Be this as it may, how is a contractual dispute that disrupts the internet somehow more acceptible than a hurricane or nuclear weapon? End result: I can't see a good chunk of the internet. The cause is completely superfluous to the result. I can't see a good chunk of the internet.
I got a pair of 250gb SATA Seagate 7200.8's for 112 a piece, no rebate. You go with comp usa/bestbuy/circuitcity and you can rock out with the mail in rebates. I didn't because I'm against them on principle (principle being I'm too lazy to send them in and, without fail, manage to shaft myself)
I think there are pros and cons. I'm not saying you're wrong or your opinion is flawed. I could easily understand why a spec may not make sense in these circumstances. I don't know enough of the linux kernel development process to make an informed contribution, but hopefully, if my educated guesses are right, what I have to say will be _somewhat_ useful in consideration.
I assume anyone can write a patch for the kernel that introduces a new feature, etc, etc. I also assume these patches are submitted to _someone_ (or many someones) who review them thoroughly not only for elegance and a lack of bugs, but also in how the whole thing applies to the direction they see the kernel going. At least, with just my cursory knowledge, that would seem to make some bit of sense. And if so, in a way, they already have a spec defined. It's just in their head. If they were to formally write it in a paper, discuss it amongst themselves (I know Linus does the major development stuff, but doesn't that.. uhm... Andrew Mortenson (??? (please don't hit me!)) have some say? I guess he only does maintenance work, but still, that seems to be fairly important (at least in my eyes). Or maybe there are others. If so, it would make sense for them to write this spec out, clearly define where they see the kernel going as of right now, and then letting the world see it. That way some dude in his closet can have an idea on what would be worth developing and what wouldn't. Or, if he had a really great idea, but went against the spec, he could either a: write up the code he wanted to do in the first place, then submit it along with a detailed justification in why it deviates from the spec, and hope that it would be amazingly great enough that those in charge feel the same way. Or, plan b, he can be safe and just submit detailed justification on why the spec should be altered, get approval, and then develop the code.
Either way, a spec exists - in some nebulous form. Knowing what it is in advance may scare off those who would try more outlandish things (which could be bad - or it could be good - or it could be both), but I think, overall, it may be more helpful. Even if it changes relatively often. Maybe it changes half a dozen times in each 2.x cycle. Maybe, with time, it only changes with each y.0 cycle. Who knows.
Anyway, I'm sure the kernel developers are discussing (or have discussed) this in depth, and maybe this "argument" (more a consideration) has been rebuffed. That's okay. But for those of us who delight in hypothetical speculation, it was worth posting here on/.
Mmmm, but specs can change. Obviously you don't want to change them daily (what's the point???), but they still have a degree of flexibility. Also, if you create specs for all the subsystems, then combine them all together, what does that give you? A spec for almost the entire system (sans the way it's all linked together and interoperates, and it really does make a good deal of sense to create a spec for THAT, too).
If there comes a point where the particular subsystem spec or overarching "wrapper" spec is a bit "wonky", then get together with a few more engineers, figure out how it "should" be done, rewrite the spec, and implement the desired change.
I've only been out of college and developing for a year and a half, but this method seems to work best for us. Of course, when we do change the specification/requirements, we have to get the client to sign off on them, but as we always have justification, this is an extremely minor problem.
Ah, but we do, if they're introducing suspect evidence (like the little old lady accused of uploading gangster rap and hip-hop "on a massive scale" (she lived alone, by the way)). I'm not concerned about the copyright infringement issue - if it really did happen, nail the fuckers - but if they're suing people and scaring them into submitting (or face crazy court costs) all because the process for identifying p2p uploaders is flawed, then yeah, I have a problem with it. What stops them from accusing me and fucking up my life (for a short period of time) until I can prove them wrong? (I realize it's supposed to be the other way around, but honestly, in these cases, it just feels like you're guilty until proven innocent).
Oh, and by the way, I've been known to pull off a strawman attack without realizing it on occassion. I didn't mean to say YOU were dishonorable or underhanded by nature, just that the act was. I really meant no offense.
