantly busy to share it. Sharing files on your computer is a chore. It disrupts your net connection, drains on your computer's performance, and it's just not worth it if a reasonably priced alternative is available. The MPAA doesn't even need copy protection (restriction) to make it unattractive to transfer movies. All they need to do make the movie bigger (i.e. higher resolution or less compression) to make it even less attractive to send around. Most'll download a 2-gig movie at 100K/s before I download a 600 meg movie at 15K/s. Those who are willing to trade the files despite the availabilty of that service are over-exerting themselves to save a few measly dolllars.
Third, they could offer streaming. This may or may not be interesting to everybody, but I certainly like the idea of hitting 'ok' to submit my payment, then moments later the movie starts. It sure beats waiting a while to download the video. If they were smart, they'd have a streaming solution that stores to your hard-drive as well for an extra nominal fee.
There it is. There's a business opportunity right there. But Hollywood would rather stop you from doing things that they think is harming sales than take a risk and potentially make more money from you.
"In my opinion, there is not a device driver problem here. Intel/Dialogic isn't the only vendor supporting Linux. And they don't support it out of the kindness of their heart: they support it because doing so helps sell hardware."
All it takes is for there to be a perception that Linux isn't supported in the drivers area for somebody to say "I'll go with Windows". The solution for Linux may be out there, but I wouldn't bet >$500 on it.
"True enough... but using logic like "I trust banks, so why not trust MS" is pure lunacy.."
To be fair, he asked a question, and you answered it. There's no lunacy involved. Not everybody is aware of what happens when a bank gets robbed. When MS goes bad, your computer's ability to function is affected. When banks go bad, your ability to buy food is affected. The Banks may have serious consequences with messing with you, but the gov't doesn't respond quickly enough to prevent you from starving.
I agree that his example was not very well connected, but lunacy's not the word I'd use.
Well, the bank has incentive to not screw with you a whole lot. Mainly because of the competition and mainly because the Gov't takes that type of crap very seriously.
MS doesn't have niether competition nor federal mandates preventing computers from being restricted.
"hat needs to be done, though, is draft an extension to the ADA that specifies what types of sites require access - a shotgun approach would only cause more problems."
Do you honestly think that's going to solve the problem? I don't. Everybody is a 'special case', if not for the product they sell, then for the technology involved. "We serve movies over the internet, but the technology we use doesn't support closed captioning."
Personally, I think the industry should develop a standard. Let each segment handle it in their own way instead of giving them a bare minimum to reach. If the gov't says "You MUST make your site more accessible for the blind..." then the company will say "Okay, let's find the shortest path to fulfilling that mandate." If a group of blind people get vocal and say "we cannot use a bunch of sites..." then the sites will see a new marketing opportunity and start to become innovative. "Let's use this technology a startup company developed to satisfiy their needs."
The biggest problem is awareness, not unwillingness. I don't think most sites are even aware that blind people surf the web. Certainly not enough of them to warrant seemingly radical changes to their site.
" The parent Anonymous Coward poster is at fault of jumping to conclusions and Feeding The Troll(TM)."
To be fair, I didn't jump to any conclusions, I expressed my initial reaction in a way that people could tell me I'm wrong. Notice my opening line is a question:
"Can anybody tell me why I shouldn't think of this as extremist or fanatical? Maybe I'm reading this in the wrong mood, but it seems to me like..."
Anyway, I see what you're saying. I appreciate the thoughtful response. I just wanted to make the point that I was careful not to 'express myself into a corner'. I wasn't sure if I got what they were saying or not.
Slashdot Mirror
"You're thinking of the TURDIS"
Hey, it beats the name "Honey Bucket".
Out of curiosity, do you know which ep that is or some keywords I could use to find that out?
I think I missed that ep, and ya got me curious!
Well said.
I want to know where all these people are that can't use a phone without pissing everybody off. I live in Portland, Oregon. You can't throw a rock here without hitting 3 people with a cell phone. Yet, they are not a huge nuisance here. Occasionally a phone rings in a movie, that's usually taken care of pretty quick. I don't even have any stories about people being stupid with their phones at a movie. Restaraunts: no biggie. Lotsa ppl use their phones, there are not lotsa people raising their voices.
