Ooh. This actually sounds quite useful - almost like a video equivalent of FLAC.
Being lossless it's got to be useful for storing master footage without the overheads from raw data, yet without the inherant loss from lossy codecs.
Is anyone who has worked with HuffYUV able to comment on whether it's any good for using instead of "true" raw video data?
This WTL may be OSS, however it depends on the ATL, which is not OSS.
Would it be possible, with WTL being Open, to then fork it to work with other toolkits?
It may not be viable for all I know, but if it was it could be useful.
Wouldn't that help cross-platform porting? Write the UI using WTL. Under Windows it'd use ATL and look native, but you could then compile under *nix, where a WTL port could be hooking into GTK, Qt, or anything really. (Maybe even a fully native port - but with so many UI toolkits one rmoe isn't really needed but something which can sit on top of any would be kinda cool)
Maybe I'm spouting impossibilities - or maybe just implausibly difficult possibilities. But it does sound like it could be used as a stepping stone to somewhere.
Does it really matter which open license is used, as long as an open license is used?
Maybe it's only testing the waters, maybe it's trying to get extra help developing a tool they never intended people to use, maybe it is just a cynical stab at getting some positive PR. It could be all those and more, but still even a year or two ago would anyone think that Microsoft would use Open Source to even do that?
Yes, I'm quietly cynical about it myself. They'll have to do more to convince me, but they've made a start - and already gone further than I ever thought they would. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I'm a realist, and I've been surprised (both positively and negatively) before. I doubt that what Microsoft have done will make a big difference, but I'm also willing to accept the fact that it's not totally impossible and they might well prove me wrong.
But even at my most cynical, I'm not going to add "Didn't use GPL" to my list of complaints.
In the event of the above happening, there will be twon main consequences:
1 - The commercial binary version will be somewhat improved. Plus a lot of the internals will be better known. That can't be a bad thing.
2 - License chances aren't retroactive. So if many people are using it (and if it hasn't already been done) there will be a fork from last clear point under the Open license. Plus the older releases wil still be Open.
Basically, as far as I know, once a project has been Open Sourced, then it is possible for the copyright-holders to change the licensing and close it back up again, but only from that point on. Any older changer that were open will continue to be open.
And I'm hoping someone who understands OSS licensing better than I do can give clarifications and/or examples.
They don't see it that way, though. Plus they know that they can (try to) discourage the "casual pirate" from using Windows (or whatever) wihout paying for it...
What happens then is that half of the "casual pirates" will go and buy it, and the other half will "join the Dark Side".
Even then, the software companies don't care, they gain some customers, and have more "nasty pirates to blame for lost profits. (Bonus on both sides. Can please the shareholders by saying that not only have their prifts increased, but it's not their fault that they haven't increased further)
What I serious don't think they realise is the other side-effect. Legitimate users who get badly inconvenienced. Companies having to use warez-sites to get a serial for software they legitimately purchased 'cos their documentation is in some store room somewhere and they simply can't find it. Gamers who install cracks just so that they can play their legitimately-purchased games without having to play "hunt and swap" with the CDs when they play another game.
These are totally legitimate users who are having to use tools that are almost definitely black-hat just to use them at all.
Heck, I'm pretty certian that's there are a lot of people who use PirateXP simply to avoid the activation, who may well have bought it otherwise.
Put a log book at the trailhead, people will sign in or they won't, and if they don't, they don't care about their safety and neither should you.
Now I'm neither a lawyer nor in S&R, but I get the sneaking suspicion that "They didn't sign in or take any emergency precautions, they're on their own" is not an answer that would go down well if someone asked Search & Rescue why someone couldn't be found.
I can only assume that when you're in S&R and a call goes out, then you do have to care about their safety.
The real problem is an inevitable result of modern society, and the unfortunate fact that "those in charge" often can't be trusted with information that otherwise it would be useful for them to have.
You can't deny that tracking information could be a powerful tool in the right hands - even though it could be an unmitigated disaster in the wrong ones. But to keep it out of the wrong hands, you have to keep it out of everyone's. (Or to put it in the right ones, risks it falling into anyone's)
It all comes down to weighing up whether one person's privacy is worth several people's safety. Or similary, whether one person's safety is worth several people's privacy. There is always a trade-off being made. And there's no one blanket correct answer.
People who don't leave a route plan and don't call for help probably don't want to be helped. They have a right not to be helped. Leave them alone and don't busybody.