To answer your first question: Are you upset because you can't download copies of your favorite songs for free? Or use copyrighted material any way you wish without permission from the author?
Nowhere did the person responding claim they were intent on bypassing protection schemas for the purpose of breaking the law. There are legal reasons to bypass these protections for your own personal use. Likely to happen? Not so. But you still put up a straw man - implying that the only act the poster wished to partake in was copyright infringement - and then knocking it down. You, essentially, put words in his mouth and then used them to dismiss what he had to say. That's dishonorable and underhanded (in my opinion).
To respond to your second point - I possibly agree with your statement "depends on the license". If I go to a store and buy a CD (labeled as a CD - meaning following the CD standard) - with no listing of contractual obligations on the product, when I purchase it, I am allowed to make a copy for personal use (you may laugh at this statement (most copying is NOT for personal use), but I often make copies of my CDs as soon as I buy them (and rip them to mp3) and then put the master copy in a safe location - CDs and I don't mix, and I don't listen to music on a CD player 9 times out of 10, I listen to it on my iPod), or cut out bits here and there to use in classroom discussion (I've also done this before for a few music theory classes I've been in). These caveats are well known. However, if this particular recording company placed copyright protection on the CD, bypassing it would break the DMCA. Is this fair? No. Is the poster right in being indignant that they have to accept this or possibly put thousands of their citizens out of work? Sure. Granted, they accepted it, but, practically speaking, they didn't have much choice. That doesn't mean we were "wrong" in putting them in that position - at least not legally - but ethically, it was a pretty shitty thing to do.
So, in some situations, I could understand putting restrictions on what your music can be played on and how. If you want to tell me, in plain english, before purchase, that I cannot play this song on a Dell Laptop, then that's your choice. But if you don't make that known before purchase, tough titty. That's your fault, not mine. However, with the DMCA, you could just try to technically prohibit me, without making these restrictions known. Clearly subterfuge.
In other situations, however, I believe it extremely important to still allow copying. Period. For classroom discussion, for example. Projects. Papers. Things of an academic nature. Perhaps I wanted to dissect various pop-music songs and criticize them. Perhaps I need to allow the professor/audience experience the song, or part of the song, before I can do that. Frankly, I don't believe a copyright owner has the right to restrict things of this nature. This is one of the few times when I do not back ownership rights.
I disagree. It's a question of degree. If I made furniture that turned the color blue, or better yet, turned everything around it blue, and you signed a contract saying "I understand that this furniture could turn the color blue at any moment and could possibly turn everything near it blue and I still chose to buy it and agree to not hold the manufacturer liable for any damages it may cause", then that's too bad.
You can't sign a contract saying "I agree to get screwed over in some unpleasant fashion" and then, when you get screwed over, say "oh, well, I didn't actually mean that." Otherwise I could tell M&T National Bank to take their car loan and shove it up their ass - but that isn't how life works.
In extreme cases this rule doesn't apply. I can't sign a contract that says "I am allowing PersonX to [own me as a slave|kill me|cut me into little bits and eat me for dinner]". I can sign a contract that says "I agree to recieve a potentially flawed product that may require me to repaint the walls and replace the carpeting if they are dyed/painted blue". Is it a stupid contract to sign? Absolutely. I don't question the desire to be able to hold software developers responsible for their product, but I do disagree that this desire trumps contract law. Only in very few, very rare circumstances does something trump contract law, and this is not one of them (in my opinion).
I'm pretty sure car manufacturers still wanted you to buy their products. As a software developer, I can say "look, if you can't handle getting ass raped by my IM client, then not only am I not liable, I refuse to sell you the product." And if you lie and say "yes, I am completely okay with forced simian anal sex (on the receiving end)" and buy it, well guess what? That's your fucking fault. You chose to buy it. I would not have sold it to you if I had known you held prejudice toward Bobo the monkey or his predilection for the anal cavity. Only through your deliberate deceipt did you obtain the product in question. Indeed, you should owe ME money for breaking the terms of the contract (that you signed upon purchase).
