He says it was grueling, but in the article he says that reactivation "was easy enough" - doesn't sound like weeks of "troubleshooting", sounds like someone at MS just clarified what qualifies as a deactivation trigger.
I have nothing against the activation - the only problem that I have is that MS claimed that it was because they were losing money to piracy. If that's true, activation should have reduced the cost of the software but it's still the same price as previous, non protected windows OS's sold for.
I can just type in a search term into my address bar and it does a search automatically.
If I read this, they mean you could type:
www.amazon.com/rambo dvd set
And it would search amazon.com. That's all well and good but sounds like it's obvious (and the flow chart proves that).
So they offer him a good paying job, a house, a car, anything he wants... Wow, that doesn't sound like a bad movie script.... and what was "anything you want?" to him? $15k...
The document was posted on Slashdot last week, or longer. It was a document outlining Comcast policy towards requests for user information. The fees were further down in the document - sounds standard to me. They have to post it somewhere, they can't just say "um...hmm, well, how 'bout $750 and we'll do it for you".
I set it up as the default for me, and on any new install I'll do it as well. 1) Because I live in an MSOffice world and 2) I don't want to field support calls when people send the files on.
That would be different if MS imported Oo documents (I don't know if it does) - then I would just leave it be.
"You must support GNU/Linux no matter what your user demographics show."
That doesn't really work in a profit driven market. Someone earlier corrected me and filled in that the BBC was government run and funded and subsidized by tax dollars, and in that sense I agree you should support as many standards as possible, but it's just like anything in government, you can't translate every document into every language someone speaks, so you can't support every OS either.
Also - the Mac sample is balanced, we're a research company so we have to have a balanced sample.
In my industry, we have a demographic sample representation of most households for which we maintain a list. We know what browser, OS, connection speed all of our panel is comprised of. Believe me, Mac use is barely a blip when you take a balanced sample.
This has been true in the mac world for years, only popular PC games get ported, and usually some time later, Tivo supports the PC side of it's server software first (video came to Mac a long while later), SlingMedia developed their Mac player almost last (and it's still in Beta as far as I know)...
What makes this so unusual?
Even with iTunes, everyone knows that all you have to do is burn a cd and then rip it. I'm surprised someone hasn't automated the process with a virtual CDR driver. The best DRM is just sell the music for a fair price..99 cents works for me.
About friggin time someone put them to the test. I don't think I've ever seen a true double blind test of cables. The tests that I have seen using an oscilloscope suggest that there is such a little difference between standard speaker wire and ultra high grade. I'd love to read more about takers to the challenge (and their failure to collect).
Just go to home depot, buy some lamp cable (make sure it has ridges or markings on one half) and you'll be solid for.25cents a foot or so.
Didn't Microsoft release several HD content DVD's with full length movies on them? Terminator 2 was one of them I recall.
The point is, I bet they will have a way to squeeze 2 hours onto a single dual layer DVD.
Re:I think it may go back to what Carmack has said
on
Is id Abandoning Linux?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't have any references - but I think it's the other way around isn't? I think Carmack has always preferred OpenGL. Back when it was a really big deal he was even into an initiative that would auto-update OpenGL (similar to how CD's come with Direct3d.exe installers there was an OpenGL.exe installer).
I think the decision is based on the fact that OpenGL support in Vista and above is rudimentary.
Don't know why the average gamer like me would ever delve into an OpenGL book or a DirectX book - sounds like something a programmer would be interested in. I don't program at all. Last I checked, graphic cards were classified by which DX level they could handle - so a DX9 card can't do things that a native DX10 card could do - either implying something unique in hardware or something unique in software. Last I checked, OpenGL was simply a compliance check.
OpenGL only benefits the developers, it doesn't benefit me in the long run if Id can get a title simultaneously on Mac, PC and Linux - all I care about is where the majority of games are going, and that's PC (and lately, consoles). If I go with PC as my preferred gaming platform, of course I'm going to want developers to put more effort into the primary API for that platform.
Actually, I can't wait for the end of OpenGL. I want to use my card to the fullest and forcing it to support two different API's won't allow that.
You're over-estimating the Mac and Linux market share. The Mac gaming market is basically a "PC's Greatest Hits" market and the Linux market (market in the sense of making money selling games) virtually doesn't exist, and I believe one of the few companies making money sells a package that allows you to play PCWIN games in Linux.
Just Windows is just fine - just like Just PS3 or just Xbox360 is just fine - stick with the platform that gives you what you want - or get them all.
