Re:Endless Upgrade Train (Score:1)
by mbourgon (186257) on Monday January 27, @08:05AM (#5167262)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I recently got a console also, and while I see your point, I also strenuously disagree. Why? The gameplay.
I've found that on my console, I can turn it on, wait for it to boot for a minute or two (while staring at a giant X), and then play games for a couple of hours. Or half an hour. Or 5 minutes. Light, meaningless fun. I race my car around or shoot things, and then I try and find a waypoint, save, and turn it off.
On the computer, I boot it up. (about the same amount of time, except it doesn't have the cool X this time). I start Neverwinter (or Thief 2 or Deus Ex or Pro Pinball or even Freedom Force) and play that for several hours. I sunk probably 80 hours in NWN, just on the main campaign, and probably another 10 on modules. Deep, deep, game. Immersive as heck, and I can't see it being done on a console. Any console.
PC games can also provide light, meaningless fun. Since I normally keep my computer on, it is relatively quick to load UT2003 or Q3 (quicker than turning on a PS2, at least). 5-15 minutes, easy to start a single player game to kill time. A little longer, go on-line and/or play an RTS.
Thats just the thing. Those angry parents should look to themselves before yelling at the gaming industry. The fault lies with them initially in how they raised their kids and the (lack of) participation in their lives. They need to take a step back and reevaluate things.
I can see both sides of the issue. Yes, it is up to the parents to monitor their child's behavior. But have you ever heard of a child sneaking something that he shouldn't? Kids in my neighborhood who go to middle school (7th and 8th graders), walk right past Blockbuster on the way home from school. In the 3-4 hours they are home alone before their parents came home, such a child can easily rent the game (many 7th and 8th graders have an allowance) and play for a few hours, before hiding it under their mattress when their parents come home.
That said, I think the effects of video games on people are overstated. I've played first person shooters since Castle Wolfenstein and I have yet to kill anybody. I finished GTA 3 and am halfway through GTA:VC and have yet to run over anyone or carjack anyone.
1) If Thomas voted the other way, it still would have been 6-3, so the question is moot. 2) How do you know that Thomas got 20 times the advance? 3) Did you look at the books the other justices wrote? Except for O'Connor's, they would be of little interest to non-Court buffs. 4) Thomas, on the other hand, is selling an auto-biography. Considering his background (rags to riches story) and the controversy surrounding his nomination (Anita Hill), his autobiography should have more mainstream interest.
SCOTUSBlog has an analysis of the decision. To prevent/.ing, here is the text:
Today's Opinions. Today, the Supreme Court delivered the opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft. This case concerns the Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, 8, cl. 8, which empowers Congress to "[t]o promote the Progress of Science... by securing [to Authors] for limited Times... the exclusive Right to their... Writings." Pursuant to this authority, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) in 1998 which extended the duration of all copyrights, both existing and future, by 20 years. Petitioner claimed that Congress exceeded their authority under the Constitution's Copyright Clause by applying it retroactively to already existing copyrights. Further, petitioner claimed that the Act violates First Amendment free speech protections. Both the district court and the circuit court rejected petitioner's claims.
The 7-2 majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, here, upheld the CTEA against both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment claims. As per the Copyright Clause, Ginsburg wrote that the text, history, and Supreme Court precedent all confirmed that Congress is empowered to prescribe "limited times" for copyright protections and "to secure the same level and duration of protection for all copyright holders, present and future." Accordingly, the Court concluded that the CTEA, which continues "the unbroken congressional practice of treating future and existing copyrights" equally, is a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Copyright Clause.
Turning to the First Amendment claim, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the proximity in time of the enactment of both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment suggests that the Framers viewed copyright's limited monopolies to be consistent with free speech principles. Additionally, the Copyright Clause has "built-in First Amendment accommodations," by protecting "expressions" but not "ideas." Further, the "fair use" defense even allows the public to use copyrighted "expressions" in limited circumstances. Accordingly, Ginsburg wrote that, because Congress has not "altered the traditional contours of copyright protection" with the CTEA, further First Amendment scrutiny was not necessary.
Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the CTEA's extension of existing copyrights, as opposed to future copyrights, was invalid. Stevens based this opinion on Supreme Court precedent holding that Congress may not extend the life of a patent beyond its expiration date. In Stevens's view, the same restrictions should apply to copyrights as well. Justice Breyer also wrote a dissenting opinion. He argued that the CTEA 20-year extension does not make the copyright term limited, as is required by the Copyright Clause, but instead "virtually perpetual." Further, Breyer argued that the CTEA's primary effect is not to promote science, but to inhibit it. Conceding that the Copyright Clause grants broad legislative power, Breyer nonetheless concluded that the CTEA falls outside that grant, thereby making it unconstitutional.
There was an incident where Coolio got quite upset because he said "No" and either his label or Al's told Weird Al "Yes" anyway.
Which is ironic because, IIRC, the song Weird Al made was Amish Paradise, based on Coolio's Gangsta's Paradise. The thing is, Coolio's song was based on a sample of a Stevie Wonder song ("Pastime Paradise").
The top three professions in terms of average wage are this: Executives, Doctors, and Lawyers.
It's not as bad as you make it seem. Both Doctors and lawyers require years of graduate school just to start. When I was in college about 8 years ago, the highest paying field that only required a 4-year degree? Engineering. Looking at the linked to page, it is still relatively highly paid.
(I don't know if PVR capabilities for HD are ready yet with that product, but PVR capabilities are available with this one.)
Whoops, there should have been a link to AccessDTV HDTV decoder, which does have PVR capabilities. What was it someone was saying about no HTPC coming close to TiVo?
And while, yes, you can stick an absurd amount of disk space in a standard PC, what's the point? I have 110 GB on my TiVo and I've never even come close to filling it.
Maybe if it handled MP3/OGG/FLAC/whatever as well it would be an issue, or if it could do HD, but TiVo doesn't. For what TiVo does do, no HTPC comes even close.
So you don't think a PC can handle MP3 files? Ever hear of Winamp (just to name one of dozens of MP3 players available for PCs.). As for HD, yes a PC can handle HD. Maybe not the Win XP MCE, but how about this? (I don't know if PVR capabilities for HD are ready yet with that product, but PVR capabilities are available with this one.
While it's true that they have a remote, I'm not sure how useful it would be with the typical monitor I see attached to a PC.
There's nothing preventing you from attaching a PC to a television. In fact, many of today's video cards have s-video outputs. Plus, many projectors have VGA or DVI inputs and there are also devices that convert VGA to component inputs (such as this one.) In fact, the entire premise of the HTPC (Home theater PC) is that the PC is actually better than a standalone DVD player, because of the availability of scalers and custom resolutions. Not to mention the fact that it can also serve as an MP3 jukebox. Check out the HTPC FAQ. (Not to mention the fact that it is generally easier to get a region-free DVD-ROM drive than a region-free standalone DVD.)
Of course, Windows XP MCE is not necessary to play DVDs or to record tv shows, despite what MS would want you to think.
Also, you can upgrade the space to your PC a lot easier than upgrading the space to your TiVO (which can't be upgraded without voiding the warranty and can only hold 2 hard drives anyway.) You can stick 8 200 GB hard drives into many cases (though probably not the HP they tested). Having the time to watch 1600 GB of stored TV shows is another matter.
Why would I use awkward PVR abilities of my PC (requiring me to sit in a specific spot, and use a mouse) when I can plop down on my couch and pick up the TiVo remote?
As the article notes, there is a remote available for the MCE PC. There are also 3rd party remotes available if you want to build your own home theater PC.
That's all great and all... but until there's affordable printing solutions that can print better than film, there won't be as widespread adoption.
The minilab system that is widely regarded as the best is the Fuji Frontier system. How does it work? By scanning film. Of course, it accepts files from digital cameras as well.