Not necessarily.
From the sounds of it (having followed the clarifications from the original poster) it's not to try and track down "Those who know what they're doing and know the risks", nor is it "Those who seriously want to get away from it all". From what I can gather, they're the ones who either don't get into trouble, or who leave the details to allow themselves to be found in case of emergency.
The people this is supposed to help is those who go out, and don't have the knowledge/skill/brains/whatever to bring enough supplies or leave a trail plan.
Now ideally, I'd say "Privacy first", don't do anything like this, and anyone who gets themselves lost/killed/whatever through abject stupidity needed removing from the gene-pool anyway.
I guess the problem is that it's a no-win situation for those in S&R - and those interested in privacy.
The majority of people who (like yourself) don't want tracking are clueful enough to not need saving. Also, the majority of those who would "opt in" to carrying some sort of EPIRB are probably careful enough to not need rescuing as often. Unfortunately, many of those who need saving are probably clueless enough to actually need tracking.
It really is a no-win situation, 'cos there is no solution that is 100% right for everyone. (There's always someone inconvenienced by any decision) Problem is, then the authorities are the ones held responsible for something going on.
For every "What right do you have to invade my privacy?" there is one "Why, with all modern technology, couldn't you find my relative when they got lost?" And the real kicker is that both arguments are valid points - unfortunately they're mutually exclusive.
I've been able to 'slip under the radar' and use Firefox/Thunderbird at work for some time now, removing the blight of Outlook from my life (saying "look, the data on this computer is *important* to me and my client" has got me by so far).
Heh. I use Mozilla/Firefox at the sites where I work - as I don't work at the college's main site. Heck, I even stopped using IE entirely for a while...
...untill Computer Services decided to update Exchange Server. (They seem to be slightly taken in by the "Newest Software" syndrome)
Sadly it uses some MS-propriatary gumph in there that means that although OWA has "improved", under Mozilla it's even worse than it was originally. So I'm actually stuck using IE as a "email client" - next to mozilla for main browsing.:P
I do hope that either someone can port something similar to Mozilla, or port Evolution to Windows. It might be a kludgy workaround as someone else said, but I hate being forced to use Webmail (thoguh browser) for my work emails - and I'm pretty certain they're not going to be opening up pop3/imap/smtp any time soon.
Well, what would be better?
Maybe the only available solution is to find a set which actually work and don't sound shit.
Whether we like it or not, there needs to be some sort of differentiation here. And capitalisation doesn't work. (Anything screwed over by a change in typeface isn't really appropriate) But as we've seen, coming up with an alternative that sounds like a joke doesn't really work. Kibibyte, Mebibyte, Gibibyte - I can hardly type them without sniggering. Let alone trying to say them.
So, what would work as a better prefix for the 2^10n series?
I don't have a problem with disambiguating them. I just wish the names weren't as stupid. (MiB is okay, but mebibyte?!)
Aah. Nail, head. Hit.
It's controversial, it's quite probably needed, yet it's given names that sound so childish that it's simply going to inflame people against adopting them.
Maybe if they'd tried coming up with terms that actually sounded a little more serious then they wouldn't be quite so hotly contested.
When using MiB - NOONE (that knows what they are talking about) is in doubt what you mean - but if you say MB - noone really knows.
This is a point that is often missed.
Even if you can't stand the "new" prefixes, you immediately know the value referred to. You may think that whoever wrote it needs a swift kick up the rear, but you understand their meaning.
If you see (or use) the "traditional" prefixes , you wonder. Even if you are always adamant that "megabyte means 1024 bytes" there will always be a worry about whether the person you're talking to is thinking in the same terms.
As another poster has already mentioned, MiB is just a made-up atrocity (it's not even a real ISO standard!) which noone needs or wants.
I wouldn't go that far. Not entirely.
I'd say you had a point saying that noone wants these changes. I certinaly don't want or particularly like them. But I can see that if they aren't needed, it's not for much longer.
They aren't "more correct" and they aren't "better". But what they are is clearer. And, like it or not, it's getting to a point where that clarity is needed.
Firstly there's the two types of manufacturer. For whatever reason the HDD manufacturers prefer to use the 10^n meanings. Maybe it's so that they can swipe more money on misleading advertising. Maybe it's some sort of tradition. Maybe it's both - a tradition that just so happens to benefit them. But they're not going to chance.
