I combat its wont to roll away by putting it down with its control face down. The rubber buttons act as a non-skid surface.
And it's been more than a year since I've last picked it up and pointed it the wrong way. You learn to feel for the battery cover or the extra weight on the battery end of the remote, or just always place it in the same place with the same orientation. If you can't train yourself in that way, self-adhesive velcro strips or other attachments or mods can also give you the necessary tactile sensation to tell you when you've got the wrong end.
I don't have a problem hitting buttons with my thumb. The shape lends itself well to scooting it up and down in the palm.
On button label wear, it helps if you don't overly fondle your peanut's buttons.
I did then turn to Circuit City, but ended up returning their only stocked Firewire product as it had severe problems working with the Mac. Couldn't capture for more than 90 seconds without stalling in controlled mode, silently dropped frames in uncontrolled mode, frequently unresponsive button to switch between A-D and D-A modes, and would suddenly invert all the color in the middle of a capture (but not perfectly).
Ended up getting the Canopus ADVC-300, yes, through Amazon. Except I paid $20 more a week ago than what they're selling it for now (and it still qualifies for a $50 gift certificate until Sunday).
Firewire has 100% of the market share in digital video.
Maybe for digital cameras, but not 100% across the whole market. When I went to Best Buy to replace my failing Dazzle* Hollywood DV Bridge (converting analog video to digital), they only stocked products that used USB 2.0. I don't want to have to buy a camera just to use it as a bridge.
Except Fox did show it twice (there was an encore showing not long after the first, poss. the subsequent weekend), and it was on Sci-Fi Channel at least three times.
Must the two showings must be separated by more than some minimum time and both must be on a broadcast channel, not cable?
Also, the Region 2 DVD seems to have encoded on it a short black card in rememberance of Jon Pertwee that I can't trigger for playback on my Region 2 player.
Publically funded through the television license at, what is it, 100 pounds a year?
Maybe they're leaking it to help make the case for establishing a new computer tax as people are able to watch license-funded TV without paying the TV license.
And for some of us, the state's public television channels won't let any sci-fi on their airwaves. I don't think you could even find Queen Labiblia and her computer 1Z2Z anywhere on Nebraska Educational TeleVision (does anyone remember the title of that program?). It seems ever since the '90s the head of the network has been someone who hated science fiction.
I find I have to drive closer to Iowa with a portable TV to pick up their signal. I've even donated to Iowa Public TeleVision.
Interesting too that the Fox TV movie Doctor Who still hasn't had a Region 1 release, but it's been out in Region 2 for at least a year.
What gets me about this copying by installing is that I am NOT the one copying. The writer of the program is doing the copy. How do I work that out?
That's the question of who is responsible for automated events. One can safely presume that whosoever set up the automated event to occur that they have the authority to allow it to occur. However, through the click-through license, they make restrictions on who can trigger the event. If you're not authorized through its terms to trigger the event, then you are liable for the events by falsely triggering the events. Similar to calling in a false report to law enforcement, fire, or other emergency services. Or if someone other than the one authorized pulls or presses the switch to execute someone facing the death penalty at the appointed time, that person would be guilty of murder.
Of course, if the one setting up the events is not authorized after all, then they're liable in either case. But in the case of software illegally supplied to you, you will probably have to give up any retained copies. And depending on your supposed level of involvement, face a conspiracy charge. So then "safely" may have been an incorrect choice of word above.
Having files on an accessible server is not uploading just as having product on shelves in a store is not shoplifting. Putting a pie on a windowsill is not an invitation to take the pie.
The technical meanings of the verbs upload and download do not provide for parity. Only one actor is required, and uploading to a machine doesn't make the owner of that machine a downloader, nor vice versa.
The RIAA is not suing uploaders; they are suing people who offer files for download. (Unfortunately this is a distinction too subtle for even the authors of the software used to comprehend.)
The RIAA has not yet established that anyone but themselves have actually downloaded anything from the people running these servers.
As opposed to an American business making money by selling copies of US musicians' work, but paying them nothing in return. Sounds about right.
Well, the artists do get something. It's just not much.
So it comes to a choice: do you give the authors a pittance and the RIAA the lion's share, or give both of them nothing? For many, that it hurts the RIAA more than it does the artists makes it the more appealing option.
The thing is that I don't trust that the price of episodes will be $1.
I'm not sure if I'd want to pay even $1 an episode. I could go to a local theater tonight and spend $2 on a ticket to see any of Being Julia, Fat Albert, Incredibles, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, Ocean's Twelve, Polar Express, Ray, SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, or White Noise, all of which have twice the runtime of current "hour-long" dramas (except possibly SpongeBob at 85 minutes). Tomorrow brings in Elektra and Meet the Fockers.
I certainly wouldn't pay $1/episode for a half-hour sitcom. Not unless I get to retain it, play it back whenever I want however many times I want, and make backups and other fair uses of the content.