What is the best way to get large, "professional" prints? The Lightjet. How do these operate? Using very high quality scans! (See West Coast Imaging, for example). My point? You can already get digital images produced in the exact same manner as the best film prints.
There are already a lot of people who think digital photography has surpassed even medium format photography. See the Luminous Landscape, for example.
As for widespread adoption, photojournalists have all but abandoned film. The P&S crowd is already beginning to abandon film.
I've never understood the big deal. Personally, I don't answer the phone. The answering machine gets the message and I call people back. If my wife happens to answer the phone and give it to me, if it is a salesperson, I hang up.
I can't answer your question for you. But have you checked out the AVS Forum? Their Forum on Home Theater Computers should be just what you're looking for because a specialized forum should be able to give you better information than this forum. The AVS forums are very well populated and you should be able to find someone who can answer your question over there.
Solution: since you can install it on any number of machines, but can only print from the first machine you install from: install first on office computer. Don't put any info on you office computer until ready to file. Install on home computer and enter all information. Bring that information to your office computer to print. Simple solution.
I understand the legal argument against TiVO. What I don't understand is the practical argument. Practically speaking, Friends is "given" away over the air. I can watch the show just by tuning my TV to the correct channel. If I miss an episode, I can ask a neighbor or co-worker for a copy of the episode on VHS. I am not a Nielsen household, so it doesn't matter if I watch the show or not. To the vast majority of people, downloading a show from Kazaa, even on broadband, will take too long to be of use, compared to just popping a tape in. Plus, most people would prefer to watch TV on 27" or 36" or large TVs, as opposed to 17" monitors.
I think the networks are making a big deal over nothing.
To the perspective of the networks, don't they want MORE people watching their shows? Plus, taping shows is already legal, what's the difference with letting people put it on computer?
Correct, you point to specific exceptions. The post I was replying to implied there was a general right that applied to all types of copyrighted works.
Also, be careful with the AHRA. It is true that it says:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture,...of a digital audio recording device...or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device.
But that statement is limited by the definitions in the act, such as:
''digital audio recording device'' is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use . . .
Multipurpose devices, such as a general computer or a CD-ROM drive, are not covered by the AHRA. This means that they are not required to pay royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means, however, that neither manufacturers of the devices, nor the consumers who use them, receive immunity from suit for copyright infringement.
The problem is the way fair use is worded. It's not "You have a right to create a backup." It's closer to "If you do create a backup, you haven't violated the law by doing so."
That's not quite right either. You don't have a "right to create a backup. Nor are you exempt from the law by making a backup (with the exceptions of certain forms audio recording for non commercial purposes (The AHRA)).
Fair use is defined here and does not include a right to make a backup copy. In fact, the copying of the entire original article is a factor against fair use.
In fact, the
Sony VCR case decided that time-shifting was a fair-use, under the assumption that people wouldn't be making a library of tapes.
With music, there are two separate copyrights. One for the underlying musical performance (i.e, for the sheet music) and one for the actual performance. The 1972 date is for the actual performance. Thus, Beatles recordings are not covered by copyright. However, the musical compositions are themselves copyrighted. Thus, you still can't copy them. What this does effect are older recordings of public domain (e.g., 19th century classical music.)
Another fair survey question could be: given any GUI/WIMP interface, how many people would call it a "windows" interface?
Very good point. While the typical/.er would look at an OS X interface and say OS X, if the typical computing user would say windows, you are probably right.
Slashdot Mirror
PC games can also provide light, meaningless fun. Since I normally keep my computer on, it is relatively quick to load UT2003 or Q3 (quicker than turning on a PS2, at least). 5-15 minutes, easy to start a single player game to kill time. A little longer, go on-line and/or play an RTS.
A link to the PGN is on this page here.
