I've got computers in nearly every room in the house. Every one has a tuner. Every one can pause, fast forward, rewind live television. Every one can access all the shows I've recorded. Every one has access to my collection of over 400 movies I ripped to divx. Every one has access to my collection of over 1200 CDs. I've had this system in place for years. Why is it taking so long for everyone else to catch-up?!
Well, I totally agree that AMD is ahead of Intel in terms of technology. Which is pretty shocking considering the lead Intel should have had if it didn't waste so much time on Itanium.
The other mistake Intel made is how it ignored the gaming/enthusiast market. Or to put it another way, Intel assumed we didn't really want or need top of the line desktop systems, probably to protect the prices of the high-end workstation market. AMD was glad to give us want we wanted and create powerful systems without breaking our piggy banks.
But, unfortunately for AMD, none of this matters. Because most people are sheep they STILL tend to see Intel chips as being faster and more stable. Thus, if Intel chips cost about the same price as AMD, most would buy Intel.
Where have you been the last decade? Do you REALLY think the feds care about anti-trust cases?! At best Intel would get a slap on the wrist while the other wrist would be used for burying AMD's casket.
If I were Microsoft I'd simply include an open format buried deep within Office. Buried so deep that even the biggest geek couldn't find it. But it'd be there so when an entity such as Massachusetts complained about the lack of open formats in Office, sales people could point it out and say, "If you really want to use an open format, we're completely behind you. In fact, Office includes an open format. Sign this non-disclosure agreement and we'll tell you how to turn it on." (Heck, maybe you'd have to get some code from Microsoft to enable it.)
And of course websites that posted how to enable the ability to create open documents in Office would be sued under the DMCA.
I guess it's a good thing that Microsoft isn't as evil as I am.
If I were Intel I'd respond by drastically lowering prices for a few years. By the time the lawsuit actually got to trial AMD would have long since went out of business.
Since when does Microsoft give a rat's ass about compatibility? Each version of Office creates incompatibilities with the earlier versions. And because it's proprietary, Microsoft can close the door anytime it wants.
Under the open source model, the end user CAN view it and will ALWAYS be able to view it. Under the proprietary model, the user MIGHT be able to view it, but that is completely under Microsoft's discretion.
In the US copyright infringing is NOT stealing. The US Supreme Court in DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) held that infringing copyright and theft are NOT analogous.
The court reasoned that when you steal from someone you're depriving them of the object and their rights associated with the object. E.g., if I steal your car, you're unable to use your car, sell your car, lease out your car, etc.
However, if I download a song, the band and the label can still use, sell, and lease the song. In other words, the only right my infringement impacts is the right of a limited monopoly as guaranteed by the US Constitution and copyright law.
That does NOT mean that infringing is legal. Of course it's illegal to infringe copyrights, but merely because it's illegal does not make it theft. Rape illegal, but it's not considered theft. Murder is illegal, but it's not considered theft. Arson is illegal but it's not considered theft.
But of course the content industries LOVE to call it theft, stealing, and piracy. Those terms are simply more ominous and frightening than infringing. They are trying to turn this into an emotion issue sheep like you can understand. And you can continue being a sheep and believe the RIAA and the MPAA's lies and corruption of our language and call infringement theft, but you'll still be wrong.
The truth was way beyond being bent. The idea that a user is unlikely to use commands in Linux is ludicrous. If you use Linux AND if you intend to DO ANYTHING with Linux, you WILL need to use the command line. Now maybe someone could set up a Linux computer for a newbie, and maybe that newbie will never have to use the command line, but the person setting it up certainly would have.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to use the command line, in many ways it's more efficient. But to say that you'll almost certainly never use it in Linux is an outright lie.
You've got it straight. Marketing influences people. If it didn't, it wouldn't exist. Also, the movie industry spends millions on marketing. However, there are people like me who are subjected to the marketing but cannot actually "buy" the product. I.e., we cannot go to the theater.
As I've said in a later post in this thread, which you obviously didn't read, in reality the movie industry is doing me a huge favor by giving me a four month "cooling off" period.
But as I've also said previously, the movie industry is not about public service. It's about profit. If the movie industry wants to profit it should market a product we can all buy, not just to some of us.
Cable companies are also required to offer programming ala carte, i.e., we're not required to take their forced packages. But they don't. Cable companies are to required to provide firewire capable boxes when requested. They don't.
The problem is that the FCC has to enforce such violations, but the FCC simply doesn't care. If you can get the FCC to force your cable company to follow the law. That's great. Unfortunately, the rest of us are not that lucky.
