"note to c|net... those iMac adopters can ALREADY watch Harry Potter, you NONCES!. They bought the open media format on DVD and are already watching it! Do you have to practice to be this stupid?"
You are a complete moron or can't read. I'm not sure which. Movielink is trying to RENT you Harry Potter, not sell you it. That's why they need drm. That's why they don't support Macs. I swear, people have lost the abolity to read and comprehend anything when it includes the letters DRM
"This story is 100% bullshit. None of the pay-for-stale_media services has ever worked out. Yet, this article touts that these services are the wave of the future...?! Its not news to call listen-per-pay the future.. its and damn lie.
"
How about Blockbuster? They rent movies and are fairly successful. What makes you think people won't want to do this online some day.
How do you expect them to include mac users when the mac doesn't support a means of making the movie expire after the rental period is over? BTW, you can watch a movie on tv from your mac by running a cable to your tv, assuming macs have s-video out. This will eventually replace blockbuster.
How do you expect to be able to RENT a movie online without a mechanism to return the movie? DRM allows a file to expire, thereby automatically returning the movie at the deadline. There is no way to do this on a mac, so you can't rent a movie from movielink. I don't see this as an advantage. Why do you?
Most of you have missed the point. The point is, Movielink cannot legally RENT movies to mac users because they have no mechanism to make the file expire after a week or so. I said months ago this would be a problem when everyone was cheering about Macs not using DRM. This is not unexpected.
The problem is that you can't RENT a video without a DRM format that expires after a week or so. This model will eventually replace the video store since it is much more convenient.
The idea in the long run is, you run a cable or wireless setup between your computer and your tv. Then you download the movie from the net and watch it on tv instead of having to go out to the video store. It's like NetFlix without the postal service.
Sounds like the EU is trying to protect the current cell phone sw makers. They're the ones being anticompetitve. I don't see how MS's pc market gives them any leverage with cell phone makers and cell phone networks.
If you give the govt. the right to take away someone's freedom, such as that of the people who run MS, don't be surprised when they start taking away your freedom.
Windows vs Linux/BSD security
on
Due Diligence?
·
· Score: 1
Given all the crap posted yesterday claiming MS software was terrible with regard to security, I find this somewhat amusing. I was going to say then that the sysadmin patching the system is more of a security bottleneck than whether you're running Linux/BSD or Windows in most practical respects. This seems to confirm that fact. Also makes the optional automatic patching feature of Winodws look very attractive, despite all the paranoid comments I read yesterday.
"You miss the point.
Microsoft controls 95% of the desktop market give or take a point or two. They have already gone to major manufacturer's of computers like Dell, Compaq etc. and told them that if they shipped ANY of there computers with any non-Microsoft OS that they would have to pay more for the EVERY Microsoft OS that they ship."
MS shouldn't be forced to help their competition. If they don't want to sell to anyone because they're also selling competing products, that's they're right. No one's stopping an OEM from selling non-MS products only. The burden needs to be on the new OS to convince someone it's worth the venture.
I didn't say that there are a limited number of cases or that the research cost was high. If a single unregulated drug company has a monopoly on a drug they can financially rape the public. And no, no, no, this is NOT what insurance is for!"
If it weren't for the drug company there would be NO cure and your only option would be to die. By regulating the price, you kill incentive to develop new drugs, and then you have no new drugs. Better to let a company charge $25000 if they want. It's their creation. You have no right to take it from them or tell them how they can sell it. To do so is immoral. I never claimed insurance was a free ride, but drug development isn't either. Gore now admits wanting to socialize medicine. How many good doctors are we going to lose under this policy because they don't think med school is worth the effort to earn a govt. salary.
If you give this type of power to govt., don't be surprised when they take away YOUR individual rights as well. Once you start saying certain individuals don't have certain rights, even though their actions aren't infringing on others rights, it's open season for the govt controlling your life. I see tons of complaints against govt regulation on slashdot, except when they're legislating MS, of course. So slashdotters shouldn't complain about the govt. They asked for it.
Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. Communism is like taxes where you pay 100% of your income and hope the government will provide what you claim to need.