I can see both sides of the issue. Yes, it is up to the parents to monitor their child's behavior. But have you ever heard of a child sneaking something that he shouldn't? Kids in my neighborhood who go to middle school (7th and 8th graders), walk right past Blockbuster on the way home from school. In the 3-4 hours they are home alone before their parents came home, such a child can easily rent the game (many 7th and 8th graders have an allowance) and play for a few hours, before hiding it under their mattress when their parents come home.
That said, I think the effects of video games on people are overstated. I've played first person shooters since Castle Wolfenstein and I have yet to kill anybody. I finished GTA 3 and am halfway through GTA:VC and have yet to run over anyone or carjack anyone.
Copyfight has the best set of links I found regarding the Eldred case.
1) If Thomas voted the other way, it still would have been 6-3, so the question is moot.
2) How do you know that Thomas got 20 times the advance?
3) Did you look at the books the other justices wrote? Except for O'Connor's, they would be of little interest to non-Court buffs.
4) Thomas, on the other hand, is selling an auto-biography. Considering his background (rags to riches story) and the controversy surrounding his nomination (Anita Hill), his autobiography should have more mainstream interest.
Antonin Scalia already has has a published book. So do Sandra Day O'Connor, Chief Justice Rehnquist (actually he has two), and Stephen G. Breyer
Today's Opinions. Today, the Supreme Court delivered the opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft. This case concerns the Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, 8, cl. 8, which empowers Congress to "[t]o promote the Progress of Science ... by securing [to Authors] for limited Times ... the exclusive Right to their ... Writings." Pursuant to this authority, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) in 1998 which extended the duration of all copyrights, both existing and future, by 20 years. Petitioner claimed that Congress exceeded their authority under the Constitution's Copyright Clause by applying it retroactively to already existing copyrights. Further, petitioner claimed that the Act violates First Amendment free speech protections. Both the district court and the circuit court rejected petitioner's claims.
The 7-2 majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, here, upheld the CTEA against both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment claims. As per the Copyright Clause, Ginsburg wrote that the text, history, and Supreme Court precedent all confirmed that Congress is empowered to prescribe "limited times" for copyright protections and "to secure the same level and duration of protection for all copyright holders, present and future." Accordingly, the Court concluded that the CTEA, which continues "the unbroken congressional practice of treating future and existing copyrights" equally, is a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Copyright Clause.
Turning to the First Amendment claim, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the proximity in time of the enactment of both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment suggests that the Framers viewed copyright's limited monopolies to be consistent with free speech principles. Additionally, the Copyright Clause has "built-in First Amendment accommodations," by protecting "expressions" but not "ideas." Further, the "fair use" defense even allows the public to use copyrighted "expressions" in limited circumstances. Accordingly, Ginsburg wrote that, because Congress has not "altered the traditional contours of copyright protection" with the CTEA, further First Amendment scrutiny was not necessary.
Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the CTEA's extension of existing copyrights, as opposed to future copyrights, was invalid. Stevens based this opinion on Supreme Court precedent holding that Congress may not extend the life of a patent beyond its expiration date. In Stevens's view, the same restrictions should apply to copyrights as well. Justice Breyer also wrote a dissenting opinion. He argued that the CTEA 20-year extension does not make the copyright term limited, as is required by the Copyright Clause, but instead "virtually perpetual." Further, Breyer argued that the CTEA's primary effect is not to promote science, but to inhibit it. Conceding that the Copyright Clause grants broad legislative power, Breyer nonetheless concluded that the CTEA falls outside that grant, thereby making it unconstitutional.
Which is ironic because, IIRC, the song Weird Al made was Amish Paradise, based on Coolio's Gangsta's Paradise. The thing is, Coolio's song was based on a sample of a Stevie Wonder song ("Pastime Paradise").
It's not as bad as you make it seem. Both Doctors and lawyers require years of graduate school just to start. When I was in college about 8 years ago, the highest paying field that only required a 4-year degree? Engineering. Looking at the linked to page, it is still relatively highly paid.
Whoops, there should have been a link to AccessDTV HDTV decoder, which does have PVR capabilities. What was it someone was saying about no HTPC coming close to TiVo?
