Players are cheap and they'll only get cheaper. Even the dual players. So why not just buy one, get movies for that format and if the one you choose doesn't turn out to be the winner, buy the other player when it's cheap, too. It's not that big of an investment. I have a bluray player right now and the few movies I buy (why have a collection of MOVIES -- how many times can you see the same crap?) -- but if HD wins in a year, I'll just go drop $100 for a HD player and start buying them in that format. It's not like the "loser" will never be playable again. It's like "holding out" for ogg versus mp3. Who cares? You can usually play both. So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?
If you aren't eagerly requesting that this filter be applied to your connection at home, you must be a software pirating, movie pirating, government terrorizing pedophile. Therefore, you deserve no protection or privacy and must be investigated. Preferably with a no-knock warrant while you're out having dinner.
The military does try to recruit people by having them play military games (military-funded America's Army anyone?) - but to suggest that they are conspiring by making the extremely advanced military simulation software and consumer-grade FPS videogames intentionally similar for evil reasons is just stupid.
And while we're on it, if people only shoot up schools and snipe at passing cars because of violent videogames, then how do we explain decades of killing abortion doctors and murdering people for their race, sexual preference or being a witch? What videogames are responsible for parents locking their children in cages or chopping off their limbs with an axe or drowning them in the river, because god told them to?
There is a bit of collaboration and overlap involved in making military weapons and hunting weapons. That doesn't mean there's some evil collusion to turn quail hunters into special forces.
Thompson really reminds me of that annoying, ignorant attention-whore named Perry Aftab who runs around trying to convince everyone that your children are going to e raped if they come within fifty yards of a networked device. They're a bunch of fearmongering, attention-whoring leeches and I hope every one of them steps in front of a bus.
By Thompson's logic, cars are training simulators for driving tanks and APVs and and RISK is a training simulator for conquering and destroying to build a fascist global empire.
Why is this guy still allowed to tie up the media and court system? Why isn't he in jail or disbarred or institutionalized? He is the Jerry Falwell of videogames and at least Falwell finally had the decency to fucking die.
I'd be willing to spend a dollar or two for a movie, if I could watch it for more than 24hrs. Perhaps a week. In very high quality. Perhaps A dollar or two extra for a movie released in the last year.
Going to an actual video store or even using netflix is just too much of a hassle. The membership. The dues. The fees. The lines. The people. The interactions. The driving. Screw that.
What needs to happen is the half-assed cable "on-demand" services need to have more than a few dozen stupid movies -- all either free or for $7 a movie with only 24hrs to watch them. That's ridiculous. Give me a week to watch something I buy. Drop the price to something more reasonable. And then expand the selection from 200 films to 100,000. I will never need netflix or a video store or to buy an actual DVD ever again. I will always resort to the very affordable (preferably) massive library on my television with the flick of a remote control.
Why is it taking so long to accomplish that? It's 2008...
How will you ignore it? Thanks to the US Government, they must take Egypt's copyright claims seriously if they demand that other countries take ours seriously (and even let us infiltrate their citizen's lives CIA-style). So either the US Government can uphold their claims by paying royalties or changing the bill styles or they can be hypocrites and decide that while everyone else in the world is obligated to observe our draconian copyright laws (and pay the price for infringing on them), the US doesn't have to reciprocate.
Who the hell feels embarrassed for porn? It's 2007. Yeah, if you were ripped off by a payment processor that put "iloveyoungboys.com" on your bill, that's one thing. But in general, who cares?! Oh no, you might have to admit that you are a guy, have testosterone and might wank off to hot sluts. Boy, how embarassing.
And what's next? By default, every time you compose an email with gmail, it is addressed to every single person you have ever communicated with via gmail and you must opt out individual recipients prior to sending your message?
Google has not deviated from their intent to organize all existing information on the planet. Everything they've done has only further supported that mission. The possible exceptions being perhaps Blogspot which is less about organizing data than controlling the generation of it.
The problem is that outside of their search and possibly email/calendar services, everything that they rollout is done in what feels like a less-than-beta, half-assed way.