-Mike
Are we all sure that the request wasn't that the end user wanted to keep his linux install intact? If so, then I can understand that they will not accept a repair and still promise to return all data intact since they might just want to swap out systems. If the request was not to leave Linux intact, then they should honor the repair.
I wasn't talking about who owns a likeness (building or otherwise) - if you watch the video - he specifically says that you might choose to zoom in to an area where you weren't able to capture enough detail. The software then automagically looks out in cyberspace to see who else might have captured the data. When it finds more source art, it recompiles it to the same perspective you were trying to view your original picture with. I'm looking at it from the perspective of a photographer.
So the question isn't whether or not taking a picture of a certain church or building is legal, but rather - if it auto-recomposites the image for you using sources from all over the place - who owns the final composited image?
It's similar to sampling - you can sample sound up to I think 16beats before you are crossing a legal threshold.
Besides - last I checked, "Your Rights Online" was still a topic on/. so pooey on you.
Because if you watch the demo - they say something like "here is a photo - and lets say you want to zoom in on this area here but you didn't have sufficient resolution to do so - someone else somewhere else might have and if so, it will automatically and seemlessly update".
So I'm just curious since it allows so many images to be used together seemlessly and in 3d - when you get a final composite - who actually has ownership of the artistic content. It could be a dozen pictures from a dozen people that might have made photo's that contributed to the final product.
Looks like panarama software on crack. Lots of legal implications I would think - depending on how the photo's are shared or linked - since it is taking photo's that you may or may not have shot and combining them all together - the question might be "who owns the final composite?".
Looks amazing though - can't wait to see it come out.
I understand his position that he claims he didn't download it - that's fine and I would guess that he didn't.
I don't think that saying that you own a copy - and that's why you didn't download it is a good cover because it doesn't prove that he owned it at the time. My point was that anyone can go out and purchase a DVD used for cash and say "I owned this, why would I download it?".
Also - if the law is (and I'm not a lawyer) that downloading content without permission is illegal, then owning a copy still doesn't make that law null - it just means that the way that he got around to getting his fair use copy wasn't legal (if he downloaded it which I don't say that he did). It's kind of like shop lifting something that costs 25 cents and saying "why would I steal that? I'm a millionaire!"
Trust me - my logic would be the same - if I owned the DVD, I wouldn't feel bad downloading it. I've owned software and scratched the CD and ended up downloading a warez version of the software as a replacement - guilt free on my part but I'm sure that the software creator wouldn't agree that I took the best approach (but then again, most software companies don't have an affordable "replace scratched disc" approach, except for LucasArts).
This really shouldn't be a shocker - Tivo has been saying all along that they need to find different streams of revenue and that the subscriber model isn't exactly working for them.
Personally - I would deal with the commercials in exchange for watching/following the shows that I want when I want. The best way for me would be to tell Tivo what kinds of things I'm interested in and have them shuffle appropriate commercials my way. I could see a Tide commercial a thousand times and it will never motivate me to call my wife at home and make sure she gets Tide the next time she steps out. Maybe even have an easy way to tell it who is watching - so that it can target. For example: You select a show to record and one of the options allows you to choose "Me, Wife, Wife&Me, Family" before I select "add season pass". Kids shows could just default to kids. Then, when I am watching a show, I'll gladly watch the commercials.
This is all similar to those ad packs that we get in the mail from time to time. I personally don't find them annoying because I can flip through them and stop on the ones that mean something to me.
Anyway - someone has to pay for the shows and there is no sense taking up commercial time if the person watching isn't paying attention.
Hey - good idea on the virus - that's putting the virus guys behind something we can all agree to.
Also - I wasn't saying that I considered it theft - I just said that these are the parameters that we are living under and that's what it is. Personally - I think I should be able to log into itunes and download every damn song that I've ever destroyed a tape to, lost or just plain wore out.
Does anyone remember years ago Garth Brooks and a lot of other high profile musicians got together and put up ads warning people not to buy their albums used - because even though it's saving you money to do so, the artist gets nothing in return for that and has lost a sale. In fact, the artist today loses just as much of not more from used record sales, and that's where I buy most of my CD's anyway - pre-owned.
He did say that he was contesting whether he did it or not and that you can't say in this age of wi-fi - which makes me wonder just how liable I am if a neighbor got into my wi-fi and downloaded a bunch of crud. Will be interesting to follow.
Well - the fantasy arrangement was that we would register as a business - then be protected because we were an ISP that just didn't know what they were doing... "logs? sorry - we kept running out of space and we turned that feature off".
I know it's all pie in the sky - just a fun thing to talk about after a couple of beers.
