"I have two ReplayTVs. I don't have any of the problems you read about with TiVo--and I can skip past commercials, not just fast-forward. I don't understand why TiVo is more popular that ReplayTV. It is certainly is not as good."
Its the whole Windows vs. Mac argument all over again, but with a role reversal. Replay's GUI and menus were inferior to TiVo's GUI, and in this case, TiVo won. Replay was the first in the incubator, but TiVo was the first to market. TiVo also had different subscription options from the very start, whereas the original Replay units cost $200 more upfront because there was no monthly subscription option. And from the start, TiVo had Philips and Sony making units for them and the DirecTV contract. Replay had none of that for various reasons. TiVo gave away units to Hollywood personalities and thus "TiVoing" became a phrase in popular culture. Despite only being profitable recently, TiVo is still the same company. The Replay product line has been owned by three different companies now and is very close to being scrapped. Its currently owned by D&M Holdings who recently scrapped Rio because Apple had overwhelming marketshare in the MP3 player market. As I posted already, the writing is on the wall for ReplayTV. The only market it has left is the technically proficient crowd and they have enough skill to build their own PC/DVRs. And as a commercial entity as well as a hardware/software innovator, it is irrelevant.
"I use ReplayTV and have never had any problems with content protection. There is even a great open source tool called DVArchive (at sourceforge) that lets one copy shows to/from the ReplayTV units and even stream content directly from the ReplayTV to any machine that supports HTTP streaming."
Suggesting people buy ReplayTV units in order to increase ReplayTV owner numbers by capitalizing on a mistake committed by TiVo is like suggesting people buy Rio branded MP3 players at this point instead of an Apple iPod over something like Ogg support.
ReplayTV is owned by D&M Holdings. D&M Holdings was the owner of Rio until they recently abandoned the MP3 player market, sold off all the IP, and retained the brand name. D&M sold off Rio because they couldn't make a decent profit in the market due to Apple's overwhelming marketshare. Similarly, Replay has been on the market since 1999/2000 and has only a fraction of the installed user base of TiVo. Connect the dots.
Building a MythTV player, a Windows Media Center PC, or an EyeTV unit for Mac owners would be a far more beneficial suggestion as suitable TiVo replacements. To advocate for Replay now is like advocating for Betamax.
"If TIVO thinks viewers will make that fine of a distinction, let me remind you that this is the same general public who couldn't tell the difference between a real war hero and a dope-smoking, draft-dodging Connetitcut Yankee pretending to be a religious fighter pilot from Texas."
I'll give you points if by "real war hero" you were referring to Senator John McCain losing out to Bush in the primaries for Republican Presidential nomination for the 2000 election. If instead you are referring to that opportunist John Kerry, then you lose points.
And when I refer to points, I mean in terms of general principle, and not in terms of moderator points here on Slashdot.
This story really cheesed me off this morning prior to work. I like TiVo, and up until this point, my only criticism about the company has been with their snail-pace movement towards adding necessary features to their product (CableCard 1.0/2.0 support, HD support, etc.), but this is inexcusable. I would understand DRM inclusion to PPV content and I would accept that. I would even accept this DRM for TiVo software updates to the Comcast DVRs scheduled for next year since Comcast already has such *understandings* with the content companies...but to add this to existing TiVo Series2 set-top boxes for general programming? No frakkin' way.
Its time for a shareholder revolt against TiVo's obviously inept management team.
"Marketshare is not significantly increasing and there's an increasing focus on the low end, lowering profits. Switch to Intel, sell the business, a company like Dell would jump at the chance to stick Apple logos on some of its PCs, pre-install OS X, and sell them as Macintoshes for as long as people want them. Dell can afford that. Apple can't. Apple has to continue to invest R&D into its PC line. Dell will be spending that money anyway, adding the Mac for Dell means doing what it was doing anyway, but slapping a different sticker on the machine, a different OS installation CD in the box, deducting the Microsoft tax from their costs, and adding $200-500 to the sticker price."
R&D is an alien concept for Dell. Dell is a glorified "screwdriver shop" that has *Walmartified* the computer industry. They rely on everyone else to do the innovation.
Jobs would sell the Apple computer business to Sony before he sold out to the likes of Dell.
"In any case, "Stevie" isn't as fickle as you might think. "Stevie" had a Thinkpad for a very long time after he rejoined Apple. "Stevie" is a shrewd businessman, he's not going to prop up a platform unless it's in Apple's best interests."