So you don't think a PC can handle MP3 files? Ever hear of Winamp (just to name one of dozens of MP3 players available for PCs.). As for HD, yes a PC can handle HD. Maybe not the Win XP MCE, but how about this? (I don't know if PVR capabilities for HD are ready yet with that product, but PVR capabilities are available with this one.
There's nothing preventing you from attaching a PC to a television. In fact, many of today's video cards have s-video outputs. Plus, many projectors have VGA or DVI inputs and there are also devices that convert VGA to component inputs (such as this one.) In fact, the entire premise of the HTPC (Home theater PC) is that the PC is actually better than a standalone DVD player, because of the availability of scalers and custom resolutions. Not to mention the fact that it can also serve as an MP3 jukebox. Check out the HTPC FAQ. (Not to mention the fact that it is generally easier to get a region-free DVD-ROM drive than a region-free standalone DVD.)
Of course, Windows XP MCE is not necessary to play DVDs or to record tv shows, despite what MS would want you to think.
Off topic: Despite recent jokes about fancy computer cases, HTPC is a growing niche market and people want fancy computer cases (such as this Coolermaster case) because they want to put their PC with their receiver and other HT equipment.
Also, you can upgrade the space to your PC a lot easier than upgrading the space to your TiVO (which can't be upgraded without voiding the warranty and can only hold 2 hard drives anyway.) You can stick 8 200 GB hard drives into many cases (though probably not the HP they tested). Having the time to watch 1600 GB of stored TV shows is another matter.
As the article notes, there is a remote available for the MCE PC. There are also 3rd party remotes available if you want to build your own home theater PC.
The minilab system that is widely regarded as the best is the Fuji Frontier system. How does it work? By scanning film. Of course, it accepts files from digital cameras as well.
What is the best way to get large, "professional" prints? The Lightjet. How do these operate? Using very high quality scans! (See West Coast Imaging, for example). My point? You can already get digital images produced in the exact same manner as the best film prints.
There are already a lot of people who think digital photography has surpassed even medium format photography. See the Luminous Landscape, for example.
As for widespread adoption, photojournalists have all but abandoned film. The P&S crowd is already beginning to abandon film.
I've never understood the big deal. Personally, I don't answer the phone. The answering machine gets the message and I call people back. If my wife happens to answer the phone and give it to me, if it is a salesperson, I hang up.
I can't answer your question for you. But have you checked out the AVS Forum? Their Forum on Home Theater Computers should be just what you're looking for because a specialized forum should be able to give you better information than this forum. The AVS forums are very well populated and you should be able to find someone who can answer your question over there.
Solution: since you can install it on any number of machines, but can only print from the first machine you install from: install first on office computer. Don't put any info on you office computer until ready to file. Install on home computer and enter all information. Bring that information to your office computer to print. Simple solution.
No.
I think the networks are making a big deal over nothing.
To the perspective of the networks, don't they want MORE people watching their shows? Plus, taping shows is already legal, what's the difference with letting people put it on computer?
Note: I am not stating the copying is right or wrong, just stating what the law is and what the RIAA interprets the law to be.
That's not quite right either. You don't have a "right to create a backup. Nor are you exempt from the law by making a backup (with the exceptions of certain forms audio recording for non commercial purposes (The AHRA)).
Fair use is defined here and does not include a right to make a backup copy. In fact, the copying of the entire original article is a factor against fair use.
In fact, the Sony VCR case decided that time-shifting was a fair-use, under the assumption that people wouldn't be making a library of tapes.
With music, there are two separate copyrights. One for the underlying musical performance (i.e, for the sheet music) and one for the actual performance. The 1972 date is for the actual performance. Thus, Beatles recordings are not covered by copyright. However, the musical compositions are themselves copyrighted. Thus, you still can't copy them. What this does effect are older recordings of public domain (e.g., 19th century classical music.)
Very good point. While the typical /.er would look at an OS X interface and say OS X, if the typical computing user would say windows, you are probably right.