Slashdot Mirror
He says it was grueling, but in the article he says that reactivation "was easy enough" - doesn't sound like weeks of "troubleshooting", sounds like someone at MS just clarified what qualifies as a deactivation trigger. I have nothing against the activation - the only problem that I have is that MS claimed that it was because they were losing money to piracy. If that's true, activation should have reduced the cost of the software but it's still the same price as previous, non protected windows OS's sold for.
I can just type in a search term into my address bar and it does a search automatically. If I read this, they mean you could type: www.amazon.com/rambo dvd set And it would search amazon.com. That's all well and good but sounds like it's obvious (and the flow chart proves that).
So they offer him a good paying job, a house, a car, anything he wants... Wow, that doesn't sound like a bad movie script.... and what was "anything you want?" to him? $15k...
The document was posted on Slashdot last week, or longer. It was a document outlining Comcast policy towards requests for user information. The fees were further down in the document - sounds standard to me. They have to post it somewhere, they can't just say "um...hmm, well, how 'bout $750 and we'll do it for you".
I set it up as the default for me, and on any new install I'll do it as well. 1) Because I live in an MSOffice world and 2) I don't want to field support calls when people send the files on. That would be different if MS imported Oo documents (I don't know if it does) - then I would just leave it be.
"You must support GNU/Linux no matter what your user demographics show." That doesn't really work in a profit driven market. Someone earlier corrected me and filled in that the BBC was government run and funded and subsidized by tax dollars, and in that sense I agree you should support as many standards as possible, but it's just like anything in government, you can't translate every document into every language someone speaks, so you can't support every OS either. Also - the Mac sample is balanced, we're a research company so we have to have a balanced sample.
In my industry, we have a demographic sample representation of most households for which we maintain a list. We know what browser, OS, connection speed all of our panel is comprised of. Believe me, Mac use is barely a blip when you take a balanced sample. This has been true in the mac world for years, only popular PC games get ported, and usually some time later, Tivo supports the PC side of it's server software first (video came to Mac a long while later), SlingMedia developed their Mac player almost last (and it's still in Beta as far as I know)... What makes this so unusual?
Even with iTunes, everyone knows that all you have to do is burn a cd and then rip it. I'm surprised someone hasn't automated the process with a virtual CDR driver. The best DRM is just sell the music for a fair price. .99 cents works for me.
About friggin time someone put them to the test. I don't think I've ever seen a true double blind test of cables. The tests that I have seen using an oscilloscope suggest that there is such a little difference between standard speaker wire and ultra high grade. I'd love to read more about takers to the challenge (and their failure to collect). Just go to home depot, buy some lamp cable (make sure it has ridges or markings on one half) and you'll be solid for .25cents a foot or so.
Didn't Microsoft release several HD content DVD's with full length movies on them? Terminator 2 was one of them I recall. The point is, I bet they will have a way to squeeze 2 hours onto a single dual layer DVD.
I don't have any references - but I think it's the other way around isn't? I think Carmack has always preferred OpenGL. Back when it was a really big deal he was even into an initiative that would auto-update OpenGL (similar to how CD's come with Direct3d.exe installers there was an OpenGL.exe installer). I think the decision is based on the fact that OpenGL support in Vista and above is rudimentary.
Don't know why the average gamer like me would ever delve into an OpenGL book or a DirectX book - sounds like something a programmer would be interested in. I don't program at all. Last I checked, graphic cards were classified by which DX level they could handle - so a DX9 card can't do things that a native DX10 card could do - either implying something unique in hardware or something unique in software. Last I checked, OpenGL was simply a compliance check. OpenGL only benefits the developers, it doesn't benefit me in the long run if Id can get a title simultaneously on Mac, PC and Linux - all I care about is where the majority of games are going, and that's PC (and lately, consoles). If I go with PC as my preferred gaming platform, of course I'm going to want developers to put more effort into the primary API for that platform.
Actually, I can't wait for the end of OpenGL. I want to use my card to the fullest and forcing it to support two different API's won't allow that. You're over-estimating the Mac and Linux market share. The Mac gaming market is basically a "PC's Greatest Hits" market and the Linux market (market in the sense of making money selling games) virtually doesn't exist, and I believe one of the few companies making money sells a package that allows you to play PCWIN games in Linux. Just Windows is just fine - just like Just PS3 or just Xbox360 is just fine - stick with the platform that gives you what you want - or get them all. -Mike
Are we all sure that the request wasn't that the end user wanted to keep his linux install intact? If so, then I can understand that they will not accept a repair and still promise to return all data intact since they might just want to swap out systems. If the request was not to leave Linux intact, then they should honor the repair.
