While this seems logical couple of questions (not meant to be a troll although it may sound otherwise)
1. Where will these come from? Don't most countries with the technical capability to do this already have some form of licensing agreement with the entertainment industry? 2. How many places have the capability to do this? If somebody moves to a non-IP respecting country will they have the technical infrastructure to support it? How is Tonga going to be able to stream 1K concurrent 128K streams?
Everybody has something to hide. It may be something unpopular you said, it may be associating with somebody you didn't know was a felon, it may be smoking pot. Whatever. There's a law against nearly everything on the book just waiting to be enforced in order to be used as leverage. As laws get passed in the future it will only get worse.
In addition, with more information being available to more people there is a greater risk of your info being used for illegitmate purposes such as fraud and identity theft. IIRC there was a recent case of an FBI agent using information in the FBI database to gain leverage over financial dealers for his financial gain.
I wish people wouldn't be so darn naive and trusting of those in power.
The AP is a wired service. I know AOL doesn't own them, but they certainly have picked up the story in AOL's publications whereas it seems absent in my local papers.
Since AP is a wire service many, many people contribute to it. You can find some odd stories on there. In 1986 a friend of mine posted a story on it stating that the local rock scene was great and had the potential for breakout talent. The next week rep's from several labels were in town scouting out talent.
I'm not saying your statement is false. I'm saying that AP can be used or ignored by publications.
This is the media simply trying to stir up a story. The fact that it is being pushed by AOL properties like CNN, Fortune etc makes it even more apparent.
It really doesn't matter to me which browser people use as long as it supports 95% of the latest specs (in this case HTML 4 and CSS-1). If it supports DOM, XML, and CSS-2 even better.
Why not follow the same couple/pros doing their video editing on a Mac throughout their entire marketing campaign?
Jon and Jen use Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio to make their DVDs for clients. They use MPEG4 to stream content using an approach like you outlined here. Then the couple's kid uses iMovie to make presentations for her class project.
Not as obnoxious as Dell's Steven, you identify with real users and can target specific markets for ads. Heck, you could even have XServe in there somewhere.
I'd prefer replies to Karma. I have plenty of Karma.
OTOH, ClarisWorks and FMP are consumer and home office level products. Shake and Rayz are obviously for high end pro video production houses. I don't see DVD Studio or Final Cut Pro being put on Windows any time soon.
I was referring to a hardware solution, external to the computer.
Sorry it wasn't more clear.
FWIW, the installer on the latest, greatest WMP for Mac doesn't even run. Even if it did it wouldn't support all the MS codecs, although I would bet mp3 would be one of them.
If MS made an MP3 player I wouldn't expect it to run on anyting but the latest Windows. Apple releases an MP3 player and can at least be hacked to run on Windows.
If a 3rd party makes an MP3 player and it only runs on Windows then I think there's more reason to raise a stink. It's not a product from the OS manufacturer.
Nevertheless, I'm not surprised that I can't watch World Cup videos on my Mac. Why should I be surprised when somebody in Taiwan makes an MP3 player that only works with Windows?
I'll tell you where Bill is. Out in the cold. MS doesn't "own a big chunk of Apple". I wish people would quit believing this. MS bought $150 million of NON-VOTING stock 5 years ago. Most if not all of it was sold when Apple's stock price was very high. MS even made a profit out of it. MS has no voice on Apple hardware/software development.
So what if you have to have 3rd party support to use i-Pod on Windows? I bet you use 3rd party apps to make your MP3s. You should be glad Apple isn't preventing 3rd parties from making compatibility software. Apple's usual course is to just sue people who use their products in ways they don't like.
Rumors are Apple itself will come out with Windows compatible software or hardware. But since it's Apple there's no way to know for sure.
Be thankful you have the money to burn. Why anybody would buy a Mac just so they can use their i-Pod is beyond me. I own a Mac and simply can't afford to buy anything beyond food and rent. So please, quit your complaining about having to get a 3rd party app to run your 1st class hardware and how you no longer need to buy a Mac.
What you don't seem to understand isn't that WaSP supporting any particular browser. What WaSP wants is browser makers to support the standards and to have developers write in those standards.
How difficult is it to get that through people's heads? WaSP doesn't support Mozilla just becuase it is not IE. They support it because it is standards compliant. WaSP congratulated IE 5 on Mac when it was released becuase of satnards adherence.
