I'm not sure what you mean. But if you can organize only 5,000 to protest but many more to riot, then either your organization sucks, your cause sucks, or you just incited criminals to riot.
but only until their de facto monopoly was permanently entrenched.
I'd say they've even made it easier to pirate. It used to be that you had to risk getting a virus from some shady usenet download of Photoshop. Now you can get the whole suite on their website and activate it with a serial or crack.
Naturally. We are talking about an image processing program, right? And in the context of a discussion about why Photoshop users won't jump. Not only that, but GIMP quite obviously supports 16 total bits.
But the main reason Photoshop people don't switch is that Photoshop isn't all that expensive if you use it every day. GIMP also does not have 16-bit color or CMYK.
Frankly, the observation that the media tend to only care about spectacle, and focus in on the spectacle even when it isn't the center of an issue, seems pretty self evident.
The media seems to do a pretty good job covering large protests, even when peaceful. I don't mean follow the letter of the law and get permits and meet in designated areas. I mean a peaceful version of the riots. Gandhi and Martin Luther King and the Arab Spring have shown what peaceful protest can bring. Burning and looting your own neighborhood will get you nowhere. If you are going to go the violent route, you'd better be prepared to see it out and win (Libya) or you'll be worse off as the loser.
Your link is interesting, but those anti-globalism protests have really become non-news. It's the same weird collection of unrelated causes every time they meet for G7, G20 or World Bank summits. The protests got a lot of press the first dozen times, but failed to grab much popular support. If the ghettos of London rose up in peaceful protest, that would certainly get the attention of the media. They could march on some square somewhere symbolic. Maybe on a big roundabout that would make everyone's commute harder - that would be hard for the media to ignore.
But the former is stuck at home while the F-18 is out getting the job done.
That line of reasoning is useful when comparing existing, but not necessarily helpful when designing new. If the F-18 and F-16 can be replaced by a single airframe, that in itself could have value. On the other hand, the F-16 doesn't "need" no be replaced anytime soon. It is still produced and, while not stealthy, can still go up against anything else in the air. The US also has F-22 for stealth, and F-15 for range and armament. F-15 is also still produced.
F/A-18C/D, on the other hand, is dead. The navy needs a new fighter. So do the marines, since their Harrier II is old and not produced any longer. Did it make sense to try and make a VTOL/STOL version of the F-35? Maybe not, but it's been done.
Personally, I'm a big fan of iterative development. It's not always appropriate, but I think it is more cost effective. The Silent Eagle would have gotten the Air Force at least some of what it wanted and been much more cost effective. Not sure what the Navy's options were, though they've already redesigned the F/A-18 once in order to make the Super Hornet. Perhaps another derivative? Or maybe they could have re-examined the F-16 in light of the engine reliability of the F/A-18? I dunno. Maybe they needed a new plane.
And on the other other hand, who are we going to fight with these magical air-to-air fighters? Anyone with them is going to have nukes.
Maybe, but I think the US has demonstrated a willingness to fight proxy wars:)
And then there is all this Arab Spring business, with countries (Egypt!) that are bristling with US military equipment potentially becoming hostile.
If you have one free tuner, just buffer in the same direction that the user was already going. Worst case, the software guesses wrong and the user has a single "normal" delay. If two tuners are free, then there is no problem:)
I suppose they could change the GUI so that if you aren't currently watching any VOD title you get a column and a half of available titles, but that would just be weird.
LOL, I'm no GUI designer, but I find it very hard to believe that an ad is the best use of screen space. I don't think it would be weird to have 25% more screen space dedicated to content.
Channel flipping is slow, but that is not because of the cable box. There are several things that must happen when you switch channels: find what SDV channel is being used for the channel you want (and get it tuned in if it is not currently available), wait for a key frame, and set up the decoder for the resolution of the particular channel. All that takes time.
I understand that the technology is a limiter, but some of these boxes have multiple tuners. If one is not being used to record, they could easily use it to buffer the next channel.
I don't know why they don't use the ports that are there.
$$$$
You might not order something pay-per-view if you used those ports to record it. I suppose their support calls would increase as well.
It's true, but you can mitigate this. It's also very hard to target malware at a particular geographic location, so it wouldn't be as much of an issue in local or even state elections, where only a few thousand people have the same candidates.
But malware is yet another reason not to entertain online voting.
Adding a new channel (which would probably be something worthless like MTV4) would use the channel, but it would add to the licensing costs (which gets passed to the customer). I don't have much use for another junk channel.
I meant they should fill it with useful GUI instead of ad space.
How many extra decoders do you add? 1? 2? 5?
The high-end boxes have as many as 4, and yet the delay persists. I think they could use an extra decoder whenever it is idle.
The USB port on mine is for technicians to run diagnostics on the box and the ethernet port in the back works. Everything has a purpose, even if it's not for me.