For memory-manufacturers the reason is clear. When dealing in binary (and unless something happened overnight, memory is still working on digital signals) then you can only really work to the power of two. So they're going to continue using the 2^10n notation.
Secondly you get everyone else. Whether professionals in other disciplines, or merely Joe Average taught in school (or whatever) that kilofoo is always 1000 foo, and megafoo is always 1000000 foo, they're going to have assumptions about what the prefix means that in any other context would be right but in this case would (or may... - damn HDD labels) be wrong.
And even then, if you need to refer to "one thousand bytes" then how else could you shorten it?
Back when computers where still specialist then it wasn't too much of a problem. But now computers are so prevalent that the potential for confusion is too high.
I'd love to get everyone else to change. To me "one megabyte" is "1024 x 1024 bytes" and always will be. But getting every other SI prefix to change to make way for one is unlikely.
Personally I don't "read" KiB/MiB/whatever any differently. My brain still "hears" it as kilo-/mega- or whatever. Probably always will - those "bibibibibi" bits trip me up. But when I see it (or even write it) I know with 100% certainty that the 2^10n is meant (often mentally interpreting it as "binary megabytes" or whatever...). If it's not there, I always wonder. On products it oftenleaves me always searching for the small print to be totally certain of what is meant.
Like it or not, the confusion is there. And something has to be done to reduce it. And, unfortunately, we're the ones in the minority side of the prefix-usage.
the well-known, universally accepted, industry standard
Tell that to the hard-drive manufacturers.
They don't accept it, or use in in the industry. They may be wrong, but unfortunately they're not exactly helping things any. It means it's a part of the ocmputing industry that's muddying up the waters internally.
The burn/rip/re-encode concept is useful, but misses one major point...
You won't be able to exceed the quality of the original AAC track. Even if you converted to a lossless or fully-raw format, what was removed at original encode won't come back.
When ripping from an original CD, the quality-ceiling is a lot higher.
If/when iTMS comes out in the UK (and as long as it's before I fully turn my back on Windows[*] and go Linux-only) I'll gladly pay cheap prices. I'd prefer no DRM, but to be honest I'll buy it even with - as long as I could play it on what I mostly use.
But I'd still probably buy a physical (non-DRM) CD if I really liked an album. Mainly so I can choose the quality, and rip directly to whatever format I wished.
Tiggs
([*] Yes, there's always the Buy a Mac option - especially when iTunes is involved. But my main issue with Windows is the cost - and if I can't afford a new OS for an existing PC, I sure can't afford a new computer.)
I'm looking into acquiring a (legal) copy of Windows 2000. As I'm purchadsing it for an existing PC, the OEM version isn't available, and for a standalone clean install the upgrade isn't viable, and the only options seem to be upwards of 150.
I do not trust Windows XP, and 98 (100% legit - came with my PC) doesn't like my setup for some reason. (I was having to reinstall it every week or two, when Linux worked fine and the Win2K also worked - so wasn't a hardware fault). Linux is nearly there for what I need, but not quite yet - otherwise I'd save money totally and drop Windows completely.
I so think Microsoft have kind of goofed.
They make sure that their software is incompatible with anyone else's, then they jack the prices above what many people can/will pay. They think that, somehow, this will mean people will either find the money or go without. Human Nature isn't like that.
(Plus MS's format-locking means that people won't do the latter)
Lower price and I would have bought Win2K the moment I realised it worked better than 98. Drop the price and the Activation, and I would have paid to switch to XP. (Under 100 and I'll buy 2K. Under 60 and I'll buy XP even with Product Activation)
But at the current prices there is no way I can afford that. (And that's me with a job - back a few years ago I had no job and very little money at all)
True, the latter doesn't excuse or justify anyone using Windows for free. But it explains why people do it. There's a price beyond which people will not pay - illegal or not.
Is this anecdotal, or is there a proven transcription of this quote anywhere?
If that statement was genuine, then it certainly weakens Microsoft's (or at least Steve Ballmer's take on it...) anti-piracy stance.
If nothing else, it would perhaps make him not the ideal person to try and head any antii-piracy campaigns.
As soon as someone is unable to patch their system from exploits because they aren't running a legit copy, and whatever their machine does whilst exploited causes you problems: that is when it affects Your Rights Online
I honestly believe that antivirus, firewalls, and security updates (if nothing else) should be freely avialable to all. If for no other reason than they affect everybody.