An extreme? Sure. But so is likening software sales to automobile sales.
I disagree. You don't like buying/using my software because I'm free from any responsibility if it runs amok and kills your family and makes love to your motorcycle? Don't use it. I'm not going to make you. If you don't feel comfortable dealing with those circumstances on your own if they happen, then I don't want you to use my software products (not that I actually have any, but still).
If you don't like it - write up a new license claiming responsibility for whatever it is your software may do. Write whatever software you want. Users will possibly flock to you just for the peace of mind they would get (or is it piece of mind?;D).
Of course, so will the lawyers, but hey, it was your choice (as a developer) to release software under those conditions anyway.
I know you're not honestly saying "if the leader of a country says something, everyone in the country is saying it". Otherwise I could pick out some doozies from your particular leader and hold that against you, too:)
I was against the war in Iraq - not because I thought Saddam was a rockin' dude, but because I thought there were bigger fish to fry elsewhere (like, say, North Korea). And I'm also a fan of finishing one task before I start another. Like, you know, capturing Bin Laden. That would've been a start. Finishing up in Afghanistan and the like. I realize there are a bunch of people out there who disagree and say Iraq had to be "taken care of" now, but I've heard all the arguments already, and I still disagree. So save your breath.
But now you know how I felt. Here's a big shocker - I'm a U.S. citizen. I live in Western Pennsylvania (Johnstown, to be precise - it's a shithole, don't worry about looking it up unless you're crazy bored). I'm an American, but, lo and behold! My personal opinions are drastically contrary to our President's (and, apparently, the majority of my countrymen). Shock!:)
Maybe he's pissed that he can't reverse engineer anything he wants. Maybe he's concerned he'll be sued because he found some way to put a Napster song on an iPod or an iTunes song on a Zen without changing the file format. His songs. His licensed property. His fucking right.
You make the rest of us look worst by attacking someone's comment in such an underhanded and dishonorable way. Do I want our government to "give up control" of the internet to countries like Russia, China, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, or North Korea? Fuck no. Sure, our government isn't perfect, but it's a long shot better than those ones. Maybe there are better ones out there. Maybe not. If there were serious problems with how it was being run, sure. But now it's more of a "I'm afraid of what you may do some day in the future". New plan: when we do it, kick us in the nuts. Seriously. Until then, settle down. There's no guarantee that the U.N. would be any different than the U.S. - as in "what will they do in the future? WHAT IF THEY ALL BECOME COMMUNIST NAZI IMPERIALISTIC DOGS! GASP!" What if, what if, what if. But no matter how silly I think this constant whining is, it's still not worth damaging our arguments against it just because you can't be bothered to be honest in your rebuttles. Shame on you.
Absolutely, but BT uploads while you're downloading, too. So even if you don't have the entire file, you're still pushing out data. So, if it takes you 30 minutes to download a movie, you'd still be uploading at 12kb/s (replace 12 with your actual upload speed).
Does it balance out to a 1:1 download:upload ratio in the end? Not even close. But every little bit counts. And if it's big enough, or late enough, you may just let the download go until morning, thus pushing out even more data.
Bare minimum, though, at least some bandwidth is being offloaded to the clients, and while it isn't going to be a whole hell of a lot (unless you have a rabid fan following (imagine if serenity were released like this, for example)), it's still better than nothing at all.
I was thinking more along the lines of an independent movie release. Or something like Red vs. Blue. If it was coming from MGM or something like that, I'd agree; I'm fucking paying for the bandwidth. But if I'm getting it for free, I don't mind uploading at the same time I'm downloading.
The only reason I want a laptop at work is so I can work from home legitimately. Do I have any real reason to work from home? Not really. I just feel more productive in my underwear and music blasting.
Of course, when I do present my request for a laptop, it will hinge on "bad weather" and my above average distance from work, rather than any pressing need to write code in my 'roos and a beer on my desk.
I've heard it all before. I'm sure I'll continue hearing it for quite some time.