As a matter of fact, the only complaint I have about a cell phone user is an executive who likes to leave his phone on its loudest setting, and then the people who call him don't bother leaving a voice mail. Instead, they call again... and again... and again... In a cubicle environment, this is a no no. Is this a problem with him being a cell phone user? No, it's a problem with him being an executive. "My phone calls are important." Whatever.
So every time I hear these people getting upset, a big question mark appears over my head. Either people in Portland are far more polite with their phones than in some other areas (which is possible...) or the people posting all these anti-cell phone posts on Slashdot are exaggerating.
Bear in mind that I'm not challenging anybody's story, I just want to know why my experience is so different. If somebody can give me a good reason, then the next time I read somebody's "everybody who uses a cell phone is an ass" post my first instinct won't be to think "or you just need to grow a thicker skin."
"The worst, though, are people who use them in the restroom. "Ah, yeah, let's close that business deal. Hang on one second, will you? Unnnh! Unnhhhhhhh! [sploosh] oh yeah! Okay, now about those terms..."
Dude, I got into trouble with my gf once over that. Girlfriends are happy to give you all the details about their period, but use the cell phone from the toilet and you're the most disgusting man alive.
"It sounds like you are used to seeing poor quality encodes. There is an art to getting the best quality out of the bandwidth allocated."
The probable reason for the poor quality encode is that there is some need to play these movies on a television via DVD player. The choices for playback on a DVD player are not ideal. MPEG-1 (VCD) is rather old and is not as efficient. MPEG2 (SVCD) always seems to be used for higher bitrate stuff and is never/rarely used for the lower bitrate stuff like you'd need for a CD. I never did find out if that's because MPEG2's meant for high quality video or if it's because MPEG2 has issues at lower resolutions.
A nice solution to this problem would be a hacked XBOX....
I've seen quite a few 90 minute long movies squeezed into a 700 meg file. They all ran at 640 by 480 and artifacting is minimal.
Also, VHS quality is roughly 320 by 240. Once you start playing a TV, the difference isn't so noticable.
I set up a PVR using Snapstream and captured a few shows with it at 330 kbits. (4 hours per CD) Was the quality worse than VHS? Oh yeah, VHS was preferable in terms of quality. However, once the show starts, you forget all that. The loss in quality sounds bad until you've actually experienced that.
Then there are the benefits:
- I have the entire series of Quantum Leap sitting on my computer, chewing up about 12 gigs. I can call them up on a click's notice, or dump them to my laptop. (as a matter of fact, I found that rather entertaining on my last business trip.)
- Never had to change tapes. When the show was preempted or a duplicate episode aired, I just used the delete key and reclaimed my space.
- It'd take roughly 25 CD's to back up my current collection at 4 eps per CD. If I took the time to edit the commercials, that number would (in theory) get even smaller. A stack of 25 CD's a little bigger than 1 (one) VHS tape. It'd take roughly 16 tapes to cover the same amount of footage.
One thing I gave up with the Snapstream approach is the ability to pop in a DVD player and play. I have a computer hooked up to a TV, that's how I watch on a big screen. To be honest, though, I prefer to play off the HD and watch on my other monitor while I'm doing other stuff on the net. I reserve the TV for shows that I really want to dedicate full attention to.
In any case, it's quite workable. I can't wait until DVD's are wherre CDRs are today. There won't be any more quality debate, unless HDTV finally rolls out. heh.
"It's not really a pen, per se, since you cannot use it with regular paper. What good is the pen, since it can only be used with the special digital paper?"
I have an interesting use for it. I make 3D Models for a living. My process is this:
- Draw a few pictures of what I'm going to build. They sort of resemble blue-prints when I'm done.
- Scan the drawings
- ???
- Profit!
Okay, I'm kidding about the profit part. It would be a huge time saver for me if I could just link the pen to my computer and send the data down to the computer. If it stores the data in vector format, then it means that I can drastically thin down the lines, re-print the image, then draw finer details of it.