So what? It was probably running the NeXTStep OS, which is now known as Mac OS X.
You are also wrong about marketshare. Check the figures. Apple is up in marketshare this year over lasts. The "iPod halo effect" is working and without a real advertising campaign for the Mac platform either.
"You're on notice, and will be labelled a Rouge Nation in an instant. Remember, the other guys have more nukes than you do and EVERYONE will breathe easier after the US (the most disruptive agent at the moment) is gone."
How do you figure? Why would Russia retaliate against the US for nuking Muslim extremists? They seem to be having issues with Muslim "terrorists" themselves. The same goes with China and Muslim secessionists in some of their provinces. So who exactly would nuke the U.S. in retaliation in mass numbers larger than the total U.S. nuclear arsenal? Your position makes no sense.
"That's not the reason for the existance of Israel nor is it the reason the U.S. supports Israel. Try again."
Then what is the rational reason why we support that State then? To claim its to support democracy in the region would be like claiming the apartheid era South African state was a democracy under its modern definition.
"I've voted Democrat in the last several presidential elections, but I'm registered with the "decline to state" party. (Hmm, wouldn't it be funny if there really was a party called "Decline to State?" The American Independent party confuses things enough already...) In 2000, California had just instituted an open primary, which meant that any registered voter could vote for any candidate, regardless of the voter's party. That meant that Democrats could vote in the Republican primary and vice versa. (And us decline-to-staters could vote in the primary, period.) I voted for McCain in that primary. Had he won the nomination, there's a serious chance I might have voted for him, depending on what came out during the campaign. But the moment Bush got the nomination, I knew my vote was going to Gore."
I loved the Open Primary in California. I too voted for McCain in that primary. I also voted against Lungren in each primary for Statewide offices he ran for, but to no avail. Unfortunately, the courts found the open primaries violated the Constitutional rights of free assembly for those parties (Dems and Reps) since nonmembers could determine who the parties ultimately nominated.
I also found it funny that Dems complained most vocally about how much Nader running in 2000 and 2004 siphoned votes from Gore and Kerry when Ross Perot successfully siphoned off far more votes from Republicans in 1992 and 1996.
For the record, I really like the system the Greens have proposed that was tested for the election for San Francisco's mayor. Hopefully it will be instituted Statewide.
I also wish Sun or some other company could bring out open electronic ballot machines that allowed for a paper trail and were more reliable than the machines by Diebold that are powered by Windows.
Nah, I just did not include Poland because I meant a "consistent" ally when I stated "true ally." Britain has been our consistent ally since World War I. So much so that she's essentially our "historic" ally if we excuse the mess that was the Revolution and the War of 1812...:)
"Our biggest problem right now is that Bush can't admit that he's wrong. I would love a president who was for something before he was against it, at least he's reassessing his positions instead of blindly pressing on."
I totally disagree. Its just Kerry has been in the Senate so long that he is now voting against positions he took and cherished before. To paraphrase the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell, Kerry "has sat too long."
I will admit that even though I supported Bush over Kerry, Bush is wrong about Kyoto and the World Criminal Court. However, it was a cheap shot by Kerry to pick on Bush's position against the Kyoto Treaty when he himself voted against it when it came to a vote in the Senate. Kerry should've also resigned his seat in the Senate when he ran for the Presidency since he missed so many votes meaning he was neglecting the job he was voted to do. If you want a comparison, Bob Dole resigned the Senate when he ran for the Presidency back in 1996. It was right in 1996, and Kerry should have done similar in 2004, but he didn't. To me, that says a lot.
"It seems to me that what is and what isn't part of 'the nation' rather depends on what comes in handy eh? Some forces in a foreign country are included, but a military base on US controlled territory is not?"
Think *embassies*. They are in foreign lands but they are sovereign territory.
"The Muslim terrorists whine and bitch and moan not just about the fact that we support Israel and have/had troops on their holy grounds, but that *gasp* Spain is actually ruled today by the Spanish and not those imperialist Moores. Repeat the same claims about Greece, Romania, a few other countries in Europe occupied by the Ottomans, India and well... you get the idea. Pretty much any country where the non-Muslims gave their Muslim overlords a swift kick in the ass right out the door."