Re:It's gonna be a corporate giveaway this session
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 1
Rich people pay about half their income in taxes. If you think this is fair, then you should move to China or some other socialist country. I don't blame Republicans for trying to change some of the socialist laws that have corrupted the US.
But Nike would go out of business anyway, if that really could happen. Then you wouldn't be able to get any sneakers anymore, because the store would go out of business too. Nice model for society.
I remember having to learn ada. It's like pascal where you wear out your fingers typing the code, it's so verbose. Plus it's slow because it checks to make sure you do everything just right, re: array bounds, etc.
What unfair advantage? They have the majority marketshare that they earned. How is that unfair? As for our medicine thing, it's fine to charge $25000, if their are a limited number of cases and if it costs $20,000,000 to research. That's why we have insurance. If you say pay $650 or don't use a computer, another competitor will develop a competing product and charge $100. That's how free market works. Free market balance is inherent, and shouldn't be tampered with if for no other reason than it's a violation of a civil liberty.
I'm not trying to be metaphoric. I'm saying that if the govt. started legislating what you and your kids could do as a group, even if they weren't things infringing on other families rights,you'd say that was against the principles on which the US was founded. Yet when they do it to groups of people in business together, people think it's ok.
Re:They're charging $200 for this?
on
Review: EyeTV
·
· Score: 1
Here's one that's cheap
http://store.yahoo.com/akidacomputer/mpegencar.htm l Don't know if you can get MacOS X drivers though. Plus you need Freevo or something to do the tivo functions.
Re:They're charging $200 for this?
on
Review: EyeTV
·
· Score: 1
You can get a video capture card with mpeg-1 encoder for under $100.
http://store.yahoo.com/akidacomputer/mpegencar.htm l
If you look back a couple of stories on slashdot, you'll see a story on an incident involving trojaned open source software. OSS is not as secure as you might think.
Regardless of the culprit, this instance proves that MS has no monopoly on inept security. Therefore, more steps need to be taken to insure that downloaded source is authentic.
They're charging $200 for this?
on
Review: EyeTV
·
· Score: 1
Why not just get a video tuner card? That's all this thing is, plus whatever software they wrote to make it work like a TiVO
Slashdot Mirror
"note to c|net... those iMac adopters can ALREADY watch Harry Potter, you NONCES!. They bought the open media format on DVD and are already watching it! Do you have to practice to be this stupid?"
You are a complete moron or can't read. I'm not sure which. Movielink is trying to RENT you Harry Potter, not sell you it. That's why they need drm. That's why they don't support Macs. I swear, people have lost the abolity to read and comprehend anything when it includes the letters DRM
"This story is 100% bullshit. None of the pay-for-stale_media services has ever worked out. Yet, this article touts that these services are the wave of the future...?! Its not news to call listen-per-pay the future.. its and damn lie. "
How about Blockbuster? They rent movies and are fairly successful. What makes you think people won't want to do this online some day.
How do you expect them to include mac users when the mac doesn't support a means of making the movie expire after the rental period is over? BTW, you can watch a movie on tv from your mac by running a cable to your tv, assuming macs have s-video out. This will eventually replace blockbuster.
How do you expect to be able to RENT a movie online without a mechanism to return the movie? DRM allows a file to expire, thereby automatically returning the movie at the deadline. There is no way to do this on a mac, so you can't rent a movie from movielink. I don't see this as an advantage. Why do you?
Most of you have missed the point. The point is, Movielink cannot legally RENT movies to mac users because they have no mechanism to make the file expire after a week or so. I said months ago this would be a problem when everyone was cheering about Macs not using DRM. This is not unexpected.
The problem is that you can't RENT a video without a DRM format that expires after a week or so. This model will eventually replace the video store since it is much more convenient.
The idea in the long run is, you run a cable or wireless setup between your computer and your tv. Then you download the movie from the net and watch it on tv instead of having to go out to the video store. It's like NetFlix without the postal service.
Sounds like the EU is trying to protect the current cell phone sw makers. They're the ones being anticompetitve. I don't see how MS's pc market gives them any leverage with cell phone makers and cell phone networks.