So not only would this save me time (it should be faster than scanning for what I do...) but it also provides me a capability I don't have today. (again, assuming they store the data in vectors. Their site is none too clear on that issue.)
$200 is a little steep, but I may invest in it.
"If you go to webster [webster.com]
you'll easily find that plural from virus is viruses..."
I'm glad you clarified that. I was having trouble understanding what that guy said until you showed up.
"Humans are number 1! Humans are number 1"
Feels kinda like a game of Age of Empires, duddn't it?
"I want to see them melt..."
Why? So you can blow it? Heh.
Okay, that was rude. I'm sorry. It's just that when I read his post I remembered a classic line from the Simpsons:
"The students will never again make fun of your name, Mr. Glasscock."
"Its like condensing this quote from the Bible: "Thou shalt not kill." to this: "Thou shalt ... kill."
Ever notice how people tend to enhance their point by using a colorful metaphor? It's like when car dealerships use over-powered search lights so that people cannot go anywhere without seeing them.
"Oh that's okqya, sometimes I have to type something when i havn't had any coffee yet. The result is usua;llly somethong like thios. SOmehow my fingers (adn my brain) need vcoffee to type somewaht corectly."
Anybody else amazed this wasn't followed by a string of replies along the lines of "I'm too intelligent to read a post with a typo in it."?
It's a joke, laugh.
"A subterranean bunker is designed to withstand nuclear wars, but what do you think would happen if the nuke was inside the bunker?"
I think everybody outside the bunker would be like "What the hell was that?!"
"sfotware activation is precisely 0 on the new factor. Its been around for more than 20 years. If not longer. I fail to see why its relevant to at diatribe against Paladium/MS. "
For individual apps? Yes. However, we're talking about your entire computer needing activation. Not cool.
"Palladium is no more DRM than PGP is DRM, or RSA is DRM. DRM is DRM."
The reasons to despise either are the same. Enough said.
"Palladium is not DRM. Palladium is hardware enforced encryption."
Palladium is a set of digital rights for what processes on your computer will and won't do. Go read the FAQ here and tell me that doesn't sound like DRM.
"No one is forcing you, or will force you to use anything related to Palladium (well maybe your boss, but he's probably a jackass)."
Question: Can you still run Windows 95 in today's world? You can't say yes without saying "as long as I give up a few things...". If you're a Windows user, you are not running Windows 95 or Windows 3.1 comfortably.
"False. Windows XP can phone home for you, or you can do it yourself. Big deal. "
False? You restated his point and said 'false'. Heh. And yes, it is a big deal. MS can not only deny you from using Windows XP, but your computer's existence is dependent on them remaining in business. They'll eventually cancel support for XP (like they did with Win95), and you'll have no option to continue running it. MS has turned Windows into a subscription model without anybody really realizing that.
"That check box clicking thing got you down? Whats wrong with software that offers to keep itself current? On the one hand you say MS sucks for its security problems, and then on other hand when they design software to help reduce exploitability after a compromise is found you freak out. You cant have it both ways."
Narrow view alert! Heh. What if the auto-update dealie is hijacked? What if the update will break something else on your machine? What if you already fixed the vulnerability another way and don't want to potentially add new problems to your machine?
"I have no idea what you are talking about, but its definately not related to Palladium."
DRM cannot work without Palladium. Palladium will give DRM the toolset it needs in order to work. In a sense, Palladium is DRM (or at least it does the same job), and it is very much a concern.
Here's the address of that FAQ: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/news/pa
Palladium != DRM (confusion on my part), but the features of it very easily pave the way for it. If you can't use 'frame grabbers' for example, then you can only take screen grabs of programs that allow it. That alone is enough to turn me off. I'm an artist. I use images from all kinds of sources in all kinds of ways. (legally, of course)
In any case, yes I made an error in my post. I wouldn't say it's off-topic, though. (assuming that is where you were going...)
Me fail english? That's unpossible!
Heh.
I tripped over that part of the sentence a couple of times, then I got frustrated, then I said to hell with it. I'm sorry if I was confusing.
"Just because they are legal, does not mean they are nice. Or not downright evil."