You are right about the tables. It si compliant, however using them for layout is not how they were intended to be used. That is the point I tried to make. It also explains why text-to-speech browsers have difficulties with them. I apologize if I wasn't clear.
As for (b) correct again, but WaSP would suggest you use a SPAN or DIV rather than a (b), which is a presentation tag rather than a structural one.
However, I do applaud Slashdot for at least use a DOCTYPE header, which reads as 3.2. WaSP would most likely encourage them to move to HTML 4.01 or and XML/XHTML DOCTYPE. That would allow the separation of content and layout.
The have shamed MS in the past for browser compatiblity. When MS decided to make MSNBC work only in their browsers while hiding behind the refrain of standards compatibilty WaSP members called "bullshit" and MS backed down.
Slashdot relies on tables for layout which is a big sin for WaSP. Not only do table-based layouts violate the structural markup that is the basis of HTML (and XML derivatives) it causes problems in browsers designed for the sight impaired (and therefore violates Section 508).
Slashdot also uses deprecated tags such as (font) and (b) rather than use CSS to change text presentation. I also don't see any structural flow such as using (H)eader tags to enable things like search bots to more accurately determine page content and weighted analysis.
So no, I would suspect Slashdot wouldn't stand up to WaSP scrutiny.
Actually, it was New York that passed a state law banning lead in figurines. This was back around '95. There was never any proof that the lead in the figures ever harmed anybody, but the law required the entire miniature industry to comply if they sold minis in NY.
So we got an inferior alloy that makes converting harder. It took a year or two before quality castings returned, but believe me, the changeover was an excuse to raise prices that never went back down after the initial investment went was recouped.
True developers use several browsers to test their pages, whether they are on Mac or not.
If you visited sites with developers as their audience (such as A List Apart) you'd see that people test on as many platforms as possible and emphasize standards compliance as much as possible.
IMHO it's MS, Intranet, and home developers that go the "designed for IE" route. Its what they use, audience be damned.
Hey, great. Guess what? I don't use MPlayer. I use Macs. I can't even get WiMP for Mac to install due to their crappy install script. Nevertheless, MS has specifically stated in the same article IIRC that their next generation Corona media will NOT play on the Mac. Will MPlayer play that?
Ahh yes, but its a game of diminishing returns. Like I said, one people realize that TV ads are little more effective than web ads then the whole system will need to be reengineered. I believe that the broadcasters will realize that their are more opportunities outside the broadcast for money making. They don't show ads on DVD collections during the shows do they?
No I don't know how many shared files have commercials. I don't download them.
Hollywood will simply buy the distribution rights for non-native sales. Not that Bollywod films sell much outside of India anyway.
You already see this happening in Hong Kong. Used to be 3-4 distributors releasing DVDs region free. People would import these into the US for sale. Recently these distributors went down to 1 or 2 and have begun restricting distribution. It is alleged Disney is behind this as a means to control distribution outside of Asia. They certainly clamped down on online stores in the US that sold the region free DVD versions of Shaolin Soccer and Warriors of Zu, both films that Miramax (Disney subsidiary) bought the North American rights to.
No doubt when Disney deigns to release these on DVD in North America they will be region 1 only, have edits from the original and be crippled in other ways. This despite the fact that the Region Free versions are available outside the US.
I don't understand why BigCos don't want broadcast (as opposed to pay TV like HBO) to be shared or spread. The only value for the broadcaster is in the initial broadcast. As the shows are rerun their audience diminishes and the perceived value from the customer drops.
Once the broadcasting machine realizes that people don't watch commercials as much as they want to believe they'll likely realize increased exposure to their product would guarantee after broadcast revenues such as DVD and VHS sales, and secondary merchandising opportunities.
It's just going to take them a while to figure this out. By the time they do everything will be locked up anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Which will cause Qwest to declare bancruptcy first:
poor management or lawsuits?
My money is on management. Lawsuits take forever to have an impact.
While this seems logical couple of questions (not meant to be a troll although it may sound otherwise)
1. Where will these come from? Don't most countries with the technical capability to do this already have some form of licensing agreement with the entertainment industry?
2. How many places have the capability to do this? If somebody moves to a non-IP respecting country will they have the technical infrastructure to support it? How is Tonga going to be able to stream 1K concurrent 128K streams?