Since you touched the subject of Greece and former Muslim overlordship of them...I'd like to know how and why it is strategically important for the U.S. to support the State of Israel, outside of some religious-oh-so's claiming that Christians should support the continued (re)establishment of that nation-state for the self-serving purpose of speeding up the return of Jesus (as if a supreme being is held hostage by prophecy penned by simplistic humans) because apparently Jesus cannot return unless Israel exists.
To me, its hypocritical to support the right of that nation-state to currently exist to make up for the fact that the Romans obliterated it nearly 2,000 years ago. If we do that, why don't we support the Greeks in pushing the Turks out of modern-day Turkey since that nation-state was founded upon the conquest of historically Greek lands and that was done far more recently than 2,000 years ago? If a Palestinian state existing on all of modern day Israel is offensive, then why is it not offensive that modern Turkey exists on top of Byzantium, the Eastern Roman Empire?
And for the record, I'm not Greek. I just like to point out absurdity at every given opportunity.
"When "Death to America, death to Ireal" is chanted at the end of Irans parliamentry sessions much in the same fasion you might say "Amen" in church...do you really thing we should not take them seriously?"
And I wish they'd stop lumping in the U.S. with Israel. Seriously, haven't the chaps in those terrorist groups received the memo indicating that Britain is our (the U.S.) only true ally (and the Australians)?
"I vote for a preemtpive impeachment before the man in charge of the button can do anything dumb."
Why? So he can be replaced by an even bigger moron who claims to be an intellectual but got worse grades than our current President? A person who will claim he was for *pushing the button* before he was against it? Yeah, he certainly would be a better president (smirk).
Know what? Belushi's character in "Animal House" was based upon W. What was Kerry's excuse for his poor academic performance? He certainly did not inspire a great movie made about his college career...:)
"I'm from England, and I know English history pretty well. England had a time like that, under the ruthless dictates of King John, where any person could be arrested on suspicion of an unspecified crime, on the basis of the accuser's uncorroborated "eyewitness testimony". So horrified did England become that it rose up in rebellion and demanded a written constitution (the Magna Carta)."
Uhm, I thought (Great) Britain does not have a "written" constitution. Its a flexible unwritten constitution in that it isn't comprised of a single document (versus the U.S. Constitution) but made up of all laws still on the books as well as historical documents such as Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. In that aspect, it could be called a "common law constitution" although the term has never been coined to my knowledge.
Its actually admirable, the unwritten British constitution. At least it leaves Parliament flexible in passing laws instead of yielding to an appointed court-for-life pretending to "interpret" the meaning of a document written over 200 years prior under the guise of "adapting" it to the modern world.
And as for the various "Rights of Englishmen" earned through English history, your own right to trial by jury is under fire from various "reforms" Prime Minister Blair and his allies have proposed. Not to mention the prohibition against "double jeopardy." So perhaps you might want to stick to ensuring your rights as an Englishman from your own representatives instead of critiquing what's going on in our Colonies currently...:)
ps. If you want to address the subject of tyranny from the English throne, what about Charles I? Surely he was far more a tyrant than John ever was. And unlike Robin Hood, Oliver Cromwell existed...
"In short, North Korea might have the capability to launch one or two nukes directly at the USA (actually they don't, but lets just assume they do, they probably do have the nukes for it), but is far from assured destruction of the USA. Don't come with the theory that that is only a matter of time, North Korea does not have access to the resources to come anywhere near."
North Korea has the capacity to hit Japan. The U.S. has forces in Japan. Ergo, the North Koreans have the ability to strike with nuclear weaponry against U.S. assets. And thus is an attack on the nation.
Seriously. Why not simply evacuate the tribes loyal to the Afghan regime living near the border with Pakistan and after that takes place, DTB (drop the bomb)? It would kill off a bunch of Taliban groupies and Bin Laden with them.
But I guess that makes too much sense to actually be carried out.
"Creative was around *WAY* before Aureal. Better check the timeline."
I was referring to how Creative outlasted Aureal in an intellectual property lawsuit long enough that it ensured that Aureal went bankrupt and Creative settled and bought up Aureal's intellectual property concerning A3D (vs. Creative's EAX) which effectively ended serious competition for consumer based soundcards.
In no way was I suggesting that Aureal as a company predated Creative Labs or the Soundblaster line of products.
This time around, Creative will be in the position of Aureal if they are seriously stupid enough to fight Apple in court. And I suggest that Creative will meet the same fate as Aureal did if they proceed with this foolishness.