Too true. I know every time I buy something on Amazon, I think "hey, if the person working for amazon takes my credit card information and sells it to some group of Nigerians to commit extensive bank fraud and destroy my credit and financial future in the process -- *I* am the idiot, because I gave Amazon my information".
On the other hand, just because I click on 'share', because I want to share something I found with my girlfriend and a couple of my buddies does not mean that I intended to share it with the guy I had a transaction with on ebay or the person I communicated with from Craigslist to sell them my used computer monitors or the person who emailed me to ask if I wanted to sell my domain name two years ago.
If Google has any sense at all, they will re-engineer this function so that you have greater control over how your 'shared' items are actually shared.
Just because you aren't being forced to use a service doesn't mean you should accept any violation of your privacy or the goodwill use of your data.
If we're going to have laws protecting the identity and data of people under 13, why not everyone over 13, too? Why should there not be some obligation to protect my identity, privacy and collection of data? Not an obligation built around "well, if we don't do it we might piss people off", but based on the same legal constraints that protect our credit card data, social security data and medical information?
I'm not for over legislation of the internet as it should remain a free frontier for communication, innovation and ideas. Protecting people's expectation of privacy for certain information and data gathering does not stifle any of that.
Or worse, what if you're an atheist? Considering the only group more despised than atheists are "islamic terrorists", the last thing you'd want is your shared item for a Sam Harris or Dan Dennings talk for your friends to be viewed by a potential employer, date, business contact or even some family members.
But rather than blame Google for this service (though I agree it's a lame way of handling the shared items), I'd suggest that people who are concerned with such things simply separate their accounts. For instance, I try not to use my google account (at least not my personal one) to communicate with business contacts so that I don't avoid any accidental sends to the wrong people... and frankly, simply because I don't want them knowing my private contact info.
This is all really a non-issue. Behaves as reasonably expected, though perhaps still not in an ideal way.
I was worried, until I read that the issue is "Google let's people who want to see your shared items, see your shared items, which are shared by clicking on the share button for that item".
I mean, what is the issue here? This is like complaining that "when you don't click 'private' on del.icio.us bookmarks as you add them, then people can see them!".
In my business, we classify this concern as "WORKS AS DESIGNED".
If you're going to "protect children" from videogames, then you should protect them from everything else on the planet that is intended for mature or adult consumption. Books, magazines, movies, sex toys, religion. Everything. After all, everything must be nerfed for the consumption of a fucking toddler.
The thing is, game consoles are close to $500 or $600, when you factor in taxes. And videogames are about $65. Kids aren't buying these things. Adults are. Rather than blaming videogame companies, how about blaming parents? If the parents are buying content for their kids then they have obviously deemed their child mature enough to consume them. Either that or they are just giving their children wads of cash to wander around town and spend on whatever and they clearly don't care what their children consume. Either way, it is the parents decision. And if you're going to protect children from "videogames", how about protecting them from religion while you're at it? How is it that a copy of Halo 3 is more dangerous for a child than being in the Fred Phelps family and being forced to protest funerals of dead soldiers with "GOD HATES F**S" signs? How about a little fucking consistency, here?
I give this thing twelve months before the federal government stops allowing student loans and federal aid of any and all kinds from being spent on students and services for this school.
Go to about:config in your address bar and set browser.sessionstore.resume_from_crash to false to stop crash recovery. Or disable session saving altogether by setting browser.sessionstore.enabled to false.
You might wan to try the Tab Mix Plus session saver, instead (you can find it at addons.mozilla.org).
It's not bullshit. It's the response I have seen every single time the situation is discussed by anyone in the Firefox camp. It wasn't until recently that any acknowledgment was even made that there *was* a slight possibility of actual memory leaks, but their severity was played down and the huge memory usage still attributed to the "back button" feature.
And by "people like me", you mean people who use Firefox religiously and have been a major Mozilla supporter since Netscape spun off the browser source and actually used to be employed by Netscape before AOL came along?