Thanks. It would sure seem to be worth renting. First, Steve Carell is simply hilarious. He's one of those people who can make you laugh without really doing anything. He was f-ing hilarious in Anchorman. He made that movie.
And second, it's an R rated movie. Which means it wasn't dumbed down for teen audiences. It's amazing how many movies are RUINED merely to get the PG13 rating and the moronic teen audience that goes with it. Hey Hollywood! You can't please everyone! Sometimes what us old fogies like IS NOT what teens like!
Actually, you can. I have the "40 Year Old Virgin" in my queue. However, I constantly comb through my list removing stuff that have second doubts about. I have little doubt that the "40 Year Old Virgin" will be removed by the time it gets to the top of my queue.
Oh, I know it's almost certainly twaddle. Heck, let's assume it IS twaddle. My point is that IF the DVD were available now, I would rent it. Thus, the movie industry would get my money. However, by waiting to release the DVD, the movie industry will get nothing from me.
In a way the movie industry is doing me a huge favor. Allowing me to avoid crappy movies by giving a four month grace period for me to wise up. But why are they doing this favor to me when they could be taking my money?
I agree with the theory that DVDs should be released simultaneously with the theatrical release.
I have two young kids, so I can't go and see movies in the theaters as much as I'd like. (Actually, I never get to see movies in the theater.) However, I keep being inundated with movie marketing in such away that I really want to see certain movies. But by the time they come out on DVD so I can rent them, I no longer care to do so. The marketing fog surrounding me has long since cleared.
A good example is the movie "40 Year Old Virgin." It sounds hilarious and I really want to see it. Will I want to see it four months from now when the DVD is release? Almost certainly not.
All the money the studios spend on marketing is wasted on people who cannot, for whatever reason, not go to theaters. If DVDs were immediately available, the marketing would not go to waste.
Let me clarify something, the FCC has determined that telcos can force consumers to take phone plans with their DSL services. In other words, you'll try to get DSL, all third parties DSL ISPs will be gone, and you'll be forced to buy a long distant phone plan.
Sure, there is competition between cable and telco broadband. However, my point is that neither side really wants it to succeed.
It should be noted that the telcos have been given two favorable legal decisions. First, telcos do not have to share their DSL lines. Thus, the telcos can eliminate all third party DSL providers. Second, telcos can bundle phone services with their DSL services. Thus, there is no point getting VoIP with DSL because you'll be paying for phone service anyway!
And let's not forget the recently proposed Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act. This will help both telco and cable broadband providers. It allows ISPs to block ANY content they choose. To put it another way, Charter could block all access to Netflix. Or the DSL division of SBC could block all access to VoIP services. Both of those will be perfectly legal!
Like I said, that's why I hope broadband over power lines succeeds!
A lot of people are perplexed at why broadband sucks in the US. They blame the government. They blame the size of our country. They blame the market. But look who's primarily behind broadband over here: Phone companies and cable companies.
Let's start with phone companies. Does it really benefit phone companies to have great and cheap bandwidth? Not when everyone switches over to VoIP killing their high profit long distance service. Not to mention that businesses pay for EVERY call they make. If broadband was great and cheap, the phone companies would disappear.
Let's move on to cable companies. Pretty soon you'll be able to watch movies via broadband. E.g., Netflix is about to offer movies. In a few years you'll probably be able to watch any movie and any TV you want with a simple clicks. Does this benefit cable companies? Nope. Because they make tons of money, nearly all their money, selling premium movie channels and content via pay-per-view. In other words, if broadband was great and cheap, they'd also be out of business.
Thus, the ONLY way we're going to get real broadband in the US is by wrestling control of it from the current status quo. That's why I'm really excited about broadband over power lines. The power companies have nothing to lose with broadband.
Isn't the purpose of the DMCA to protected copyrighted materials? How does Real allowing the iPod to play MORE DRM material violate the DMCA?
I realize that Apple's business model is to get people to buy iPods and use iTunes. But is the purpose of government really to protect business models?
Slashdot Mirror
I've got computers in nearly every room in the house. Every one has a tuner. Every one can pause, fast forward, rewind live television. Every one can access all the shows I've recorded. Every one has access to my collection of over 400 movies I ripped to divx. Every one has access to my collection of over 1200 CDs. I've had this system in place for years. Why is it taking so long for everyone else to catch-up?!
Well, I totally agree that AMD is ahead of Intel in terms of technology. Which is pretty shocking considering the lead Intel should have had if it didn't waste so much time on Itanium.