Everybody has something to hide. It may be something unpopular you said, it may be associating with somebody you didn't know was a felon, it may be smoking pot. Whatever. There's a law against nearly everything on the book just waiting to be enforced in order to be used as leverage. As laws get passed in the future it will only get worse.
In addition, with more information being available to more people there is a greater risk of your info being used for illegitmate purposes such as fraud and identity theft. IIRC there was a recent case of an FBI agent using information in the FBI database to gain leverage over financial dealers for his financial gain.
I wish people wouldn't be so darn naive and trusting of those in power.
Maybe because it is attributed to a President resigning his office?
The AP is a wired service. I know AOL doesn't own them, but they certainly have picked up the story in AOL's publications whereas it seems absent in my local papers.
Since AP is a wire service many, many people contribute to it. You can find some odd stories on there. In 1986 a friend of mine posted a story on it stating that the local rock scene was great and had the potential for breakout talent. The next week rep's from several labels were in town scouting out talent.
I'm not saying your statement is false. I'm saying that AP can be used or ignored by publications.
This is the media simply trying to stir up a story. The fact that it is being pushed by AOL properties like CNN, Fortune etc makes it even more apparent.
It really doesn't matter to me which browser people use as long as it supports 95% of the latest specs (in this case HTML 4 and CSS-1). If it supports DOM, XML, and CSS-2 even better.
Why not follow the same couple/pros doing their video editing on a Mac throughout their entire marketing campaign?
Jon and Jen use Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio to make their DVDs for clients. They use MPEG4 to stream content using an approach like you outlined here. Then the couple's kid uses iMovie to make presentations for her class project.
Not as obnoxious as Dell's Steven, you identify with real users and can target specific markets for ads. Heck, you could even have XServe in there somewhere.
I'd prefer replies to Karma. I have plenty of Karma.
OTOH, ClarisWorks and FMP are consumer and home office level products. Shake and Rayz are obviously for high end pro video production houses. I don't see DVD Studio or Final Cut Pro being put on Windows any time soon.
Just MHO, YMMV.
I was referring to a hardware solution, external to the computer.
Sorry it wasn't more clear.
FWIW, the installer on the latest, greatest WMP for Mac doesn't even run. Even if it did it wouldn't support all the MS codecs, although I would bet mp3 would be one of them.
Q: What do I need to use an iPod with my PC?
:)
A: You need a firewire port on your PC, and some software to allow you to add song files to your iPod.
Since you're reading the EphPod help file, you should know that the best software solution is EphPod plus MacOpener.
They even mention several compatible firewire cards and answer the question as to why you need a powered firewire cable.
www.ephpod.com/faq.html
I'm sure the web site could answer even more questions should you have them.
If MS made an MP3 player I wouldn't expect it to run on anyting but the latest Windows. Apple releases an MP3 player and can at least be hacked to run on Windows.
If a 3rd party makes an MP3 player and it only runs on Windows then I think there's more reason to raise a stink. It's not a product from the OS manufacturer.
Nevertheless, I'm not surprised that I can't watch World Cup videos on my Mac. Why should I be surprised when somebody in Taiwan makes an MP3 player that only works with Windows?
I'll tell you where Bill is. Out in the cold. MS doesn't "own a big chunk of Apple". I wish people would quit believing this. MS bought $150 million of NON-VOTING stock 5 years ago. Most if not all of it was sold when Apple's stock price was very high. MS even made a profit out of it. MS has no voice on Apple hardware/software development.
So what if you have to have 3rd party support to use i-Pod on Windows? I bet you use 3rd party apps to make your MP3s. You should be glad Apple isn't preventing 3rd parties from making compatibility software. Apple's usual course is to just sue people who use their products in ways they don't like.
Rumors are Apple itself will come out with Windows compatible software or hardware. But since it's Apple there's no way to know for sure.
Be thankful you have the money to burn. Why anybody would buy a Mac just so they can use their i-Pod is beyond me. I own a Mac and simply can't afford to buy anything beyond food and rent. So please, quit your complaining about having to get a 3rd party app to run your 1st class hardware and how you no longer need to buy a Mac.
Yes, I'm frustrated ATM. Nothing personal.
What you don't seem to understand isn't that WaSP supporting any particular browser. What WaSP wants is browser makers to support the standards and to have developers write in those standards.