It seems like this is also a typical response to any criticisms. Not only are there no "serious" memory problems, but anyone who doesn't buy into the "we need hundreds of megs for the back button caching" must be an ignorant IE-lover trying to stir shit. Simply not true.
There have been plenty of such articles and discussions right here on Slashdot, with plenty of deserved disbelief.
Places is just a bookmark type of thing, right? Who still uses in-browser bookmarks?!
I use my browser's bookmark toolbar to drag and drop stuff that I'm going to read, but don't want to bookmark long term. Then I have maybe six actual bookmarks in one folder that I want to have quick access to all the time (one website, a few javascript bookmarks to resize the window, etc). That's it. My real bookmarks are all stored in delicious. Isn't that what everyone else does? I just assumed that with people using multiple machines in multiple places and wanting to avoid losing their bookmarks, they'd use one of the many delicious, simpy, etc services out there...
I love my firefox, but with Opera and Konq out there, the only reason I really stick to Firefox is for the extensions that I simply can't live without. I am getting so damned tired of it crashing on KDE time after time that I'm on the verge of being willing to dump it all and survive extension-free. As it is, I'll be just browsing around, reading some stuff, click a link... the page I want will start to come up... and then it'll just hang out of nowhere and never come back to life. I'll kill the process and re-launch it and it'll be fine again for a few hours. It's just so damn frustrating. Thank god for the session saver. That absolutely had to be implemented, because without it nobody would continue using firefox unless it was completely crash-free.
I do like the idea of using Konq full-time, but the extensions just aren't there. Meh.
The response from the Firefox camp was always exactly as follows:
There may be some teensy weensy little miniscule memory leaks that could be plugged up here and there, but the reason people think there is some big memory handling problem is because of how we cache things for quick use of the 'back' button. Your browser isn't taking up hundred of megabytes of memory because of a leak, but because it makes the back button super duper fast! And since memory is so cheap these days and everyone has a ton of it, what's the big deal about half a gig dedicated to the browser anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
Players are cheap and they'll only get cheaper. Even the dual players. So why not just buy one, get movies for that format and if the one you choose doesn't turn out to be the winner, buy the other player when it's cheap, too. It's not that big of an investment. I have a bluray player right now and the few movies I buy (why have a collection of MOVIES -- how many times can you see the same crap?) -- but if HD wins in a year, I'll just go drop $100 for a HD player and start buying them in that format. It's not like the "loser" will never be playable again. It's like "holding out" for ogg versus mp3. Who cares? You can usually play both. So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?
If you aren't eagerly requesting that this filter be applied to your connection at home, you must be a software pirating, movie pirating, government terrorizing pedophile. Therefore, you deserve no protection or privacy and must be investigated. Preferably with a no-knock warrant while you're out having dinner.
The military does try to recruit people by having them play military games (military-funded America's Army anyone?) - but to suggest that they are conspiring by making the extremely advanced military simulation software and consumer-grade FPS videogames intentionally similar for evil reasons is just stupid.
And while we're on it, if people only shoot up schools and snipe at passing cars because of violent videogames, then how do we explain decades of killing abortion doctors and murdering people for their race, sexual preference or being a witch? What videogames are responsible for parents locking their children in cages or chopping off their limbs with an axe or drowning them in the river, because god told them to?
There is a bit of collaboration and overlap involved in making military weapons and hunting weapons. That doesn't mean there's some evil collusion to turn quail hunters into special forces.
Thompson really reminds me of that annoying, ignorant attention-whore named Perry Aftab who runs around trying to convince everyone that your children are going to e raped if they come within fifty yards of a networked device. They're a bunch of fearmongering, attention-whoring leeches and I hope every one of them steps in front of a bus.
By Thompson's logic, cars are training simulators for driving tanks and APVs and and RISK is a training simulator for conquering and destroying to build a fascist global empire.
Why is this guy still allowed to tie up the media and court system? Why isn't he in jail or disbarred or institutionalized? He is the Jerry Falwell of videogames and at least Falwell finally had the decency to fucking die.
I'd be willing to spend a dollar or two for a movie, if I could watch it for more than 24hrs. Perhaps a week. In very high quality. Perhaps A dollar or two extra for a movie released in the last year.
