For data backup purposes, 300GB would be great. I find myself burning off about 5 DVD's a week worth of data and I can't keep up.
However, once we start thinking about the new kinds of technologies for video distribution, therein lies the problem. For now, say you can put 4 episodes of a television show on 1 DVD. So now, we have 7 DVD's for one television season, plus 9 seasons. Movie studios will not give up that business model. Each of those 4 episodes sells for $35-$50. What happens when all of the sudden you can put the entire series on one HVD or HD-DVD or Blue-ray disc? It won't happen. They will make "higher quality" versions of the same media and still find some way to put 4 episodes on one disk.
What I really want is to spend $50 on an entire television series, with 1 - 5 discs. That is all.
This is just getting rediculous. When will people stop using such a shitty codec. I stopped the download as soon as I seen it was in Quicktime. I refuse to watch that peice of junk
Norton is not even that good at detecting Viruses on a computer, how are we supposed to think that it will actually detect Adware also? I highly doubt it. I, like many others on this forum have found that AVG and Trendmicro do a much better job at finding viruses than Norton. I will also stick with Lavasoft's adaware and Microsoft's (Giant) Antispyware to tackle my customer's computer problems.
I work at a "mom and pop" type computer store. 80% of these computers that come in had Norton Systemworks installed, with the latest definitions. Yet still they are full of viruses that both AVG and Trendmicro's Housecall detects. The sad part is, the sales of Symantec's products are driven by the need for Best Buy employees to sell more product. So with every new PC they are telling customers to spend money on useless virus scanning software.
The fact is, the best virus scanning and adware scanning software is completely free. Without any hitches. So why would I want to pay for anything when the free product is better in almost every way?
I have also found that Norton fails to uninstall properly in many comptuers. They even have removal utilities to remove their software. I think that this is completely rediculous. If software can't be removed properly from a machine, I dictate that this is no better than Malware. So in essence, installing Norton on your computer is no better than installing Bargian Buddy.
Maybe you didn't quite understand what I was talking about.
This would be completely done server side. Just like when you sent an e-mail to a host, and you get returned mail because you somehow typed in the address improperly. There would be no difference between that message and one that was sent to a user and then flagged as spam. It would be impossible to tell the difference if the user was a valid address or not.
Of course, one 200MB update from Microsoft would kill this idea. Or how about a 500MB game demo download? Thats legitimately free. Or better yet, what if I need to download a linux distro or a television episode?
I would hate to have to explain all my actions to my ISP. Espically with the way media is driving the internet nowadays. 200MB is way too small of a limit.
Now, you can monitor how many e-mails are sent by a host. That would be a better way. At least there could be a filter on the "to:" line. If that list includes over say, 1000+ users, consistantly, then at least there could be some flags raised.
I have an idea for stopping spam. How about sent mail is not flagged as recieved until it is viewed by the user. Once it is viewed, it can be flagged as good or flagged as spam. If the mail is flagged as spam, the mail could be sent back to the orignal host as unreturned mail.
So for every mail that is sent out, once flagged as spam, could be sent back. Of course, normal spam filters would also flag the data as spam. If the e-mail is returned to the host, maybe they will remove the e-mail from thier list. Otherwise they will just recieve a bunch of spam as well as sending it. It could clog up bandwith pretty good.
However this probabally wouldn't work if they somehow spoofed the sent address.
I will be happy when Microsoft just gives me a Yes to all and a No to all button on every yes or no question.
This is rediculous. Oh yeah, and when I am copying something, don't tell me it can't copy one file and stop the entire copy process all together. #%!^!^#$!
Can your enchanced graphical, pixel shader GUI do that for me? PLEASE!?
Re:Keeping it simple: answer to all astroturf post
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 1
I nominate you to be the defending lawyer for Lowkee .
Slashdot Mirror
That is basically exactly what happened to me and my marriage.
For data backup purposes, 300GB would be great. I find myself burning off about 5 DVD's a week worth of data and I can't keep up.
However, once we start thinking about the new kinds of technologies for video distribution, therein lies the problem. For now, say you can put 4 episodes of a television show on 1 DVD. So now, we have 7 DVD's for one television season, plus 9 seasons. Movie studios will not give up that business model. Each of those 4 episodes sells for $35-$50. What happens when all of the sudden you can put the entire series on one HVD or HD-DVD or Blue-ray disc? It won't happen. They will make "higher quality" versions of the same media and still find some way to put 4 episodes on one disk.
What I really want is to spend $50 on an entire television series, with 1 - 5 discs. That is all.
This is just getting rediculous. When will people stop using such a shitty codec. I stopped the download as soon as I seen it was in Quicktime. I refuse to watch that peice of junk
Norton is not even that good at detecting Viruses on a computer, how are we supposed to think that it will actually detect Adware also? I highly doubt it. I, like many others on this forum have found that AVG and Trendmicro do a much better job at finding viruses than Norton. I will also stick with Lavasoft's adaware and Microsoft's (Giant) Antispyware to tackle my customer's computer problems.
I work at a "mom and pop" type computer store. 80% of these computers that come in had Norton Systemworks installed, with the latest definitions. Yet still they are full of viruses that both AVG and Trendmicro's Housecall detects. The sad part is, the sales of Symantec's products are driven by the need for Best Buy employees to sell more product. So with every new PC they are telling customers to spend money on useless virus scanning software.
The fact is, the best virus scanning and adware scanning software is completely free. Without any hitches. So why would I want to pay for anything when the free product is better in almost every way?
I have also found that Norton fails to uninstall properly in many comptuers. They even have removal utilities to remove their software. I think that this is completely rediculous. If software can't be removed properly from a machine, I dictate that this is no better than Malware. So in essence, installing Norton on your computer is no better than installing Bargian Buddy.
Maybe you didn't quite understand what I was talking about.
This would be completely done server side. Just like when you sent an e-mail to a host, and you get returned mail because you somehow typed in the address improperly. There would be no difference between that message and one that was sent to a user and then flagged as spam. It would be impossible to tell the difference if the user was a valid address or not.
Thats what I am getting at.
Of course, one 200MB update from Microsoft would kill this idea. Or how about a 500MB game demo download? Thats legitimately free. Or better yet, what if I need to download a linux distro or a television episode?
I would hate to have to explain all my actions to my ISP. Espically with the way media is driving the internet nowadays. 200MB is way too small of a limit.
Now, you can monitor how many e-mails are sent by a host. That would be a better way. At least there could be a filter on the "to:" line. If that list includes over say, 1000+ users, consistantly, then at least there could be some flags raised.
I have an idea for stopping spam. How about sent mail is not flagged as recieved until it is viewed by the user. Once it is viewed, it can be flagged as good or flagged as spam. If the mail is flagged as spam, the mail could be sent back to the orignal host as unreturned mail.
So for every mail that is sent out, once flagged as spam, could be sent back. Of course, normal spam filters would also flag the data as spam. If the e-mail is returned to the host, maybe they will remove the e-mail from thier list. Otherwise they will just recieve a bunch of spam as well as sending it. It could clog up bandwith pretty good.
However this probabally wouldn't work if they somehow spoofed the sent address.
Meh, I will just continue to use my tinfoil hat to protect me. I gave my computer one too, no wireless snoops getting in here.
I will be happy when Microsoft just gives me a Yes to all and a No to all button on every yes or no question.
This is rediculous. Oh yeah, and when I am copying something, don't tell me it can't copy one file and stop the entire copy process all together. #%!^!^#$!
Can your enchanced graphical, pixel shader GUI do that for me? PLEASE!?
I nominate you to be the defending lawyer for Lowkee .