Many of them have Firewire, ESATA, analog ports, and more... all disabled. If yours doesn't have these extra ports, then groovy. The purpose of most of these things is to be disabled.
First, the 'ads' appear in the space that would normally be showing the currently tuned in channel.
??? What do you mean? Why can't they fill the screen with useful GUI instead of ads?
Yes, in the old days of three channels you could flip through the channels.
I'm not that much of a Luddite! I'm talking about when you had about a hundred. You used the "add/delete" button to filter out the religion channels, the Spanish channels, and the rest of the stuff you never watch. Then you flipped through and saw what was on, especially when a commercial came on. You can still do this (and you could until about 2 years ago) even with the current channel line-up. They have had an on-screen guide for at least 15 years, so I'm well aware of that - but sometimes I just like to "surf".
All for an activity no-one does (sequential channel flipping).
People did it all the time, even with on-screen guides. The current boxes make it painful - and the cheap ones they give you without DVRs are almost too painful to bear, even if you aren't surfing. Some of these newer boxes have 4 tuners in them - why not use one to buffer? It could even be intelligent about what direction you are going so as to only use one extra.
Additional inputs and outputs are called 'building for the future'.
I have to call BS - do you work for a cable company or something? First, the "future" has been coming for like 10 years or so, and they still haven't turned on the damn ports. Second, if you buy the exact same device yourself, the ports all work. Rent it from the cable company, and they are all disabled. There are firewire devices now. DVR devices now. E-Sata devices now. Analog devices now. Future? What the hell?
Slashdot Mirror
2000 people? That's not a protest, that's a sale at Wal-Mart.
I'm not sure what you mean. But if you can organize only 5,000 to protest but many more to riot, then either your organization sucks, your cause sucks, or you just incited criminals to riot.
5000? They probably thought it was regular rush hour.
Seriously, not impressed. I think you get that in some of the larger flash mobs.
Well, here all of the Christians disappeared. You must have been reading the wrong version or something.
When you say "16-bit color", it means 65,536 colors, and that's it.
Okay, God. LOL. GIMP doesn't support 65,536 colors like 1980s MacPaint.
But just go on assuming that I'm an idiot.
but only until their de facto monopoly was permanently entrenched.
I'd say they've even made it easier to pirate. It used to be that you had to risk getting a virus from some shady usenet download of Photoshop. Now you can get the whole suite on their website and activate it with a serial or crack.
Naturally. We are talking about an image processing program, right? And in the context of a discussion about why Photoshop users won't jump. Not only that, but GIMP quite obviously supports 16 total bits.
Photographers know what I meant.
20,000? I'm sorry, but you need more than a soccer match to get media attention.
I'm not saying that their concerns aren't legitimate. It's just that violent uprising only works to improve your situation if you win.
I thought you were going somewhere and then you turned it into an Apple rant? LOL.
No they don't do this every couple of years.
But the main reason Photoshop people don't switch is that Photoshop isn't all that expensive if you use it every day. GIMP also does not have 16-bit color or CMYK.
I just learned the old interface! :)
Was the scale of the protest as large as that of the riots?
Honest question, I'm not from the UK. I've not seen the interview you are referring to and I don't know about any protests except those at the G20.
Frankly, the observation that the media tend to only care about spectacle, and focus in on the spectacle even when it isn't the center of an issue, seems pretty self evident.
The media seems to do a pretty good job covering large protests, even when peaceful. I don't mean follow the letter of the law and get permits and meet in designated areas. I mean a peaceful version of the riots. Gandhi and Martin Luther King and the Arab Spring have shown what peaceful protest can bring. Burning and looting your own neighborhood will get you nowhere. If you are going to go the violent route, you'd better be prepared to see it out and win (Libya) or you'll be worse off as the loser.
Your link is interesting, but those anti-globalism protests have really become non-news. It's the same weird collection of unrelated causes every time they meet for G7, G20 or World Bank summits. The protests got a lot of press the first dozen times, but failed to grab much popular support. If the ghettos of London rose up in peaceful protest, that would certainly get the attention of the media. They could march on some square somewhere symbolic. Maybe on a big roundabout that would make everyone's commute harder - that would be hard for the media to ignore.
But the former is stuck at home while the F-18 is out getting the job done.
That line of reasoning is useful when comparing existing, but not necessarily helpful when designing new. If the F-18 and F-16 can be replaced by a single airframe, that in itself could have value. On the other hand, the F-16 doesn't "need" no be replaced anytime soon. It is still produced and, while not stealthy, can still go up against anything else in the air. The US also has F-22 for stealth, and F-15 for range and armament. F-15 is also still produced.
F/A-18C/D, on the other hand, is dead. The navy needs a new fighter. So do the marines, since their Harrier II is old and not produced any longer. Did it make sense to try and make a VTOL/STOL version of the F-35? Maybe not, but it's been done.