The other mistake Intel made is how it ignored the gaming/enthusiast market. Or to put it another way, Intel assumed we didn't really want or need top of the line desktop systems, probably to protect the prices of the high-end workstation market. AMD was glad to give us want we wanted and create powerful systems without breaking our piggy banks.
But, unfortunately for AMD, none of this matters. Because most people are sheep they STILL tend to see Intel chips as being faster and more stable. Thus, if Intel chips cost about the same price as AMD, most would buy Intel.
Where have you been the last decade? Do you REALLY think the feds care about anti-trust cases?! At best Intel would get a slap on the wrist while the other wrist would be used for burying AMD's casket.
If I were Microsoft I'd simply include an open format buried deep within Office. Buried so deep that even the biggest geek couldn't find it. But it'd be there so when an entity such as Massachusetts complained about the lack of open formats in Office, sales people could point it out and say, "If you really want to use an open format, we're completely behind you. In fact, Office includes an open format. Sign this non-disclosure agreement and we'll tell you how to turn it on." (Heck, maybe you'd have to get some code from Microsoft to enable it.)
And of course websites that posted how to enable the ability to create open documents in Office would be sued under the DMCA.
I guess it's a good thing that Microsoft isn't as evil as I am.
If I were Intel I'd respond by drastically lowering prices for a few years. By the time the lawsuit actually got to trial AMD would have long since went out of business.
"has worldwide compatilibility"
Since when does Microsoft give a rat's ass about compatibility? Each version of Office creates incompatibilities with the earlier versions. And because it's proprietary, Microsoft can close the door anytime it wants.
Under the open source model, the end user CAN view it and will ALWAYS be able to view it. Under the proprietary model, the user MIGHT be able to view it, but that is completely under Microsoft's discretion.
In the US copyright infringing is NOT stealing. The US Supreme Court in DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) held that infringing copyright and theft are NOT analogous.
The court reasoned that when you steal from someone you're depriving them of the object and their rights associated with the object. E.g., if I steal your car, you're unable to use your car, sell your car, lease out your car, etc.
However, if I download a song, the band and the label can still use, sell, and lease the song. In other words, the only right my infringement impacts is the right of a limited monopoly as guaranteed by the US Constitution and copyright law.
That does NOT mean that infringing is legal. Of course it's illegal to infringe copyrights, but merely because it's illegal does not make it theft. Rape illegal, but it's not considered theft. Murder is illegal, but it's not considered theft. Arson is illegal but it's not considered theft.
But of course the content industries LOVE to call it theft, stealing, and piracy. Those terms are simply more ominous and frightening than infringing. They are trying to turn this into an emotion issue sheep like you can understand. And you can continue being a sheep and believe the RIAA and the MPAA's lies and corruption of our language and call infringement theft, but you'll still be wrong.
The truth was way beyond being bent. The idea that a user is unlikely to use commands in Linux is ludicrous. If you use Linux AND if you intend to DO ANYTHING with Linux, you WILL need to use the command line. Now maybe someone could set up a Linux computer for a newbie, and maybe that newbie will never have to use the command line, but the person setting it up certainly would have.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to use the command line, in many ways it's more efficient. But to say that you'll almost certainly never use it in Linux is an outright lie.
"and you didn't even mention the real quality of the movie at all."
We're NOT talking about quality. We're talking about marketing. If "quality" were the standard we used to buy goods we would not need marketing.
I've read and reread your post, and I just don't get why you're so angry. I'll give it a rereread at work and give it a second go.
... why I install prefbar and turn off Flash. If a site doesn't want to show me it's content, it's probably not worth reading anyway.
You've got it straight. Marketing influences people. If it didn't, it wouldn't exist. Also, the movie industry spends millions on marketing. However, there are people like me who are subjected to the marketing but cannot actually "buy" the product. I.e., we cannot go to the theater.
As I've said in a later post in this thread, which you obviously didn't read, in reality the movie industry is doing me a huge favor by giving me a four month "cooling off" period.
But as I've also said previously, the movie industry is not about public service. It's about profit. If the movie industry wants to profit it should market a product we can all buy, not just to some of us.
Cable companies are also required to offer programming ala carte, i.e., we're not required to take their forced packages. But they don't. Cable companies are to required to provide firewire capable boxes when requested. They don't.
The problem is that the FCC has to enforce such violations, but the FCC simply doesn't care. If you can get the FCC to force your cable company to follow the law. That's great. Unfortunately, the rest of us are not that lucky.