It's in everyone's best interests (well, except AV-companies - might explain a lot...) if viral outbreaks are kept to an absolute minimum. Making people pay to keep their systems secured merely encourages people to keep what should be the most important thing they do waaay down their own list.
Like it or not, people will run pirate software. And if they can't patch, then don't complain at the next Sasser iteration.
It's not to do with "giving someone the right to 'steal' something" at all. It's all to do with should they be allowed to access critical updates...
And I say a resounding yes. Just because some people refuse to pay doesn't mean anyone else should suffer becuse they can't install critical patches.
Denying patches won't stop them from running it, so all it does is force connected machines to stay vulnerable. And that is unfair/disastrous to the rest of the Internet.
I still buy the "basic curiosity" angle. YeGods, I'd love to know stuff like that - simply to know. Plus, unless I don't understand the term "Open Records" it wasn't exactly anything secret.
And if something post-9/11 had changed that, then the records should have been openly declared non-open.
From a computer geek perspective - that's like some prick in a computer lab being surprised and self-righteous saying he wasn't doing anything wrong when you come over and yank his cable 'cause he's been using every known exploit scanner known to man against your server *while you're in the room, sitting at the server console and glaring at him*, along with running a few processes in the background with names like 'crack'.
And that's just bullshit. That would be the equivalent of being caught down the tunnels with a pair of boltcutters and some lockpicks.
What he did was the equivalent of peering behind all the PCs and seeing where all of the wiring goes. Not necessarily something I'd encourage (speaking as a Techie), but not exactly something I'd have someone hauled out for.
That's what I'm saying - you _knew_ what you needed/could turn off. With your abilities, everyone could do that on Windows as well - instead of (RedHat's; I don't know on Mandrake) setup[ENTER], in Windows you type services.msc[ENTER], it's easy.
Average person stops worrying about network and service settings security once they see their browser can get on the Net.
Yeah, but with Linux installation it doesn't let you get onto the Net until telling you about these services being active.
What with Windows having "New User Wizards" at various points, surely it shouldn't be too tricky to have one pop up either at first User-creation, or first time you did anything network related. (Part of Network-settings Wizard perhaps?)
Hehehe. I was about to rant until I saw the bit about "that lie aside"...
But the RIAA strikes me like being no better than the taxman (or the Benefits gency in the UK).
All too quick to contact you when they think you owe them money. But if you're intitled to any money from them then you'd best be prepared to put in a whole lot of effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Ooh. This actually sounds quite useful - almost like a video equivalent of FLAC.
Being lossless it's got to be useful for storing master footage without the overheads from raw data, yet without the inherant loss from lossy codecs.
TiggsIs anyone who has worked with HuffYUV able to comment on whether it's any good for using instead of "true" raw video data?
Yeah. It sounds like hard work, but also like it could be something very useful.
Besides, many non-Windows toolkits have been ported to Windows. Why not the other way around?
TiggsWould it be possible, with WTL being Open, to then fork it to work with other toolkits?
It may not be viable for all I know, but if it was it could be useful.
Wouldn't that help cross-platform porting? Write the UI using WTL. Under Windows it'd use ATL and look native, but you could then compile under *nix, where a WTL port could be hooking into GTK, Qt, or anything really. (Maybe even a fully native port - but with so many UI toolkits one rmoe isn't really needed but something which can sit on top of any would be kinda cool)
Maybe I'm spouting impossibilities - or maybe just implausibly difficult possibilities. But it does sound like it could be used as a stepping stone to somewhere.
TiggsDoes it really matter which open license is used, as long as an open license is used?
Maybe it's only testing the waters, maybe it's trying to get extra help developing a tool they never intended people to use, maybe it is just a cynical stab at getting some positive PR. It could be all those and more, but still even a year or two ago would anyone think that Microsoft would use Open Source to even do that?
Yes, I'm quietly cynical about it myself. They'll have to do more to convince me, but they've made a start - and already gone further than I ever thought they would. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I'm a realist, and I've been surprised (both positively and negatively) before. I doubt that what Microsoft have done will make a big difference, but I'm also willing to accept the fact that it's not totally impossible and they might well prove me wrong.
But even at my most cynical, I'm not going to add "Didn't use GPL" to my list of complaints.
TiggsIn as much as I undertand Open Source...