"Could be"? This is either a typo or a poorly chosen excerpt. Can't we tighten up a bit on the editorial oversight?
It isn't the slashdot editor's fault. The linked page also says "could be". And unfortunately the number of copies that say "could be" on USENET outnumber those that say "could not be".
Except "Nuke Anything" doesn't nuke anything. It apparently has problems hiding images that use a client-side image map (usemap attribute). If you right-clicked on portion of the image covered by a map's area tag, it will attempt to apply a "display: none" style to the area tag rather than the img tag. That doesn't work.
And it would be nice to have an indication of what you're about to remove, especially as there isn't a single-step undo included. Reloading and hiding everything again from scratch after accidentally hiding the wrong thing isn't fun.
Except these days the bartenders have a button they can press to kick out the current track on the jukebox. Around here they cover the fact by making an unintelligable announcement, usually that there was a phone call for some fake person, and you're suddenly out the cost of the song (or in some cases the song and any subsequent songs). If they don't want your silence, they can abort it.
And absolutely no signage posted to the effect that you're only paying to register a request to play a song which may refused. IMO, such refusal should be at the time of sale and you should get an alternate choice or your money returned at the machine.
I bet the RIAA doesn't care about such abuses as they'll still get the same cut from the jukebox take, play or no play.
Still, you have to consider the quality of some of the software used to make those postings. Newsreaders which don't generate the References header. Newsreaders which insert the previous article's Message-ID at the start of the References header instead of the end. Newsreaders which reverse the order of the References header. Newsreaders which keep only one back reference and are posted with "X-No-Bananas^H^H^H^H^H^H^HArchive: yes". And virtually no support for an Also-References header when someone pulls in text from articles outside the thread, a behavior that prevents content comparison to reconstruct threads.
And that's with data that is in a format specified by an RFC. Quotation styles aren't bound by a single standard adhered to by everyone, and people regularly mangle them by themselves. (Is there any newsreader that has format-flowed support built-in?)
Really, the best solution to not mangle postings is to not do any processing on the messages at all. And since by web standards they're already too ugly, Google is compelled to polish them anyway.
(Did the usenet-format list ever release their updated RFCs?)
It's possible to create a DVD that plays portions of tracks based on a script. This is often how they manage to have two or three versions of the same movie on a single disk: they branch the video either to play the restored scenes or to skip them. There's usually a performance hit, but they may have worked out a way to minimize it. They may be being extra clever by encoding chapter numbers out of order so a player following the script will play smoothly but a rip of the track will get the chapters out of order.
Other ways to make the ripping task more difficult is to use the multi-angle features to put parts of the movie on different angles and script it to switch between them at the appropriate times. Such tricks could be performed for audio tracks as well.
This doesn't defeat rippers that seek a duplicate copy; it is more to defeat people who selectively rip then transcode (to other codecs or a different bitrate to fit on one layer), not bothering to pull unwanted data from the disc. It will hurt those that want to quickly distribute multiple copies for profit and are confident in their ripping to not bother with a quality assurance-playback that it was ripped successfully. They'll get bit and lose black-marketshare.
The players are supposed to support such scripting, so it should work even for software players, as long as you play the disc as it was encoded and not transcoding.
And I'll say this: if this turns out to be what they're doing, and they've patented it instead of keeping it as a trade secret, I'd say their patent fails the obviousness test and should not have been granted.
Like AVI, QuickTime can serve as a file format wrapper for whatever codec you want to use, be it MPEG 1, MPEG 2, MPEG 4, Divx, Xivd, DV, Motion JPEG, or whatever you can get a codec for.
And a DVR doesn't have to use MPEG 2 either. When DirecTV makes its switch to MPEG 4 for HD, their new DVR will record MPEG 4 natively.
I don't know about illegal, but for me it certainly was illegible. The agreement as experienced on my system required me to scroll to the end before I was allowed to agree to it, and the mere act of scrolling it caused it to become unreadable, whether I was using the scrollbar, the mouse scrollwheel, or just the cursor up and down keys. Portions of letters from some line were mixed in with other lines. Lines were doubled or tripled when they should have been distinct. I don't know what they're using for a textbox but I must say I had no reasonable opportunity to read their license and thus do not feel bound by their license.
Not that I'm expecting to do anything that would violate a reasonable license agreement.
On Thursday, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America acknowledged that Walton was probably not the smittenedkitten it is searching for.
Slashdot Mirror
The Comcast box runs a modified form of Windows, which is why it has problems. I wonder how well TiVo will run with issues from Windows?
They'll resolve the Windows issues on the box the same way we do on PCs: by installing Linux.
I combat its wont to roll away by putting it down with its control face down. The rubber buttons act as a non-skid surface.