Going to an actual video store or even using netflix is just too much of a hassle. The membership. The dues. The fees. The lines. The people. The interactions. The driving. Screw that.
What needs to happen is the half-assed cable "on-demand" services need to have more than a few dozen stupid movies -- all either free or for $7 a movie with only 24hrs to watch them. That's ridiculous. Give me a week to watch something I buy. Drop the price to something more reasonable. And then expand the selection from 200 films to 100,000. I will never need netflix or a video store or to buy an actual DVD ever again. I will always resort to the very affordable (preferably) massive library on my television with the flick of a remote control.
Why is it taking so long to accomplish that? It's 2008...
How will you ignore it? Thanks to the US Government, they must take Egypt's copyright claims seriously if they demand that other countries take ours seriously (and even let us infiltrate their citizen's lives CIA-style). So either the US Government can uphold their claims by paying royalties or changing the bill styles or they can be hypocrites and decide that while everyone else in the world is obligated to observe our draconian copyright laws (and pay the price for infringing on them), the US doesn't have to reciprocate.
Who the hell feels embarrassed for porn? It's 2007. Yeah, if you were ripped off by a payment processor that put "iloveyoungboys.com" on your bill, that's one thing. But in general, who cares?! Oh no, you might have to admit that you are a guy, have testosterone and might wank off to hot sluts. Boy, how embarassing.
You're killing your father, Craigslist!
And what's next? By default, every time you compose an email with gmail, it is addressed to every single person you have ever communicated with via gmail and you must opt out individual recipients prior to sending your message?
Google has not deviated from their intent to organize all existing information on the planet. Everything they've done has only further supported that mission. The possible exceptions being perhaps Blogspot which is less about organizing data than controlling the generation of it.
The problem is that outside of their search and possibly email/calendar services, everything that they rollout is done in what feels like a less-than-beta, half-assed way.
Too true. I know every time I buy something on Amazon, I think "hey, if the person working for amazon takes my credit card information and sells it to some group of Nigerians to commit extensive bank fraud and destroy my credit and financial future in the process -- *I* am the idiot, because I gave Amazon my information".
On the other hand, just because I click on 'share', because I want to share something I found with my girlfriend and a couple of my buddies does not mean that I intended to share it with the guy I had a transaction with on ebay or the person I communicated with from Craigslist to sell them my used computer monitors or the person who emailed me to ask if I wanted to sell my domain name two years ago.
If Google has any sense at all, they will re-engineer this function so that you have greater control over how your 'shared' items are actually shared.
Just because you aren't being forced to use a service doesn't mean you should accept any violation of your privacy or the goodwill use of your data.
If we're going to have laws protecting the identity and data of people under 13, why not everyone over 13, too? Why should there not be some obligation to protect my identity, privacy and collection of data? Not an obligation built around "well, if we don't do it we might piss people off", but based on the same legal constraints that protect our credit card data, social security data and medical information?
I'm not for over legislation of the internet as it should remain a free frontier for communication, innovation and ideas. Protecting people's expectation of privacy for certain information and data gathering does not stifle any of that.
Or worse, what if you're an atheist? Considering the only group more despised than atheists are "islamic terrorists", the last thing you'd want is your shared item for a Sam Harris or Dan Dennings talk for your friends to be viewed by a potential employer, date, business contact or even some family members.
But rather than blame Google for this service (though I agree it's a lame way of handling the shared items), I'd suggest that people who are concerned with such things simply separate their accounts. For instance, I try not to use my google account (at least not my personal one) to communicate with business contacts so that I don't avoid any accidental sends to the wrong people... and frankly, simply because I don't want them knowing my private contact info.
This is all really a non-issue. Behaves as reasonably expected, though perhaps still not in an ideal way.
I was worried, until I read that the issue is "Google let's people who want to see your shared items, see your shared items, which are shared by clicking on the share button for that item".
I mean, what is the issue here? This is like complaining that "when you don't click 'private' on del.icio.us bookmarks as you add them, then people can see them!".