In the event of the above happening, there will be twon main consequences:
1 - The commercial binary version will be somewhat improved. Plus a lot of the internals will be better known. That can't be a bad thing.
2 - License chances aren't retroactive. So if many people are using it (and if it hasn't already been done) there will be a fork from last clear point under the Open license. Plus the older releases wil still be Open.
Basically, as far as I know, once a project has been Open Sourced, then it is possible for the copyright-holders to change the licensing and close it back up again, but only from that point on. Any older changer that were open will continue to be open.
And I'm hoping someone who understands OSS licensing better than I do can give clarifications and/or examples.
TiggsSo?
It's now released under an open license. Meaning that if people think it sucks, and have the skill to do better, they're now able to do so.
At least now there's a chance of these flaws in WTL to be dealt with.
TiggsThey don't see it that way, though. Plus they know that they can (try to) discourage the "casual pirate" from using Windows (or whatever) wihout paying for it...
What happens then is that half of the "casual pirates" will go and buy it, and the other half will "join the Dark Side".
Even then, the software companies don't care, they gain some customers, and have more "nasty pirates to blame for lost profits. (Bonus on both sides. Can please the shareholders by saying that not only have their prifts increased, but it's not their fault that they haven't increased further)
What I serious don't think they realise is the other side-effect. Legitimate users who get badly inconvenienced. Companies having to use warez-sites to get a serial for software they legitimately purchased 'cos their documentation is in some store room somewhere and they simply can't find it. Gamers who install cracks just so that they can play their legitimately-purchased games without having to play "hunt and swap" with the CDs when they play another game.
These are totally legitimate users who are having to use tools that are almost definitely black-hat just to use them at all.
Heck, I'm pretty certian that's there are a lot of people who use PirateXP simply to avoid the activation, who may well have bought it otherwise.
TiggsYou can?
Not here (UK) you can't. You're looking at well over 100 quid for a copy of Windows - whether 2000 or XP.
Either that, or the decent shops are all hidden away.
As I said, the problem is that work won't open up the POP/IMAP.
TiggsAnd the main Exchange Server is behind the firewall or whatever.
Now I'm neither a lawyer nor in S&R, but I get the sneaking suspicion that "They didn't sign in or take any emergency precautions, they're on their own" is not an answer that would go down well if someone asked Search & Rescue why someone couldn't be found.
I can only assume that when you're in S&R and a call goes out, then you do have to care about their safety.
The real problem is an inevitable result of modern society, and the unfortunate fact that "those in charge" often can't be trusted with information that otherwise it would be useful for them to have.
You can't deny that tracking information could be a powerful tool in the right hands - even though it could be an unmitigated disaster in the wrong ones. But to keep it out of the wrong hands, you have to keep it out of everyone's. (Or to put it in the right ones, risks it falling into anyone's)
It all comes down to weighing up whether one person's privacy is worth several people's safety. Or similary, whether one person's safety is worth several people's privacy. There is always a trade-off being made. And there's no one blanket correct answer.
TiggsNot necessarily.
From the sounds of it (having followed the clarifications from the original poster) it's not to try and track down "Those who know what they're doing and know the risks", nor is it "Those who seriously want to get away from it all". From what I can gather, they're the ones who either don't get into trouble, or who leave the details to allow themselves to be found in case of emergency.
The people this is supposed to help is those who go out, and don't have the knowledge/skill/brains/whatever to bring enough supplies or leave a trail plan.
Now ideally, I'd say "Privacy first", don't do anything like this, and anyone who gets themselves lost/killed/whatever through abject stupidity needed removing from the gene-pool anyway.
I guess the problem is that it's a no-win situation for those in S&R - and those interested in privacy.
The majority of people who (like yourself) don't want tracking are clueful enough to not need saving. Also, the majority of those who would "opt in" to carrying some sort of EPIRB are probably careful enough to not need rescuing as often. Unfortunately, many of those who need saving are probably clueless enough to actually need tracking.
It really is a no-win situation, 'cos there is no solution that is 100% right for everyone. (There's always someone inconvenienced by any decision) Problem is, then the authorities are the ones held responsible for something going on.
For every "What right do you have to invade my privacy?" there is one "Why, with all modern technology, couldn't you find my relative when they got lost?" And the real kicker is that both arguments are valid points - unfortunately they're mutually exclusive.
Heh. I use Mozilla/Firefox at the sites where I work - as I don't work at the college's main site. Heck, I even stopped using IE entirely for a while...