And it's been more than a year since I've last picked it up and pointed it the wrong way. You learn to feel for the battery cover or the extra weight on the battery end of the remote, or just always place it in the same place with the same orientation. If you can't train yourself in that way, self-adhesive velcro strips or other attachments or mods can also give you the necessary tactile sensation to tell you when you've got the wrong end.
I don't have a problem hitting buttons with my thumb. The shape lends itself well to scooting it up and down in the palm.
On button label wear, it helps if you don't overly fondle your peanut's buttons.
I did then turn to Circuit City, but ended up returning their only stocked Firewire product as it had severe problems working with the Mac. Couldn't capture for more than 90 seconds without stalling in controlled mode, silently dropped frames in uncontrolled mode, frequently unresponsive button to switch between A-D and D-A modes, and would suddenly invert all the color in the middle of a capture (but not perfectly).
Ended up getting the Canopus ADVC-300, yes, through Amazon. Except I paid $20 more a week ago than what they're selling it for now (and it still qualifies for a $50 gift certificate until Sunday).
Firewire has 100% of the market share in digital video.
Maybe for digital cameras, but not 100% across the whole market. When I went to Best Buy to replace my failing Dazzle* Hollywood DV Bridge (converting analog video to digital), they only stocked products that used USB 2.0. I don't want to have to buy a camera just to use it as a bridge.
I'm still trying to come up with a client-side stylesheet that undoes what IntelliTXT and its ilk do.
I may have to change my signature.
Oh, that's right. I'm not Australian.
Except Fox did show it twice (there was an encore showing not long after the first, poss. the subsequent weekend), and it was on Sci-Fi Channel at least three times.
Must the two showings must be separated by more than some minimum time and both must be on a broadcast channel, not cable?
Also, the Region 2 DVD seems to have encoded on it a short black card in rememberance of Jon Pertwee that I can't trigger for playback on my Region 2 player.
Publically funded through the television license at, what is it, 100 pounds a year?
Maybe they're leaking it to help make the case for establishing a new computer tax as people are able to watch license-funded TV without paying the TV license.
And for some of us, the state's public television channels won't let any sci-fi on their airwaves. I don't think you could even find Queen Labiblia and her computer 1Z2Z anywhere on Nebraska Educational TeleVision (does anyone remember the title of that program?). It seems ever since the '90s the head of the network has been someone who hated science fiction.
I find I have to drive closer to Iowa with a portable TV to pick up their signal. I've even donated to Iowa Public TeleVision.
Interesting too that the Fox TV movie Doctor Who still hasn't had a Region 1 release, but it's been out in Region 2 for at least a year.
What gets me about this copying by installing is that I am NOT the one copying. The writer of the program is doing the copy. How do I work that out?
That's the question of who is responsible for automated events. One can safely presume that whosoever set up the automated event to occur that they have the authority to allow it to occur. However, through the click-through license, they make restrictions on who can trigger the event. If you're not authorized through its terms to trigger the event, then you are liable for the events by falsely triggering the events. Similar to calling in a false report to law enforcement, fire, or other emergency services. Or if someone other than the one authorized pulls or presses the switch to execute someone facing the death penalty at the appointed time, that person would be guilty of murder.
Of course, if the one setting up the events is not authorized after all, then they're liable in either case. But in the case of software illegally supplied to you, you will probably have to give up any retained copies. And depending on your supposed level of involvement, face a conspiracy charge. So then "safely" may have been an incorrect choice of word above.
...RIAA has only sued uploaders.
Having files on an accessible server is not uploading just as having product on shelves in a store is not shoplifting. Putting a pie on a windowsill is not an invitation to take the pie.
The technical meanings of the verbs upload and download do not provide for parity. Only one actor is required, and uploading to a machine doesn't make the owner of that machine a downloader, nor vice versa.
The RIAA is not suing uploaders; they are suing people who offer files for download. (Unfortunately this is a distinction too subtle for even the authors of the software used to comprehend.)
The RIAA has not yet established that anyone but themselves have actually downloaded anything from the people running these servers.
As opposed to an American business making money by selling copies of US musicians' work, but paying them nothing in return. Sounds about right.
Well, the artists do get something. It's just not much.
So it comes to a choice: do you give the authors a pittance and the RIAA the lion's share, or give both of them nothing? For many, that it hurts the RIAA more than it does the artists makes it the more appealing option.
The thing is that I don't trust that the price of episodes will be $1.
I'm not sure if I'd want to pay even $1 an episode. I could go to a local theater tonight and spend $2 on a ticket to see any of Being Julia, Fat Albert, Incredibles, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, Ocean's Twelve, Polar Express, Ray, SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, or White Noise, all of which have twice the runtime of current "hour-long" dramas (except possibly SpongeBob at 85 minutes). Tomorrow brings in Elektra and Meet the Fockers.