In my business, we classify this concern as "WORKS AS DESIGNED".
Next!
After humans grant all human intelligences the same right that we only grant some.
Minors can't buy mature videogames, either.
Exactly.
If you're going to "protect children" from videogames, then you should protect them from everything else on the planet that is intended for mature or adult consumption. Books, magazines, movies, sex toys, religion. Everything. After all, everything must be nerfed for the consumption of a fucking toddler.
The thing is, game consoles are close to $500 or $600, when you factor in taxes. And videogames are about $65. Kids aren't buying these things. Adults are. Rather than blaming videogame companies, how about blaming parents? If the parents are buying content for their kids then they have obviously deemed their child mature enough to consume them. Either that or they are just giving their children wads of cash to wander around town and spend on whatever and they clearly don't care what their children consume. Either way, it is the parents decision. And if you're going to protect children from "videogames", how about protecting them from religion while you're at it? How is it that a copy of Halo 3 is more dangerous for a child than being in the Fred Phelps family and being forced to protest funerals of dead soldiers with "GOD HATES F**S" signs? How about a little fucking consistency, here?
I give this thing twelve months before the federal government stops allowing student loans and federal aid of any and all kinds from being spent on students and services for this school.
Go to about:config in your address bar and set browser.sessionstore.resume_from_crash to false to stop crash recovery. Or disable session saving altogether by setting browser.sessionstore.enabled to false.
You might wan to try the Tab Mix Plus session saver, instead (you can find it at addons.mozilla.org).
Hope that helps.
It's not bullshit. It's the response I have seen every single time the situation is discussed by anyone in the Firefox camp. It wasn't until recently that any acknowledgment was even made that there *was* a slight possibility of actual memory leaks, but their severity was played down and the huge memory usage still attributed to the "back button" feature.
And by "people like me", you mean people who use Firefox religiously and have been a major Mozilla supporter since Netscape spun off the browser source and actually used to be employed by Netscape before AOL came along?
It seems like this is also a typical response to any criticisms. Not only are there no "serious" memory problems, but anyone who doesn't buy into the "we need hundreds of megs for the back button caching" must be an ignorant IE-lover trying to stir shit. Simply not true.
There have been plenty of such articles and discussions right here on Slashdot, with plenty of deserved disbelief.
Places is just a bookmark type of thing, right? Who still uses in-browser bookmarks?!
I use my browser's bookmark toolbar to drag and drop stuff that I'm going to read, but don't want to bookmark long term. Then I have maybe six actual bookmarks in one folder that I want to have quick access to all the time (one website, a few javascript bookmarks to resize the window, etc). That's it. My real bookmarks are all stored in delicious. Isn't that what everyone else does? I just assumed that with people using multiple machines in multiple places and wanting to avoid losing their bookmarks, they'd use one of the many delicious, simpy, etc services out there...
I love my firefox, but with Opera and Konq out there, the only reason I really stick to Firefox is for the extensions that I simply can't live without. I am getting so damned tired of it crashing on KDE time after time that I'm on the verge of being willing to dump it all and survive extension-free. As it is, I'll be just browsing around, reading some stuff, click a link... the page I want will start to come up... and then it'll just hang out of nowhere and never come back to life. I'll kill the process and re-launch it and it'll be fine again for a few hours. It's just so damn frustrating. Thank god for the session saver. That absolutely had to be implemented, because without it nobody would continue using firefox unless it was completely crash-free.
I do like the idea of using Konq full-time, but the extensions just aren't there. Meh.
They aren't memory leaks! Remember, it is all a "back button speed enhancement" feature! If they say it enough times, it becomes true!
The response from the Firefox camp was always exactly as follows:
There may be some teensy weensy little miniscule memory leaks that could be plugged up here and there, but the reason people think there is some big memory handling problem is because of how we cache things for quick use of the 'back' button. Your browser isn't taking up hundred of megabytes of memory because of a leak, but because it makes the back button super duper fast! And since memory is so cheap these days and everyone has a ton of it, what's the big deal about half a gig dedicated to the browser anyway?