Do we really need to hear about it from every semi-random schmuck with a blog, though? Consoles are killing the gaming pc and laptops are killing the home pc. And we'll hear about it again next year. And the year after that. And the year after that.
I guess I just can't see a family giving up a non-mobile, non-delicate system the entire family can use (from 4 years old and onward) to something that will invariably find itself cartwheeling down a flight of steps because little susie and little billy weren't careful enough. Or letting their teenage son take the home laptop into his bedroom to "do homework" late at night *cough*.
I could see it being something the adults would be interested in - but as a replacement of the home PC? That's incredibly hard to believe - no matter how many times I hear it.
You are free, of course, to test the strength of that statement by duping this article tomorrow. I'm sure it'd give everyone something to bitch about:)
Really, though. Call me whenever there are more laptops in homes than PCs. Call me when owning a PC becomes a niche market. Then you can tell me all about it. Until then, let's simmer the conjecture down a bit, shall we? The first time, not so bad, the second time, meh, the third time...starting to get annoying, and now, the 82nd time... well... yeah.
You'd think so, but the entertainment industry (at least the music and movie industry, at any rate) seems to be rather opposed to change in the system. I don't know what goes on in their board rooms, but it seems to me like they AREN'T spending their time trying to figure out how to use new technology to their advantage in new and exciting ways, they're trying to figure out how to stop it. Whether they're mirroring the "entertainment" they produce, or the "entertainment" they produce is mirroring them is up for debate, but all the same, I believe it would be a lot easier for you to go into a movie executive's office, show them a finished product and how it could benefit them and walk out with a contract than expect that movie executive to go figure out how to do the same exact thing themselves (for cheaper).
Slashdot Mirror
Be this as it may, how is a contractual dispute that disrupts the internet somehow more acceptible than a hurricane or nuclear weapon? End result: I can't see a good chunk of the internet. The cause is completely superfluous to the result. I can't see a good chunk of the internet.
Then maybe you should straight up say that when talking about it?
Some Degree of Freedom of Speech, for example, would make me feel a lot better, and it'll stop confusing the kids, too.
I got a pair of 250gb SATA Seagate 7200.8's for 112 a piece, no rebate. You go with comp usa/bestbuy/circuitcity and you can rock out with the mail in rebates. I didn't because I'm against them on principle (principle being I'm too lazy to send them in and, without fail, manage to shaft myself)
With DRM? One arbitrarily expensive purchase at a time.
Man down!
:(
Scratch my previous post, I actually read the article. My bad :)
I wouldn't know, but I would assume the "log" they were referring to was more along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_logging.
Shhh! We know they exist, but we mustn't speak of them!
The zealots are watching. Always watching.
gpedit.msc
compmgmt.msc
I'm not positive, but I don't think either of those extremely useful utilities are in XP Home. (Can anyone confirm?)
It's a lot harder than it looks. :(
I think there are pros and cons. I'm not saying you're wrong or your opinion is flawed. I could easily understand why a spec may not make sense in these circumstances. I don't know enough of the linux kernel development process to make an informed contribution, but hopefully, if my educated guesses are right, what I have to say will be _somewhat_ useful in consideration.
/.
I assume anyone can write a patch for the kernel that introduces a new feature, etc, etc. I also assume these patches are submitted to _someone_ (or many someones) who review them thoroughly not only for elegance and a lack of bugs, but also in how the whole thing applies to the direction they see the kernel going. At least, with just my cursory knowledge, that would seem to make some bit of sense. And if so, in a way, they already have a spec defined. It's just in their head. If they were to formally write it in a paper, discuss it amongst themselves (I know Linus does the major development stuff, but doesn't that.. uhm... Andrew Mortenson (??? (please don't hit me!)) have some say? I guess he only does maintenance work, but still, that seems to be fairly important (at least in my eyes). Or maybe there are others. If so, it would make sense for them to write this spec out, clearly define where they see the kernel going as of right now, and then letting the world see it. That way some dude in his closet can have an idea on what would be worth developing and what wouldn't. Or, if he had a really great idea, but went against the spec, he could either a: write up the code he wanted to do in the first place, then submit it along with a detailed justification in why it deviates from the spec, and hope that it would be amazingly great enough that those in charge feel the same way. Or, plan b, he can be safe and just submit detailed justification on why the spec should be altered, get approval, and then develop the code.