Personally, I'm a big fan of iterative development. It's not always appropriate, but I think it is more cost effective. The Silent Eagle would have gotten the Air Force at least some of what it wanted and been much more cost effective. Not sure what the Navy's options were, though they've already redesigned the F/A-18 once in order to make the Super Hornet. Perhaps another derivative? Or maybe they could have re-examined the F-16 in light of the engine reliability of the F/A-18? I dunno. Maybe they needed a new plane.
And on the other other hand, who are we going to fight with these magical air-to-air fighters? Anyone with them is going to have nukes.
Maybe, but I think the US has demonstrated a willingness to fight proxy wars :)
And then there is all this Arab Spring business, with countries (Egypt!) that are bristling with US military equipment potentially becoming hostile.
One person protesting there was interviewed and stated that news media would not care unless fuss would be created.
Right, because they tried peacefully protesting first, and that didn't work.</sarcasm>
What do you mean? If the attacker knows exactly how many credentials are given, they can just demand them all.
They haven't purchased them yet - just announced the deal. Give Google a few months once they are in charge before judgement.
If you have one free tuner, just buffer in the same direction that the user was already going. Worst case, the software guesses wrong and the user has a single "normal" delay. If two tuners are free, then there is no problem :)
I suppose they could change the GUI so that if you aren't currently watching any VOD title you get a column and a half of available titles, but that would just be weird.
LOL, I'm no GUI designer, but I find it very hard to believe that an ad is the best use of screen space. I don't think it would be weird to have 25% more screen space dedicated to content.
Channel flipping is slow, but that is not because of the cable box. There are several things that must happen when you switch channels: find what SDV channel is being used for the channel you want (and get it tuned in if it is not currently available), wait for a key frame, and set up the decoder for the resolution of the particular channel. All that takes time.
I understand that the technology is a limiter, but some of these boxes have multiple tuners. If one is not being used to record, they could easily use it to buffer the next channel.
I don't know why they don't use the ports that are there.
$$$$
You might not order something pay-per-view if you used those ports to record it. I suppose their support calls would increase as well.
That would require 2 extra tuners.. and if I had the extra tuners, I'd rather use them to record more shows at once.
So why do the fancy boxes with multiple tuners still change channels slowly? Even when the other tuners aren't in use?
On Tivos, all of the outputs are active at the same time.
Yup, Tivo had it figured out a decade ago. Hell, even ReplayTV was better than the cable boxes available today.
Malicious code automates the process.
It's true, but you can mitigate this. It's also very hard to target malware at a particular geographic location, so it wouldn't be as much of an issue in local or even state elections, where only a few thousand people have the same candidates.
But malware is yet another reason not to entertain online voting.
Everyone gets at least two sets of credentials, one "correct" and one "fake".
If I'm the extorter/buyer, I'll just demand all of your credentials.
And it adds complexity to the system. People in Florida couldn't even punch out a chad or manage a butterfly ballot.
Adding a new channel (which would probably be something worthless like MTV4) would use the channel, but it would add to the licensing costs (which gets passed to the customer). I don't have much use for another junk channel.
I meant they should fill it with useful GUI instead of ad space.
How many extra decoders do you add? 1? 2? 5?
The high-end boxes have as many as 4, and yet the delay persists. I think they could use an extra decoder whenever it is idle.
The USB port on mine is for technicians to run diagnostics on the box and the ethernet port in the back works. Everything has a purpose, even if it's not for me.
Many of them have Firewire, ESATA, analog ports, and more... all disabled. If yours doesn't have these extra ports, then groovy. The purpose of most of these things is to be disabled.
First, the 'ads' appear in the space that would normally be showing the currently tuned in channel.
??? What do you mean? Why can't they fill the screen with useful GUI instead of ads?
Yes, in the old days of three channels you could flip through the channels.
I'm not that much of a Luddite! I'm talking about when you had about a hundred. You used the "add/delete" button to filter out the religion channels, the Spanish channels, and the rest of the stuff you never watch. Then you flipped through and saw what was on, especially when a commercial came on. You can still do this (and you could until about 2 years ago) even with the current channel line-up. They have had an on-screen guide for at least 15 years, so I'm well aware of that - but sometimes I just like to "surf".
All for an activity no-one does (sequential channel flipping).
People did it all the time, even with on-screen guides. The current boxes make it painful - and the cheap ones they give you without DVRs are almost too painful to bear, even if you aren't surfing. Some of these newer boxes have 4 tuners in them - why not use one to buffer? It could even be intelligent about what direction you are going so as to only use one extra.
Additional inputs and outputs are called 'building for the future'.
I have to call BS - do you work for a cable company or something? First, the "future" has been coming for like 10 years or so, and they still haven't turned on the damn ports. Second, if you buy the exact same device yourself, the ports all work. Rent it from the cable company, and they are all disabled. There are firewire devices now. DVR devices now. E-Sata devices now. Analog devices now. Future? What the hell?