I wasn't talking about who owns a likeness (building or otherwise) - if you watch the video - he specifically says that you might choose to zoom in to an area where you weren't able to capture enough detail. The software then automagically looks out in cyberspace to see who else might have captured the data. When it finds more source art, it recompiles it to the same perspective you were trying to view your original picture with. I'm looking at it from the perspective of a photographer.
/. so pooey on you.
So the question isn't whether or not taking a picture of a certain church or building is legal, but rather - if it auto-recomposites the image for you using sources from all over the place - who owns the final composited image?
It's similar to sampling - you can sample sound up to I think 16beats before you are crossing a legal threshold.
Besides - last I checked, "Your Rights Online" was still a topic on
I agree - it's amazing stuff. I want it now.
Because if you watch the demo - they say something like "here is a photo - and lets say you want to zoom in on this area here but you didn't have sufficient resolution to do so - someone else somewhere else might have and if so, it will automatically and seemlessly update".
So I'm just curious since it allows so many images to be used together seemlessly and in 3d - when you get a final composite - who actually has ownership of the artistic content. It could be a dozen pictures from a dozen people that might have made photo's that contributed to the final product.
It's not bad - just interesting to ponder.
Looks like panarama software on crack. Lots of legal implications I would think - depending on how the photo's are shared or linked - since it is taking photo's that you may or may not have shot and combining them all together - the question might be "who owns the final composite?".
Looks amazing though - can't wait to see it come out.
Funny that they use an ingredient found in laxatives for all of those "oh crap" moments.
I understand his position that he claims he didn't download it - that's fine and I would guess that he didn't.
I don't think that saying that you own a copy - and that's why you didn't download it is a good cover because it doesn't prove that he owned it at the time. My point was that anyone can go out and purchase a DVD used for cash and say "I owned this, why would I download it?".
Also - if the law is (and I'm not a lawyer) that downloading content without permission is illegal, then owning a copy still doesn't make that law null - it just means that the way that he got around to getting his fair use copy wasn't legal (if he downloaded it which I don't say that he did). It's kind of like shop lifting something that costs 25 cents and saying "why would I steal that? I'm a millionaire!"
Trust me - my logic would be the same - if I owned the DVD, I wouldn't feel bad downloading it. I've owned software and scratched the CD and ended up downloading a warez version of the software as a replacement - guilt free on my part but I'm sure that the software creator wouldn't agree that I took the best approach (but then again, most software companies don't have an affordable "replace scratched disc" approach, except for LucasArts).
With this in mind - can it be that people who think they have a special ability actually have an over-active familiarity complex?
This really shouldn't be a shocker - Tivo has been saying all along that they need to find different streams of revenue and that the subscriber model isn't exactly working for them.
Personally - I would deal with the commercials in exchange for watching/following the shows that I want when I want. The best way for me would be to tell Tivo what kinds of things I'm interested in and have them shuffle appropriate commercials my way. I could see a Tide commercial a thousand times and it will never motivate me to call my wife at home and make sure she gets Tide the next time she steps out. Maybe even have an easy way to tell it who is watching - so that it can target. For example: You select a show to record and one of the options allows you to choose "Me, Wife, Wife&Me, Family" before I select "add season pass". Kids shows could just default to kids. Then, when I am watching a show, I'll gladly watch the commercials.
This is all similar to those ad packs that we get in the mail from time to time. I personally don't find them annoying because I can flip through them and stop on the ones that mean something to me.
Anyway - someone has to pay for the shows and there is no sense taking up commercial time if the person watching isn't paying attention.
Hey - good idea on the virus - that's putting the virus guys behind something we can all agree to.
Also - I wasn't saying that I considered it theft - I just said that these are the parameters that we are living under and that's what it is. Personally - I think I should be able to log into itunes and download every damn song that I've ever destroyed a tape to, lost or just plain wore out.
Does anyone remember years ago Garth Brooks and a lot of other high profile musicians got together and put up ads warning people not to buy their albums used - because even though it's saving you money to do so, the artist gets nothing in return for that and has lost a sale. In fact, the artist today loses just as much of not more from used record sales, and that's where I buy most of my CD's anyway - pre-owned.
He did say that he was contesting whether he did it or not and that you can't say in this age of wi-fi - which makes me wonder just how liable I am if a neighbor got into my wi-fi and downloaded a bunch of crud. Will be interesting to follow.
Well - the fantasy arrangement was that we would register as a business - then be protected because we were an ISP that just didn't know what they were doing... "logs? sorry - we kept running out of space and we turned that feature off".
I know it's all pie in the sky - just a fun thing to talk about after a couple of beers.