I for one wouldn't mind seeing Creative's stake in THX being passed from them to Apple and finally to sister company Pixar. And I wouldn't mind seeing Apple take Creative's intellectual property relating to the Soundblaster line sold to Intel. And EMU Systems would certainly have stronger support from Apple than Creative. So maybe Creative should proceed with this drawn out self-inflicted suicide of their own design.
"Companies like this make me sick. I wouldn't accept a Creative MP3 player as a gift because they suck in comparison to Apple's offerings. If they sue Apple, I will never buy another Creative product again, and I do currently own a few of their sound cards and even an olde display adapter."
A user boycott on Soundblaster cards would effectively kill the company.
I'm surprised the Apple Fanbase hasn't figured this out... Like create a PDF buyer's guide (like what ipodlounge.com offers) for non-Creative based soundcards for WindowsPC users.
"Apple restricts back-up copies They restrict converting to other formats They only work with Apple brand DRM They restrict compatiblity with other players. No editing of the songs."
How does Apple restrict back-up copies? The iTunes Store encourages you to backup your purchased songs on blank media. You just have to remember your iTunes account password to reload them.
And Mr. Coward, show us a legitimate rival online music store that offers the features you ask for? Napster doesn't offer to convert purchased tracks from WMA to AAC or any other format. And which service allows you to edit your purchased songs?
To which Creative will claim to be sucking it in 24-bit but experts will prove it is only 16-bit suckage.
Seriously, this is madness on the Kim Jong Il level. Apple has, what, $6 billion in the bank? How much does Creative have in order to survive a war of attrition in the court rooms? How large a patent arsenal does Apple have in comparison to Creative? Yes, folks, this is the end of Creative...and fitting it will be considering how they were able to grab Aureal's patents so long ago in a similar manner.
Slashdot Mirror
"I have two ReplayTVs. I don't have any of the problems you read about with TiVo--and I can skip past commercials, not just fast-forward. I don't understand why TiVo is more popular that ReplayTV. It is certainly is not as good."
Its the whole Windows vs. Mac argument all over again, but with a role reversal. Replay's GUI and menus were inferior to TiVo's GUI, and in this case, TiVo won. Replay was the first in the incubator, but TiVo was the first to market. TiVo also had different subscription options from the very start, whereas the original Replay units cost $200 more upfront because there was no monthly subscription option. And from the start, TiVo had Philips and Sony making units for them and the DirecTV contract. Replay had none of that for various reasons. TiVo gave away units to Hollywood personalities and thus "TiVoing" became a phrase in popular culture. Despite only being profitable recently, TiVo is still the same company. The Replay product line has been owned by three different companies now and is very close to being scrapped. Its currently owned by D&M Holdings who recently scrapped Rio because Apple had overwhelming marketshare in the MP3 player market. As I posted already, the writing is on the wall for ReplayTV. The only market it has left is the technically proficient crowd and they have enough skill to build their own PC/DVRs. And as a commercial entity as well as a hardware/software innovator, it is irrelevant.
"I use ReplayTV and have never had any problems with content protection. There is even a great open source tool called DVArchive (at sourceforge) that lets one copy shows to/from the ReplayTV units and even stream content directly from the ReplayTV to any machine that supports HTTP streaming."
Suggesting people buy ReplayTV units in order to increase ReplayTV owner numbers by capitalizing on a mistake committed by TiVo is like suggesting people buy Rio branded MP3 players at this point instead of an Apple iPod over something like Ogg support.
ReplayTV is owned by D&M Holdings. D&M Holdings was the owner of Rio until they recently abandoned the MP3 player market, sold off all the IP, and retained the brand name. D&M sold off Rio because they couldn't make a decent profit in the market due to Apple's overwhelming marketshare. Similarly, Replay has been on the market since 1999/2000 and has only a fraction of the installed user base of TiVo. Connect the dots.
Building a MythTV player, a Windows Media Center PC, or an EyeTV unit for Mac owners would be a far more beneficial suggestion as suitable TiVo replacements. To advocate for Replay now is like advocating for Betamax.
"If TIVO thinks viewers will make that fine of a distinction, let me remind you that this is the same general public who couldn't tell the difference between a real war hero and a dope-smoking, draft-dodging Connetitcut Yankee pretending to be a religious fighter pilot from Texas."