Either way, a spec exists - in some nebulous form. Knowing what it is in advance may scare off those who would try more outlandish things (which could be bad - or it could be good - or it could be both), but I think, overall, it may be more helpful. Even if it changes relatively often. Maybe it changes half a dozen times in each 2.x cycle. Maybe, with time, it only changes with each y.0 cycle. Who knows.
Anyway, I'm sure the kernel developers are discussing (or have discussed) this in depth, and maybe this "argument" (more a consideration) has been rebuffed. That's okay. But for those of us who delight in hypothetical speculation, it was worth posting here on
Mmmm, but specs can change. Obviously you don't want to change them daily (what's the point???), but they still have a degree of flexibility. Also, if you create specs for all the subsystems, then combine them all together, what does that give you? A spec for almost the entire system (sans the way it's all linked together and interoperates, and it really does make a good deal of sense to create a spec for THAT, too).
If there comes a point where the particular subsystem spec or overarching "wrapper" spec is a bit "wonky", then get together with a few more engineers, figure out how it "should" be done, rewrite the spec, and implement the desired change.
I've only been out of college and developing for a year and a half, but this method seems to work best for us. Of course, when we do change the specification/requirements, we have to get the client to sign off on them, but as we always have justification, this is an extremely minor problem.
Who knows, though. Maybe I'm missing something.
Ah, but we do, if they're introducing suspect evidence (like the little old lady accused of uploading gangster rap and hip-hop "on a massive scale" (she lived alone, by the way)). I'm not concerned about the copyright infringement issue - if it really did happen, nail the fuckers - but if they're suing people and scaring them into submitting (or face crazy court costs) all because the process for identifying p2p uploaders is flawed, then yeah, I have a problem with it. What stops them from accusing me and fucking up my life (for a short period of time) until I can prove them wrong? (I realize it's supposed to be the other way around, but honestly, in these cases, it just feels like you're guilty until proven innocent).
Oh, and by the way, I've been known to pull off a strawman attack without realizing it on occassion. I didn't mean to say YOU were dishonorable or underhanded by nature, just that the act was. I really meant no offense.
To answer your first question: Are you upset because you can't download copies of your favorite songs for free? Or use copyrighted material any way you wish without permission from the author?
Nowhere did the person responding claim they were intent on bypassing protection schemas for the purpose of breaking the law. There are legal reasons to bypass these protections for your own personal use. Likely to happen? Not so. But you still put up a straw man - implying that the only act the poster wished to partake in was copyright infringement - and then knocking it down. You, essentially, put words in his mouth and then used them to dismiss what he had to say. That's dishonorable and underhanded (in my opinion).
To respond to your second point - I possibly agree with your statement "depends on the license". If I go to a store and buy a CD (labeled as a CD - meaning following the CD standard) - with no listing of contractual obligations on the product, when I purchase it, I am allowed to make a copy for personal use (you may laugh at this statement (most copying is NOT for personal use), but I often make copies of my CDs as soon as I buy them (and rip them to mp3) and then put the master copy in a safe location - CDs and I don't mix, and I don't listen to music on a CD player 9 times out of 10, I listen to it on my iPod), or cut out bits here and there to use in classroom discussion (I've also done this before for a few music theory classes I've been in). These caveats are well known. However, if this particular recording company placed copyright protection on the CD, bypassing it would break the DMCA. Is this fair? No. Is the poster right in being indignant that they have to accept this or possibly put thousands of their citizens out of work? Sure. Granted, they accepted it, but, practically speaking, they didn't have much choice. That doesn't mean we were "wrong" in putting them in that position - at least not legally - but ethically, it was a pretty shitty thing to do.