If you give the govt. the right to take away someone's freedom, such as that of the people who run MS, don't be surprised when they start taking away your freedom.
Given all the crap posted yesterday claiming MS software was terrible with regard to security, I find this somewhat amusing. I was going to say then that the sysadmin patching the system is more of a security bottleneck than whether you're running Linux/BSD or Windows in most practical respects. This seems to confirm that fact. Also makes the optional automatic patching feature of Winodws look very attractive, despite all the paranoid comments I read yesterday.
"You miss the point. Microsoft controls 95% of the desktop market give or take a point or two. They have already gone to major manufacturer's of computers like Dell, Compaq etc. and told them that if they shipped ANY of there computers with any non-Microsoft OS that they would have to pay more for the EVERY Microsoft OS that they ship."
MS shouldn't be forced to help their competition. If they don't want to sell to anyone because they're also selling competing products, that's they're right. No one's stopping an OEM from selling non-MS products only. The burden needs to be on the new OS to convince someone it's worth the venture.
I didn't say that there are a limited number of cases or that the research cost was high. If a single unregulated drug company has a monopoly on a drug they can financially rape the public. And no, no, no, this is NOT what insurance is for!"
If it weren't for the drug company there would be NO cure and your only option would be to die. By regulating the price, you kill incentive to develop new drugs, and then you have no new drugs. Better to let a company charge $25000 if they want. It's their creation. You have no right to take it from them or tell them how they can sell it. To do so is immoral. I never claimed insurance was a free ride, but drug development isn't either. Gore now admits wanting to socialize medicine. How many good doctors are we going to lose under this policy because they don't think med school is worth the effort to earn a govt. salary.
If you give this type of power to govt., don't be surprised when they take away YOUR individual rights as well. Once you start saying certain individuals don't have certain rights, even though their actions aren't infringing on others rights, it's open season for the govt controlling your life. I see tons of complaints against govt regulation on slashdot, except when they're legislating MS, of course. So slashdotters shouldn't complain about the govt. They asked for it.
Exactly. Communism is like taxes where you pay 100% of your income and hope the government will provide what you claim to need.
Rich people pay about half their income in taxes. If you think this is fair, then you should move to China or some other socialist country. I don't blame Republicans for trying to change some of the socialist laws that have corrupted the US.
But Nike would go out of business anyway, if that really could happen. Then you wouldn't be able to get any sneakers anymore, because the store would go out of business too. Nice model for society.
"low quality of microsoft software thus far."
Works fine for me. I don't know what you did to screw it up.
I remember having to learn ada. It's like pascal where you wear out your fingers typing the code, it's so verbose. Plus it's slow because it checks to make sure you do everything just right, re: array bounds, etc.
I'm not a Republican. I never said I was. Vote libertarian.
What unfair advantage? They have the majority marketshare that they earned. How is that unfair? As for our medicine thing, it's fine to charge $25000, if their are a limited number of cases and if it costs $20,000,000 to research. That's why we have insurance. If you say pay $650 or don't use a computer, another competitor will develop a competing product and charge $100. That's how free market works. Free market balance is inherent, and shouldn't be tampered with if for no other reason than it's a violation of a civil liberty.
I'm not trying to be metaphoric. I'm saying that if the govt. started legislating what you and your kids could do as a group, even if they weren't things infringing on other families rights,you'd say that was against the principles on which the US was founded. Yet when they do it to groups of people in business together, people think it's ok.
Here's one that's cheapm l
http://store.yahoo.com/akidacomputer/mpegencar.ht
Don't know if you can get MacOS X drivers though. Plus you need Freevo or something to do the tivo functions.
You can get a video capture card with mpeg-1 encoder for under $100.m l
http://store.yahoo.com/akidacomputer/mpegencar.ht
If you look back a couple of stories on slashdot, you'll see a story on an incident involving trojaned open source software. OSS is not as secure as you might think.
Regardless of the culprit, this instance proves that MS has no monopoly on inept security. Therefore, more steps need to be taken to insure that downloaded source is authentic.
Why not just get a video tuner card? That's all this thing is, plus whatever software they wrote to make it work like a TiVO