I'll give you points if by "real war hero" you were referring to Senator John McCain losing out to Bush in the primaries for Republican Presidential nomination for the 2000 election. If instead you are referring to that opportunist John Kerry, then you lose points.
And when I refer to points, I mean in terms of general principle, and not in terms of moderator points here on Slashdot.
This story really cheesed me off this morning prior to work. I like TiVo, and up until this point, my only criticism about the company has been with their snail-pace movement towards adding necessary features to their product (CableCard 1.0/2.0 support, HD support, etc.), but this is inexcusable. I would understand DRM inclusion to PPV content and I would accept that. I would even accept this DRM for TiVo software updates to the Comcast DVRs scheduled for next year since Comcast already has such *understandings* with the content companies...but to add this to existing TiVo Series2 set-top boxes for general programming? No frakkin' way.
Its time for a shareholder revolt against TiVo's obviously inept management team.
"Marketshare is not significantly increasing and there's an increasing focus on the low end, lowering profits. Switch to Intel, sell the business, a company like Dell would jump at the chance to stick Apple logos on some of its PCs, pre-install OS X, and sell them as Macintoshes for as long as people want them. Dell can afford that. Apple can't. Apple has to continue to invest R&D into its PC line. Dell will be spending that money anyway, adding the Mac for Dell means doing what it was doing anyway, but slapping a different sticker on the machine, a different OS installation CD in the box, deducting the Microsoft tax from their costs, and adding $200-500 to the sticker price."
R&D is an alien concept for Dell. Dell is a glorified "screwdriver shop" that has *Walmartified* the computer industry. They rely on everyone else to do the innovation.
Jobs would sell the Apple computer business to Sony before he sold out to the likes of Dell.
"In any case, "Stevie" isn't as fickle as you might think. "Stevie" had a Thinkpad for a very long time after he rejoined Apple. "Stevie" is a shrewd businessman, he's not going to prop up a platform unless it's in Apple's best interests."
So what? It was probably running the NeXTStep OS, which is now known as Mac OS X.
You are also wrong about marketshare. Check the figures. Apple is up in marketshare this year over lasts. The "iPod halo effect" is working and without a real advertising campaign for the Mac platform either.
"You're on notice, and will be labelled a Rouge Nation in an instant. Remember, the other guys have more nukes than you do and EVERYONE will breathe easier after the US (the most disruptive agent at the moment) is gone."
How do you figure? Why would Russia retaliate against the US for nuking Muslim extremists? They seem to be having issues with Muslim "terrorists" themselves. The same goes with China and Muslim secessionists in some of their provinces. So who exactly would nuke the U.S. in retaliation in mass numbers larger than the total U.S. nuclear arsenal? Your position makes no sense.
Rogue nation, pfff.
"That's not the reason for the existance of Israel nor is it the reason the U.S. supports Israel. Try again."
Then what is the rational reason why we support that State then? To claim its to support democracy in the region would be like claiming the apartheid era South African state was a democracy under its modern definition.
"Is it really like you don't get what I am trying to say here?"
:)
Nah, just friendly opposition (or smartassedness)
to your position.
"I've voted Democrat in the last several presidential elections, but I'm registered with the "decline to state" party. (Hmm, wouldn't it be funny if there really was a party called "Decline to State?" The American Independent party confuses things enough already...) In 2000, California had just instituted an open primary, which meant that any registered voter could vote for any candidate, regardless of the voter's party. That meant that Democrats could vote in the Republican primary and vice versa. (And us decline-to-staters could vote in the primary, period.)
I voted for McCain in that primary. Had he won the nomination, there's a serious chance I might have voted for him, depending on what came out during the campaign. But the moment Bush got the nomination, I knew my vote was going to Gore."
I loved the Open Primary in California. I too voted for McCain in that primary. I also voted against Lungren in each primary for Statewide offices he ran for, but to no avail. Unfortunately, the courts found the open primaries violated the Constitutional rights of free assembly for those parties (Dems and Reps) since nonmembers could determine who the parties ultimately nominated.
I also found it funny that Dems complained most vocally about how much Nader running in 2000 and 2004 siphoned votes from Gore and Kerry when Ross Perot successfully siphoned off far more votes from Republicans in 1992 and 1996.
For the record, I really like the system the Greens have proposed that was tested for the election for San Francisco's mayor. Hopefully it will be instituted Statewide.