...untill Computer Services decided to update Exchange Server. (They seem to be slightly taken in by the "Newest Software" syndrome) :P
Sadly it uses some MS-propriatary gumph in there that means that although OWA has "improved", under Mozilla it's even worse than it was originally. So I'm actually stuck using IE as a "email client" - next to mozilla for main browsing.
I do hope that either someone can port something similar to Mozilla, or port Evolution to Windows. It might be a kludgy workaround as someone else said, but I hate being forced to use Webmail (thoguh browser) for my work emails - and I'm pretty certain they're not going to be opening up pop3/imap/smtp any time soon.
TiggsWell, what would be better?
Maybe the only available solution is to find a set which actually work and don't sound shit.
Whether we like it or not, there needs to be some sort of differentiation here. And capitalisation doesn't work. (Anything screwed over by a change in typeface isn't really appropriate) But as we've seen, coming up with an alternative that sounds like a joke doesn't really work.
Kibibyte, Mebibyte, Gibibyte - I can hardly type them without sniggering. Let alone trying to say them.
So, what would work as a better prefix for the 2^10n series?
Aah. Nail, head. Hit.
It's controversial, it's quite probably needed, yet it's given names that sound so childish that it's simply going to inflame people against adopting them.
Maybe if they'd tried coming up with terms that actually sounded a little more serious then they wouldn't be quite so hotly contested.
TiggsThis is a point that is often missed.
Even if you can't stand the "new" prefixes, you immediately know the value referred to. You may think that whoever wrote it needs a swift kick up the rear, but you understand their meaning.
TiggsIf you see (or use) the "traditional" prefixes , you wonder. Even if you are always adamant that "megabyte means 1024 bytes" there will always be a worry about whether the person you're talking to is thinking in the same terms.
I wouldn't go that far. Not entirely.
I'd say you had a point saying that noone wants these changes. I certinaly don't want or particularly like them. But I can see that if they aren't needed, it's not for much longer.
They aren't "more correct" and they aren't "better". But what they are is clearer. And, like it or not, it's getting to a point where that clarity is needed.
Firstly there's the two types of manufacturer. For whatever reason the HDD manufacturers prefer to use the 10^n meanings. Maybe it's so that they can swipe more money on misleading advertising. Maybe it's some sort of tradition. Maybe it's both - a tradition that just so happens to benefit them. But they're not going to chance.
For memory-manufacturers the reason is clear. When dealing in binary (and unless something happened overnight, memory is still working on digital signals) then you can only really work to the power of two. So they're going to continue using the 2^10n notation.
Secondly you get everyone else. Whether professionals in other disciplines, or merely Joe Average taught in school (or whatever) that kilofoo is always 1000 foo, and megafoo is always 1000000 foo, they're going to have assumptions about what the prefix means that in any other context would be right but in this case would (or may... - damn HDD labels) be wrong.
And even then, if you need to refer to "one thousand bytes" then how else could you shorten it?
Back when computers where still specialist then it wasn't too much of a problem. But now computers are so prevalent that the potential for confusion is too high.
I'd love to get everyone else to change. To me "one megabyte" is "1024 x 1024 bytes" and always will be. But getting every other SI prefix to change to make way for one is unlikely.
Personally I don't "read" KiB/MiB/whatever any differently. My brain still "hears" it as kilo-/mega- or whatever. Probably always will - those "bibibibibi" bits trip me up. But when I see it (or even write it) I know with 100% certainty that the 2^10n is meant (often mentally interpreting it as "binary megabytes" or whatever...). If it's not there, I always wonder. On products it oftenleaves me always searching for the small print to be totally certain of what is meant.
Like it or not, the confusion is there. And something has to be done to reduce it. And, unfortunately, we're the ones in the minority side of the prefix-usage.
Tell that to the hard-drive manufacturers.
TiggsThey don't accept it, or use in in the industry. They may be wrong, but unfortunately they're not exactly helping things any. It means it's a part of the ocmputing industry that's muddying up the waters internally.
The burn/rip/re-encode concept is useful, but misses one major point...
You won't be able to exceed the quality of the original AAC track. Even if you converted to a lossless or fully-raw format, what was removed at original encode won't come back.
When ripping from an original CD, the quality-ceiling is a lot higher.