So, in some situations, I could understand putting restrictions on what your music can be played on and how. If you want to tell me, in plain english, before purchase, that I cannot play this song on a Dell Laptop, then that's your choice. But if you don't make that known before purchase, tough titty. That's your fault, not mine. However, with the DMCA, you could just try to technically prohibit me, without making these restrictions known. Clearly subterfuge.
In other situations, however, I believe it extremely important to still allow copying. Period. For classroom discussion, for example. Projects. Papers. Things of an academic nature. Perhaps I wanted to dissect various pop-music songs and criticize them. Perhaps I need to allow the professor/audience experience the song, or part of the song, before I can do that. Frankly, I don't believe a copyright owner has the right to restrict things of this nature. This is one of the few times when I do not back ownership rights.
I disagree. It's a question of degree. If I made furniture that turned the color blue, or better yet, turned everything around it blue, and you signed a contract saying "I understand that this furniture could turn the color blue at any moment and could possibly turn everything near it blue and I still chose to buy it and agree to not hold the manufacturer liable for any damages it may cause", then that's too bad.
You can't sign a contract saying "I agree to get screwed over in some unpleasant fashion" and then, when you get screwed over, say "oh, well, I didn't actually mean that." Otherwise I could tell M&T National Bank to take their car loan and shove it up their ass - but that isn't how life works.
In extreme cases this rule doesn't apply. I can't sign a contract that says "I am allowing PersonX to [own me as a slave|kill me|cut me into little bits and eat me for dinner]". I can sign a contract that says "I agree to recieve a potentially flawed product that may require me to repaint the walls and replace the carpeting if they are dyed/painted blue". Is it a stupid contract to sign? Absolutely. I don't question the desire to be able to hold software developers responsible for their product, but I do disagree that this desire trumps contract law. Only in very few, very rare circumstances does something trump contract law, and this is not one of them (in my opinion).
I'm pretty sure car manufacturers still wanted you to buy their products. As a software developer, I can say "look, if you can't handle getting ass raped by my IM client, then not only am I not liable, I refuse to sell you the product." And if you lie and say "yes, I am completely okay with forced simian anal sex (on the receiving end)" and buy it, well guess what? That's your fucking fault. You chose to buy it. I would not have sold it to you if I had known you held prejudice toward Bobo the monkey or his predilection for the anal cavity. Only through your deliberate deceipt did you obtain the product in question. Indeed, you should owe ME money for breaking the terms of the contract (that you signed upon purchase).
An extreme? Sure. But so is likening software sales to automobile sales.
I disagree. You don't like buying/using my software because I'm free from any responsibility if it runs amok and kills your family and makes love to your motorcycle? Don't use it. I'm not going to make you. If you don't feel comfortable dealing with those circumstances on your own if they happen, then I don't want you to use my software products (not that I actually have any, but still).
;D).
If you don't like it - write up a new license claiming responsibility for whatever it is your software may do. Write whatever software you want. Users will possibly flock to you just for the peace of mind they would get (or is it piece of mind?
Of course, so will the lawyers, but hey, it was your choice (as a developer) to release software under those conditions anyway.
I know you're not honestly saying "if the leader of a country says something, everyone in the country is saying it". Otherwise I could pick out some doozies from your particular leader and hold that against you, too :)
:)
I was against the war in Iraq - not because I thought Saddam was a rockin' dude, but because I thought there were bigger fish to fry elsewhere (like, say, North Korea). And I'm also a fan of finishing one task before I start another. Like, you know, capturing Bin Laden. That would've been a start. Finishing up in Afghanistan and the like. I realize there are a bunch of people out there who disagree and say Iraq had to be "taken care of" now, but I've heard all the arguments already, and I still disagree. So save your breath.
But now you know how I felt. Here's a big shocker - I'm a U.S. citizen. I live in Western Pennsylvania (Johnstown, to be precise - it's a shithole, don't worry about looking it up unless you're crazy bored). I'm an American, but, lo and behold! My personal opinions are drastically contrary to our President's (and, apparently, the majority of my countrymen). Shock!
Straw man.