I also wish Sun or some other company could bring out open electronic ballot machines that allowed for a paper trail and were more reliable than the machines by Diebold that are powered by Windows.
"You forgot Poland!"
:)
Nah, I just did not include Poland because I meant a "consistent" ally when I stated "true ally." Britain has been our consistent ally since World War I. So much so that she's essentially our "historic" ally if we excuse the mess that was the Revolution and the War of 1812...
"Our biggest problem right now is that Bush can't admit that he's wrong. I would love a president who was for something before he was against it, at least he's reassessing his positions instead of blindly pressing on."
I totally disagree. Its just Kerry has been in the Senate so long that he is now voting against positions he took and cherished before. To paraphrase the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell, Kerry "has sat too long."
I will admit that even though I supported Bush over Kerry, Bush is wrong about Kyoto and the World Criminal Court. However, it was a cheap shot by Kerry to pick on Bush's position against the Kyoto Treaty when he himself voted against it when it came to a vote in the Senate. Kerry should've also resigned his seat in the Senate when he ran for the Presidency since he missed so many votes meaning he was neglecting the job he was voted to do. If you want a comparison, Bob Dole resigned the Senate when he ran for the Presidency back in 1996. It was right in 1996, and Kerry should have done similar in 2004, but he didn't. To me, that says a lot.
"It seems to me that what is and what isn't part of 'the nation' rather depends on what comes in handy eh? Some forces in a foreign country are included, but a military base on US controlled territory is not?"
Think *embassies*. They are in foreign lands but they are sovereign territory.
"The Muslim terrorists whine and bitch and moan not just about the fact that we support Israel and have/had troops on their holy grounds, but that *gasp* Spain is actually ruled today by the Spanish and not those imperialist Moores. Repeat the same claims about Greece, Romania, a few other countries in Europe occupied by the Ottomans, India and well... you get the idea. Pretty much any country where the non-Muslims gave their Muslim overlords a swift kick in the ass right out the door."
Since you touched the subject of Greece and former Muslim overlordship of them...I'd like to know how and why it is strategically important for the U.S. to support the State of Israel, outside of some religious-oh-so's claiming that Christians should support the continued (re)establishment of that nation-state for the self-serving purpose of speeding up the return of Jesus (as if a supreme being is held hostage by prophecy penned by simplistic humans) because apparently Jesus cannot return unless Israel exists.
To me, its hypocritical to support the right of that nation-state to currently exist to make up for the fact that the Romans obliterated it nearly 2,000 years ago. If we do that, why don't we support the Greeks in pushing the Turks out of modern-day Turkey since that nation-state was founded upon the conquest of historically Greek lands and that was done far more recently than 2,000 years ago? If a Palestinian state existing on all of modern day Israel is offensive, then why is it not offensive that modern Turkey exists on top of Byzantium, the Eastern Roman Empire?
And for the record, I'm not Greek. I just like to point out absurdity at every given opportunity.
"Well, if your party had nominated someone with more brains or charisma than a cabbage, you might have succeeded."
And to throw in my inflation adjusted $0.02 US into the debate, I wish *our* party had nominated McCain back in 2000. Oh well, maybe in 2008...
"When "Death to America, death to Ireal" is chanted at the end of Irans parliamentry sessions much in the same fasion you might say "Amen" in church...do you really thing we should not take them seriously?"
And I wish they'd stop lumping in the U.S. with Israel. Seriously, haven't the chaps in those terrorist groups received the memo indicating that Britain is our (the U.S.) only true ally (and the Australians)?
"I vote for a preemtpive impeachment before the man in charge of the button can do anything dumb."
:)
Why? So he can be replaced by an even bigger moron who claims to be an intellectual but got worse grades than our current President? A person who will claim he was for *pushing the button* before he was against it? Yeah, he certainly would be a better president (smirk).
Know what? Belushi's character in "Animal House" was based upon W. What was Kerry's excuse for his poor academic performance? He certainly did not inspire a great movie made about his college career...
"I'm from England, and I know English history pretty well. England had a time like that, under the ruthless dictates of King John, where any person could be arrested on suspicion of an unspecified crime, on the basis of the accuser's uncorroborated "eyewitness testimony". So horrified did England become that it rose up in rebellion and demanded a written constitution (the Magna Carta)."