If/when iTMS comes out in the UK (and as long as it's before I fully turn my back on Windows[*] and go Linux-only) I'll gladly pay cheap prices. I'd prefer no DRM, but to be honest I'll buy it even with - as long as I could play it on what I mostly use.
TiggsBut I'd still probably buy a physical (non-DRM) CD if I really liked an album. Mainly so I can choose the quality, and rip directly to whatever format I wished.
([*] Yes, there's always the Buy a Mac option - especially when iTunes is involved. But my main issue with Windows is the cost - and if I can't afford a new OS for an existing PC, I sure can't afford a new computer.)
Hey. As long as it's good (and cheap) I don't care what language it's sung in.
TiggsAgreed.
I'm looking into acquiring a (legal) copy of Windows 2000. As I'm purchadsing it for an existing PC, the OEM version isn't available, and for a standalone clean install the upgrade isn't viable, and the only options seem to be upwards of 150.
I do not trust Windows XP, and 98 (100% legit - came with my PC) doesn't like my setup for some reason. (I was having to reinstall it every week or two, when Linux worked fine and the Win2K also worked - so wasn't a hardware fault). Linux is nearly there for what I need, but not quite yet - otherwise I'd save money totally and drop Windows completely.
I so think Microsoft have kind of goofed.
They make sure that their software is incompatible with anyone else's, then they jack the prices above what many people can/will pay. They think that, somehow, this will mean people will either find the money or go without. Human Nature isn't like that.
(Plus MS's format-locking means that people won't do the latter)
Lower price and I would have bought Win2K the moment I realised it worked better than 98. Drop the price and the Activation, and I would have paid to switch to XP. (Under 100 and I'll buy 2K. Under 60 and I'll buy XP even with Product Activation)
But at the current prices there is no way I can afford that. (And that's me with a job - back a few years ago I had no job and very little money at all)
True, the latter doesn't excuse or justify anyone using Windows for free. But it explains why people do it. There's a price beyond which people will not pay - illegal or not.
TiggsIs this anecdotal, or is there a proven transcription of this quote anywhere?
If that statement was genuine, then it certainly weakens Microsoft's (or at least Steve Ballmer's take on it...) anti-piracy stance.
If nothing else, it would perhaps make him not the ideal person to try and head any antii-piracy campaigns.
OK. From the top...
As soon as someone is unable to patch their system from exploits because they aren't running a legit copy, and whatever their machine does whilst exploited causes you problems: that is when it affects Your Rights Online
I honestly believe that antivirus, firewalls, and security updates (if nothing else) should be freely avialable to all. If for no other reason than they affect everybody.
It's in everyone's best interests (well, except AV-companies - might explain a lot...) if viral outbreaks are kept to an absolute minimum. Making people pay to keep their systems secured merely encourages people to keep what should be the most important thing they do waaay down their own list.
Like it or not, people will run pirate software. And if they can't patch, then don't complain at the next Sasser iteration.
That's not the question though.
It's not to do with "giving someone the right to 'steal' something" at all. It's all to do with should they be allowed to access critical updates...
And I say a resounding yes. Just because some people refuse to pay doesn't mean anyone else should suffer becuse they can't install critical patches.
TiggsDenying patches won't stop them from running it, so all it does is force connected machines to stay vulnerable. And that is unfair/disastrous to the rest of the Internet.
I still buy the "basic curiosity" angle. YeGods, I'd love to know stuff like that - simply to know. Plus, unless I don't understand the term "Open Records" it wasn't exactly anything secret.
And if something post-9/11 had changed that, then the records should have been openly declared non-open.
And that's just bullshit. That would be the equivalent of being caught down the tunnels with a pair of boltcutters and some lockpicks.
TiggsWhat he did was the equivalent of peering behind all the PCs and seeing where all of the wiring goes. Not necessarily something I'd encourage (speaking as a Techie), but not exactly something I'd have someone hauled out for.
Yeah, but with Linux installation it doesn't let you get onto the Net until telling you about these services being active.
What with Windows having "New User Wizards" at various points, surely it shouldn't be too tricky to have one pop up either at first User-creation, or first time you did anything network related. (Part of Network-settings Wizard perhaps?)
Hehehe. I was about to rant until I saw the bit about "that lie aside"...
But the RIAA strikes me like being no better than the taxman (or the Benefits gency in the UK).
TiggsAll too quick to contact you when they think you owe them money. But if you're intitled to any money from them then you'd best be prepared to put in a whole lot of effort.