How difficult is it to get that through people's heads? WaSP doesn't support Mozilla just becuase it is not IE. They support it because it is standards compliant. WaSP congratulated IE 5 on Mac when it was released becuase of satnards adherence.
Sheesh. Are you a troll or what?
You are right about the tables. It si compliant, however using them for layout is not how they were intended to be used. That is the point I tried to make. It also explains why text-to-speech browsers have difficulties with them. I apologize if I wasn't clear.
As for (b) correct again, but WaSP would suggest you use a SPAN or DIV rather than a (b), which is a presentation tag rather than a structural one.
However, I do applaud Slashdot for at least use a DOCTYPE header, which reads as 3.2. WaSP would most likely encourage them to move to HTML 4.01 or and XML/XHTML DOCTYPE. That would allow the separation of content and layout.
The have shamed MS in the past for browser compatiblity. When MS decided to make MSNBC work only in their browsers while hiding behind the refrain of standards compatibilty WaSP members called "bullshit" and MS backed down.
well...
Slashdot relies on tables for layout which is a big sin for WaSP. Not only do table-based layouts violate the structural markup that is the basis of HTML (and XML derivatives) it causes problems in browsers designed for the sight impaired (and therefore violates Section 508).
Slashdot also uses deprecated tags such as (font) and (b) rather than use CSS to change text presentation. I also don't see any structural flow such as using (H)eader tags to enable things like search bots to more accurately determine page content and weighted analysis.
So no, I would suspect Slashdot wouldn't stand up to WaSP scrutiny.
As long as people are watching TV I'd be afraid of the Tyranny of the Majority.
Actually, it was New York that passed a state law banning lead in figurines. This was back around '95. There was never any proof that the lead in the figures ever harmed anybody, but the law required the entire miniature industry to comply if they sold minis in NY.
So we got an inferior alloy that makes converting harder. It took a year or two before quality castings returned, but believe me, the changeover was an excuse to raise prices that never went back down after the initial investment went was recouped.
True developers use several browsers to test their pages, whether they are on Mac or not.
If you visited sites with developers as their audience (such as A List Apart) you'd see that people test on as many platforms as possible and emphasize standards compliance as much as possible.
IMHO it's MS, Intranet, and home developers that go the "designed for IE" route. Its what they use, audience be damned.
Hey, great. Guess what? I don't use MPlayer. I use Macs. I can't even get WiMP for Mac to install due to their crappy install script. Nevertheless, MS has specifically stated in the same article IIRC that their next generation Corona media will NOT play on the Mac. Will MPlayer play that?
Ahh yes, but its a game of diminishing returns. Like I said, one people realize that TV ads are little more effective than web ads then the whole system will need to be reengineered. I believe that the broadcasters will realize that their are more opportunities outside the broadcast for money making. They don't show ads on DVD collections during the shows do they?
No I don't know how many shared files have commercials. I don't download them.
Hollywood will simply buy the distribution rights for non-native sales. Not that Bollywod films sell much outside of India anyway.
You already see this happening in Hong Kong. Used to be 3-4 distributors releasing DVDs region free. People would import these into the US for sale. Recently these distributors went down to 1 or 2 and have begun restricting distribution. It is alleged Disney is behind this as a means to control distribution outside of Asia. They certainly clamped down on online stores in the US that sold the region free DVD versions of Shaolin Soccer and Warriors of Zu, both films that Miramax (Disney subsidiary) bought the North American rights to.
No doubt when Disney deigns to release these on DVD in North America they will be region 1 only, have edits from the original and be crippled in other ways. This despite the fact that the Region Free versions are available outside the US.
I don't understand why BigCos don't want broadcast (as opposed to pay TV like HBO) to be shared or spread. The only value for the broadcaster is in the initial broadcast. As the shows are rerun their audience diminishes and the perceived value from the customer drops.
Once the broadcasting machine realizes that people don't watch commercials as much as they want to believe they'll likely realize increased exposure to their product would guarantee after broadcast revenues such as DVD and VHS sales, and secondary merchandising opportunities.
It's just going to take them a while to figure this out. By the time they do everything will be locked up anyway.
Unless of course the video is in Real or WiMP format.
AOL/TW set top boxes won't allow ad-skipping.