Yeah, IF you can get your cable company to provide such a card. Gook luck trying.
Thanks. It would sure seem to be worth renting. First, Steve Carell is simply hilarious. He's one of those people who can make you laugh without really doing anything. He was f-ing hilarious in Anchorman. He made that movie.
And second, it's an R rated movie. Which means it wasn't dumbed down for teen audiences. It's amazing how many movies are RUINED merely to get the PG13 rating and the moronic teen audience that goes with it. Hey Hollywood! You can't please everyone! Sometimes what us old fogies like IS NOT what teens like!
Actually, you can. I have the "40 Year Old Virgin" in my queue. However, I constantly comb through my list removing stuff that have second doubts about. I have little doubt that the "40 Year Old Virgin" will be removed by the time it gets to the top of my queue.
Oh, I know it's almost certainly twaddle. Heck, let's assume it IS twaddle. My point is that IF the DVD were available now, I would rent it. Thus, the movie industry would get my money. However, by waiting to release the DVD, the movie industry will get nothing from me.
In a way the movie industry is doing me a huge favor. Allowing me to avoid crappy movies by giving a four month grace period for me to wise up. But why are they doing this favor to me when they could be taking my money?
I agree with the theory that DVDs should be released simultaneously with the theatrical release.
I have two young kids, so I can't go and see movies in the theaters as much as I'd like. (Actually, I never get to see movies in the theater.) However, I keep being inundated with movie marketing in such away that I really want to see certain movies. But by the time they come out on DVD so I can rent them, I no longer care to do so. The marketing fog surrounding me has long since cleared.
A good example is the movie "40 Year Old Virgin." It sounds hilarious and I really want to see it. Will I want to see it four months from now when the DVD is release? Almost certainly not.
All the money the studios spend on marketing is wasted on people who cannot, for whatever reason, not go to theaters. If DVDs were immediately available, the marketing would not go to waste.
I agree, if all it takes is money, then ANYONE could get use to the Linux name. Where's the quality in that crap?!
Let me clarify something, the FCC has determined that telcos can force consumers to take phone plans with their DSL services. In other words, you'll try to get DSL, all third parties DSL ISPs will be gone, and you'll be forced to buy a long distant phone plan.
Sure, there is competition between cable and telco broadband. However, my point is that neither side really wants it to succeed.
It should be noted that the telcos have been given two favorable legal decisions. First, telcos do not have to share their DSL lines. Thus, the telcos can eliminate all third party DSL providers. Second, telcos can bundle phone services with their DSL services. Thus, there is no point getting VoIP with DSL because you'll be paying for phone service anyway!
And let's not forget the recently proposed Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act. This will help both telco and cable broadband providers. It allows ISPs to block ANY content they choose. To put it another way, Charter could block all access to Netflix. Or the DSL division of SBC could block all access to VoIP services. Both of those will be perfectly legal!
Like I said, that's why I hope broadband over power lines succeeds!
God that was funny. I'm still fucking laughing!
A lot of people are perplexed at why broadband sucks in the US. They blame the government. They blame the size of our country. They blame the market. But look who's primarily behind broadband over here: Phone companies and cable companies.
Let's start with phone companies. Does it really benefit phone companies to have great and cheap bandwidth? Not when everyone switches over to VoIP killing their high profit long distance service. Not to mention that businesses pay for EVERY call they make. If broadband was great and cheap, the phone companies would disappear.
Let's move on to cable companies. Pretty soon you'll be able to watch movies via broadband. E.g., Netflix is about to offer movies. In a few years you'll probably be able to watch any movie and any TV you want with a simple clicks. Does this benefit cable companies? Nope. Because they make tons of money, nearly all their money, selling premium movie channels and content via pay-per-view. In other words, if broadband was great and cheap, they'd also be out of business.
Thus, the ONLY way we're going to get real broadband in the US is by wrestling control of it from the current status quo. That's why I'm really excited about broadband over power lines. The power companies have nothing to lose with broadband.
It's not a perfect idea. The first problem: What's porn? The second problem: Who decides what's porn? The third problem: Who enforces it?
But they are not circumventing Apple's DRM to get to copyrighted content. Thus, there is no DMCA violation.
Isn't the purpose of the DMCA to protected copyrighted materials? How does Real allowing the iPod to play MORE DRM material violate the DMCA?
I realize that Apple's business model is to get people to buy iPods and use iTunes. But is the purpose of government really to protect business models?