I certainly wouldn't pay $1/episode for a half-hour sitcom. Not unless I get to retain it, play it back whenever I want however many times I want, and make backups and other fair uses of the content.
So it's a "gune riw" error then.
"Could be"? This is either a typo or a poorly chosen excerpt. Can't we tighten up a bit on the editorial oversight?
It isn't the slashdot editor's fault. The linked page also says "could be". And unfortunately the number of copies that say "could be" on USENET outnumber those that say "could not be".
Except "Nuke Anything" doesn't nuke anything. It apparently has problems hiding images that use a client-side image map (usemap attribute). If you right-clicked on portion of the image covered by a map's area tag, it will attempt to apply a "display: none" style to the area tag rather than the img tag. That doesn't work.
And it would be nice to have an indication of what you're about to remove, especially as there isn't a single-step undo included. Reloading and hiding everything again from scratch after accidentally hiding the wrong thing isn't fun.
Except these days the bartenders have a button they can press to kick out the current track on the jukebox. Around here they cover the fact by making an unintelligable announcement, usually that there was a phone call for some fake person, and you're suddenly out the cost of the song (or in some cases the song and any subsequent songs). If they don't want your silence, they can abort it.
And absolutely no signage posted to the effect that you're only paying to register a request to play a song which may refused. IMO, such refusal should be at the time of sale and you should get an alternate choice or your money returned at the machine.
I bet the RIAA doesn't care about such abuses as they'll still get the same cut from the jukebox take, play or no play.
Still, you have to consider the quality of some of the software used to make those postings. Newsreaders which don't generate the References header. Newsreaders which insert the previous article's Message-ID at the start of the References header instead of the end. Newsreaders which reverse the order of the References header. Newsreaders which keep only one back reference and are posted with "X-No-Bananas^H^H^H^H^H^H^HArchive: yes". And virtually no support for an Also-References header when someone pulls in text from articles outside the thread, a behavior that prevents content comparison to reconstruct threads.
And that's with data that is in a format specified by an RFC. Quotation styles aren't bound by a single standard adhered to by everyone, and people regularly mangle them by themselves. (Is there any newsreader that has format-flowed support built-in?)
Really, the best solution to not mangle postings is to not do any processing on the messages at all. And since by web standards they're already too ugly, Google is compelled to polish them anyway.
(Did the usenet-format list ever release their updated RFCs?)
It's possible to create a DVD that plays portions of tracks based on a script. This is often how they manage to have two or three versions of the same movie on a single disk: they branch the video either to play the restored scenes or to skip them. There's usually a performance hit, but they may have worked out a way to minimize it. They may be being extra clever by encoding chapter numbers out of order so a player following the script will play smoothly but a rip of the track will get the chapters out of order.
Other ways to make the ripping task more difficult is to use the multi-angle features to put parts of the movie on different angles and script it to switch between them at the appropriate times. Such tricks could be performed for audio tracks as well.
This doesn't defeat rippers that seek a duplicate copy; it is more to defeat people who selectively rip then transcode (to other codecs or a different bitrate to fit on one layer), not bothering to pull unwanted data from the disc. It will hurt those that want to quickly distribute multiple copies for profit and are confident in their ripping to not bother with a quality assurance-playback that it was ripped successfully. They'll get bit and lose black-marketshare.
The players are supposed to support such scripting, so it should work even for software players, as long as you play the disc as it was encoded and not transcoding.
And I'll say this: if this turns out to be what they're doing, and they've patented it instead of keeping it as a trade secret, I'd say their patent fails the obviousness test and should not have been granted.
Like AVI, QuickTime can serve as a file format wrapper for whatever codec you want to use, be it MPEG 1, MPEG 2, MPEG 4, Divx, Xivd, DV, Motion JPEG, or whatever you can get a codec for.
And a DVR doesn't have to use MPEG 2 either. When DirecTV makes its switch to MPEG 4 for HD, their new DVR will record MPEG 4 natively.
It helps if you enter the right number of zeroes. 1.5 million, not 150 thousand.
I don't know about illegal, but for me it certainly was illegible. The agreement as experienced on my system required me to scroll to the end before I was allowed to agree to it, and the mere act of scrolling it caused it to become unreadable, whether I was using the scrollbar, the mouse scrollwheel, or just the cursor up and down keys. Portions of letters from some line were mixed in with other lines. Lines were doubled or tripled when they should have been distinct. I don't know what they're using for a textbox but I must say I had no reasonable opportunity to read their license and thus do not feel bound by their license.
Not that I'm expecting to do anything that would violate a reasonable license agreement.
So which one is country and which is western?
So how long into Judge Dredd did we get before Sylvester Stallone took off his helmet for the camera?
On Thursday, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America acknowledged that Walton was probably not the smittenedkitten it is searching for.
Weak-minded fool!