Yet, Microsoft is the one on everybody's radar. Heh.
"As soon as they start to make high quality movies available for download, what's to stop people from sharing them on Kazaa? "
I thought I had already covered that in my previous post. I guess I can go into a little more detail:
Pay them money, and you can get the video pretty fast. Go through Kazaa, it can take hours, even days for it to come through. In other words, Hollywood actually provides a service.
Secondly, what's to convince me to share a movie? "Dude, if you want the movie, go buy it." I wouldn't have to keep my computer constantly busy to share it. Sharing files on your computer is a chore. It disrupts your net connection, drains on your computer's performance, and it's just not worth it if a reasonably priced alternative is available. The MPAA doesn't even need copy protection (restriction) to make it unattractive to transfer movies. All they need to do make the movie bigger (i.e. higher resolution or less compression) to make it even less attractive to send around. Most'll download a 2-gig movie at 100K/s before I download a 600 meg movie at 15K/s. Those who are willing to trade the files despite the availabilty of that service are over-exerting themselves to save a few measly dolllars.
Third, they could offer streaming. This may or may not be interesting to everybody, but I certainly like the idea of hitting 'ok' to submit my payment, then moments later the movie starts. It sure beats waiting a while to download the video. If they were smart, they'd have a streaming solution that stores to your hard-drive as well for an extra nominal fee.
There it is. There's a business opportunity right there. But Hollywood would rather stop you from doing things that they think is harming sales than take a risk and potentially make more money from you.
"In my opinion, there is not a device driver problem here. Intel/Dialogic isn't the only vendor supporting Linux. And they don't support it out of the kindness of their heart: they support it because doing so helps sell hardware."
All it takes is for there to be a perception that Linux isn't supported in the drivers area for somebody to say "I'll go with Windows". The solution for Linux may be out there, but I wouldn't bet >$500 on it.
"True enough... but using logic like "I trust banks, so why not trust MS" is pure lunacy.."
To be fair, he asked a question, and you answered it. There's no lunacy involved. Not everybody is aware of what happens when a bank gets robbed. When MS goes bad, your computer's ability to function is affected. When banks go bad, your ability to buy food is affected. The Banks may have serious consequences with messing with you, but the gov't doesn't respond quickly enough to prevent you from starving.
I agree that his example was not very well connected, but lunacy's not the word I'd use.
Well, the bank has incentive to not screw with you a whole lot. Mainly because of the competition and mainly because the Gov't takes that type of crap very seriously.
MS doesn't have niether competition nor federal mandates preventing computers from being restricted.
"hat needs to be done, though, is draft an extension to the ADA that specifies what types of sites require access - a shotgun approach would only cause more problems."
Do you honestly think that's going to solve the problem? I don't. Everybody is a 'special case', if not for the product they sell, then for the technology involved. "We serve movies over the internet, but the technology we use doesn't support closed captioning."
Personally, I think the industry should develop a standard. Let each segment handle it in their own way instead of giving them a bare minimum to reach. If the gov't says "You MUST make your site more accessible for the blind..." then the company will say "Okay, let's find the shortest path to fulfilling that mandate." If a group of blind people get vocal and say "we cannot use a bunch of sites..." then the sites will see a new marketing opportunity and start to become innovative. "Let's use this technology a startup company developed to satisfiy their needs."
The biggest problem is awareness, not unwillingness. I don't think most sites are even aware that blind people surf the web. Certainly not enough of them to warrant seemingly radical changes to their site.
Careful there buddy, if you copy that line and figure out what the rest of his setence was, you might violate the DMCA.
" The parent Anonymous Coward poster is at fault of jumping to conclusions and Feeding The Troll(TM)."
To be fair, I didn't jump to any conclusions, I expressed my initial reaction in a way that people could tell me I'm wrong. Notice my opening line is a question:
"Can anybody tell me why I shouldn't think of this as extremist or fanatical? Maybe I'm reading this in the wrong mood, but it seems to me like..."
Anyway, I see what you're saying. I appreciate the thoughtful response. I just wanted to make the point that I was careful not to 'express myself into a corner'. I wasn't sure if I got what they were saying or not.