Maybe he's pissed that he can't reverse engineer anything he wants. Maybe he's concerned he'll be sued because he found some way to put a Napster song on an iPod or an iTunes song on a Zen without changing the file format. His songs. His licensed property. His fucking right.
You make the rest of us look worst by attacking someone's comment in such an underhanded and dishonorable way. Do I want our government to "give up control" of the internet to countries like Russia, China, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, or North Korea? Fuck no. Sure, our government isn't perfect, but it's a long shot better than those ones. Maybe there are better ones out there. Maybe not. If there were serious problems with how it was being run, sure. But now it's more of a "I'm afraid of what you may do some day in the future". New plan: when we do it, kick us in the nuts. Seriously. Until then, settle down. There's no guarantee that the U.N. would be any different than the U.S. - as in "what will they do in the future? WHAT IF THEY ALL BECOME COMMUNIST NAZI IMPERIALISTIC DOGS! GASP!" What if, what if, what if. But no matter how silly I think this constant whining is, it's still not worth damaging our arguments against it just because you can't be bothered to be honest in your rebuttles. Shame on you.
Absolutely, but BT uploads while you're downloading, too. So even if you don't have the entire file, you're still pushing out data. So, if it takes you 30 minutes to download a movie, you'd still be uploading at 12kb/s (replace 12 with your actual upload speed).
Does it balance out to a 1:1 download:upload ratio in the end? Not even close. But every little bit counts. And if it's big enough, or late enough, you may just let the download go until morning, thus pushing out even more data.
Bare minimum, though, at least some bandwidth is being offloaded to the clients, and while it isn't going to be a whole hell of a lot (unless you have a rabid fan following (imagine if serenity were released like this, for example)), it's still better than nothing at all.
I was thinking more along the lines of an independent movie release. Or something like Red vs. Blue. If it was coming from MGM or something like that, I'd agree; I'm fucking paying for the bandwidth. But if I'm getting it for free, I don't mind uploading at the same time I'm downloading.
The only reason I want a laptop at work is so I can work from home legitimately. Do I have any real reason to work from home? Not really. I just feel more productive in my underwear and music blasting.
Of course, when I do present my request for a laptop, it will hinge on "bad weather" and my above average distance from work, rather than any pressing need to write code in my 'roos and a beer on my desk.
But shh. Don't tell my boss.
I've heard it all before. I'm sure I'll continue hearing it for quite some time.
:)
Do we really need to hear about it from every semi-random schmuck with a blog, though? Consoles are killing the gaming pc and laptops are killing the home pc. And we'll hear about it again next year. And the year after that. And the year after that.
I guess I just can't see a family giving up a non-mobile, non-delicate system the entire family can use (from 4 years old and onward) to something that will invariably find itself cartwheeling down a flight of steps because little susie and little billy weren't careful enough. Or letting their teenage son take the home laptop into his bedroom to "do homework" late at night *cough*.
I could see it being something the adults would be interested in - but as a replacement of the home PC? That's incredibly hard to believe - no matter how many times I hear it.
You are free, of course, to test the strength of that statement by duping this article tomorrow. I'm sure it'd give everyone something to bitch about
Really, though. Call me whenever there are more laptops in homes than PCs. Call me when owning a PC becomes a niche market. Then you can tell me all about it. Until then, let's simmer the conjecture down a bit, shall we? The first time, not so bad, the second time, meh, the third time...starting to get annoying, and now, the 82nd time... well... yeah.
You'd think so, but the entertainment industry (at least the music and movie industry, at any rate) seems to be rather opposed to change in the system. I don't know what goes on in their board rooms, but it seems to me like they AREN'T spending their time trying to figure out how to use new technology to their advantage in new and exciting ways, they're trying to figure out how to stop it. Whether they're mirroring the "entertainment" they produce, or the "entertainment" they produce is mirroring them is up for debate, but all the same, I believe it would be a lot easier for you to go into a movie executive's office, show them a finished product and how it could benefit them and walk out with a contract than expect that movie executive to go figure out how to do the same exact thing themselves (for cheaper).