:)
Uhm, I thought (Great) Britain does not have a "written" constitution. Its a flexible unwritten constitution in that it isn't comprised of a single document (versus the U.S. Constitution) but made up of all laws still on the books as well as historical documents such as Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. In that aspect, it could be called a "common law constitution" although the term has never been coined to my knowledge.
Its actually admirable, the unwritten British constitution. At least it leaves Parliament flexible in passing laws instead of yielding to an appointed court-for-life pretending to "interpret" the meaning of a document written over 200 years prior under the guise of "adapting" it to the modern world.
And as for the various "Rights of Englishmen" earned through English history, your own right to trial by jury is under fire from various "reforms" Prime Minister Blair and his allies have proposed. Not to mention the prohibition against "double jeopardy." So perhaps you might want to stick to ensuring your rights as an Englishman from your own representatives instead of critiquing what's going on in our Colonies currently...
ps. If you want to address the subject of tyranny from the English throne, what about Charles I? Surely he was far more a tyrant than John ever was. And unlike Robin Hood, Oliver Cromwell existed...
"In short, North Korea might have the capability to launch one or two nukes directly at the USA (actually they don't, but lets just assume they do, they probably do have the nukes for it), but is far from assured destruction of the USA. Don't come with the theory that that is only a matter of time, North Korea does not have access to the resources to come anywhere near."
North Korea has the capacity to hit Japan. The U.S. has forces in Japan. Ergo, the North Koreans have the ability to strike with nuclear weaponry against U.S. assets. And thus is an attack on the nation.
Seriously. Why not simply evacuate the tribes loyal to the Afghan regime living near the border with Pakistan and after that takes place, DTB (drop the bomb)? It would kill off a bunch of Taliban groupies and Bin Laden with them.
But I guess that makes too much sense to actually be carried out.
"Creative was around *WAY* before Aureal. Better check the timeline."
I was referring to how Creative outlasted Aureal in an intellectual property lawsuit long enough that it ensured that Aureal went bankrupt and Creative settled and bought up Aureal's intellectual property concerning A3D (vs. Creative's EAX) which effectively ended serious competition for consumer based soundcards.
In no way was I suggesting that Aureal as a company predated Creative Labs or the Soundblaster line of products.
This time around, Creative will be in the position of Aureal if they are seriously stupid enough to fight Apple in court. And I suggest that Creative will meet the same fate as Aureal did if they proceed with this foolishness.
I for one wouldn't mind seeing Creative's stake in THX being passed from them to Apple and finally to sister company Pixar. And I wouldn't mind seeing Apple take Creative's intellectual property relating to the Soundblaster line sold to Intel. And EMU Systems would certainly have stronger support from Apple than Creative. So maybe Creative should proceed with this drawn out self-inflicted suicide of their own design.
"Companies like this make me sick. I wouldn't accept a Creative MP3 player as a gift because they suck in comparison to Apple's offerings. If they sue Apple, I will never buy another Creative product again, and I do currently own a few of their sound cards and even an olde display adapter."
A user boycott on Soundblaster cards would effectively kill the company.
I'm surprised the Apple Fanbase hasn't figured this out... Like create a PDF buyer's guide (like what ipodlounge.com offers) for non-Creative based soundcards for WindowsPC users.
"Apple restricts back-up copies
They restrict converting to other formats
They only work with Apple brand DRM
They restrict compatiblity with other players.
No editing of the songs."
How does Apple restrict back-up copies? The iTunes Store encourages you to backup your purchased songs on blank media. You just have to remember your iTunes account password to reload them.
And Mr. Coward, show us a legitimate rival online music store that offers the features you ask for? Napster doesn't offer to convert purchased tracks from WMA to AAC or any other format. And which service allows you to edit your purchased songs?
Thought so.
"Suck it Creative. Suck it Creatively too."
To which Creative will claim to be sucking it in 24-bit but experts will prove it is only 16-bit suckage.
Seriously, this is madness on the Kim Jong Il level. Apple has, what, $6 billion in the bank? How much does Creative have in order to survive a war of attrition in the court rooms? How large a patent arsenal does Apple have in comparison to Creative? Yes, folks, this is the end of Creative...and fitting it will be considering how they were able to grab Aureal's patents so long ago in a similar manner.
"Or maybe they just didn't fuck like rabbits and decimate their natural environment and keep moving on like an uncontrollable scourge?"
Or they practiced widespread homosexuality and were outnumbered by the quickly reproducing homo sapien sapiens.