Then he can really challenge all you/. l4m3rz to test his m4d l337 sk1ll at cutting the cables of perfectly good $3000 monitors. Wanky, rich-ass bitch will pwn j00
...would be (as others noted) Photoshop or some other industry standard design app (which would definitely be a good gauge of Adobe and other high-end Windows/Mac software companies view of Linux and the Linux user base) or even better (or nearer and more marketable, perhaps), Adobe Acrobat Pro.
Adobe Acrobat Pro 7 is rather nice, but over the years I always bemoaned the lack of good PDF generation in Linux (at least in the capacity of forms and security, etc. e.g. professional features). With OOo and various PostScript to PDF tools, you can make handsome, print-ready documents in PDF, however more nuanced features are by and large lacking in the linux community. Also, Adobe Acrobat Pro handles typefaces and compression a little be better (wonder why) than most third-party PDF generation apps.
XPDF is great (as everyone is quick to shout) and I use it quite a bit on my linux box, however it is not without its warts and albeit fast, it doesn't handle everything (although it seems to handle 90 some percent of commonly used PDFs out there). My thought is, AA Reader 7 for Linux may not be everyones cup of tea, it does show that Adobe is making an effort in embracing, in a limited regard, Linux users as a marketbase. I think that AA Pro 7 for Linux would be a nice "next step" to bring Linux into the community. Sure, AA Pro 7 (or 6 for that matter) is big and huge and at times slowish, however it has the ability to do everything (which I haven't been able to say about 3rd party PDF generating software). It also is not too shabby to use (especially if you are familiar with how Adobe lays out things in their applications). Although Photoshop or Illustator for Linux would show that Adobe is seeing the market and the need for professional-grade design and editting software of this sort (and Adobe's gear does happen to be the de facto standard, and I would argue for pretty good reason), if Adobe would release a (closed source, commerical) Adobe Acrobat Pro, the Linux community would rightly be on the path to becoming "on par" with Windows and Mac platforms in terms of professional software.
Diane, it 10:37 PM. We just finished cracking the WEP keys for Benjamin Horne's office at the Great Northern Hotel and concluded that he looks at a lot of porn. I would have to comment that I would like more pie, I'm going to be up looking at few more things. Goodnight, Diane.
I'm not entirely convinced that legality is the issue (home-taping/burning and modification by the purchased user, if AFAIK "fair-use"). It is more the fear (and in some respects rightly so) of the RIAA and Apple of the said purchased media being deseminated.
Pure and simple, distributing copyrighted material (whether you burn CDs using iTMS tunes or you break the DRM) is illegal. However, what you do with your purchased music in private (e.g. for yourself, on your own computer) is your business, so long as you are not deseminating it to those who didn't buy it, or you are not using the said copyrighted material for public performance. Electronic media, in terms of copyright, does not disallow personal backups, remixing for fun (no profit), or any sort of arbitrary modification. You own that file, albeit, not the media therein (the music in this case).
In the cases of fair-use, home-taping has been defended (likewise photocopying library books for personal/academic/private use). There are certain rights that extend to the public over what they own.
In the case of DVD Jon and others, what they see that they are doing (and arguably they are) is cleverly extending the capabilities of the end-user in lines of usage. When exploited for desemination, profit, and piracy, it is not the process or tool that is wrong, but the use. The tool does have legitamate, legal uses (playing purchased media on your Linux box, for example).
I personally think PyMusique, Hymn, and the FairPlay mechanisms for VLC are legitimate and can (and should) be used for Fair Use. If exploited, like any other tool, for illegal ends, then the people infringing on copyrights should be prosicuted (albeit the RIAA has been in recent years more proactive is fining grandma and various 12-year olds that busting pirating rings).
I have been using Hymn for months now, for fair-use purposes. I buy from iTMS (when you ride the Boston T every morning and evening, your iPod is your best friend) and I frequently get gift cards from family. I and my fiance think it is great, however, if she buys something and I buy something and we want to make a mix CD for our car when we go on a trip, something that allows extended fair-use would be great.
I personally, and I don't think I am alone, think what DVD Jon is doing is great because it is useful to the consumer (although as a side effect, the pirate). The consumer can better enjoy the beniefits of the purchase.
This will probably be corrected by iTMS with a subsequent version of iTunes and I have no problem with that. Apple is there to make money from their sales (so preventing piracy is a good motive) and they have to protect the fidgety record labels who are still uncomfortable with digital media, although CDs themselves are not secure in any regard. Those (like DVD Jon and myself) who see a need as a consumer to modify their legitamately purchased music to use it on all computers/OS they have, should make an effort to archive their media in forms they can use, with the technology at their disposal, and if the DRM system is changed, keep up or enjoy what they already bought.
Somebody mentioned subscription services, and I don't think that subscription services are only legally de-DRMed if you currently subscribe to the service, e.g. it is blantantly illegal to rip and crack a storehouse of music and continue to use them once you no longer subscribe. However, with these models, fair-use would apply to burning CDs for your car, ripping tracks and making MP3s for your iPod or whatever. It is when the use is exploited and people are not being pais is when you have a problem.
I'm not so certain. I think, with today's technology and mass-marketing of games, $50 is more than reasonable...
Think about it... the SNES or Genesis game was a piece of hardware in itself. The game today is about $.10 of pressed plastic and some (terse and uninformative) manuals. Also, call me a fogie, but quality of many games (Half-Life 2 and others excluded) are... eh...
Asking for more that $50 is like saying "find me on bittorrent, Buccaneer-Americans"... seriously.
Saying the "typical" (yet ever-shifting) demographic of games ranges from 12 year olds to 27 year olds. Say they on average make $10-$20 an hour. So after taxes, etc. they have to put down about 3-6 hours of blood sweat and tears for a game... Reasonable for something they will enjoy, but not really a compulsive buy at the $50 price point. Raising it to $60 or $70 puts a little bit of a twist and a flick in turning that particular blade.
The economics is clearly linked to how broad of a market base you have. Jacking the price up 20% may push people away.
I am still impressed with cheap, but wonderful games that are still available, some from indie firms, others not. Either way... I can't see myself (as a respectible, employed person in his mid-twenties) forking down more than $50 for a game unless I knew it was brilliant. I often wait a few months (egad) or pick up older titles I know are good that I never got a chance to play.
Just my 2 cents.
In other news, the fun is back oh yesiree, its the 2600 from A-atari.
Slashdot Mirror
Like this one?
Then he can really challenge all you /. l4m3rz to test his m4d l337 sk1ll at cutting the cables of perfectly good $3000 monitors. Wanky, rich-ass bitch will pwn j00
...would be (as others noted) Photoshop or some other industry standard design app (which would definitely be a good gauge of Adobe and other high-end Windows/Mac software companies view of Linux and the Linux user base) or even better (or nearer and more marketable, perhaps), Adobe Acrobat Pro.
Adobe Acrobat Pro 7 is rather nice, but over the years I always bemoaned the lack of good PDF generation in Linux (at least in the capacity of forms and security, etc. e.g. professional features). With OOo and various PostScript to PDF tools, you can make handsome, print-ready documents in PDF, however more nuanced features are by and large lacking in the linux community. Also, Adobe Acrobat Pro handles typefaces and compression a little be better (wonder why) than most third-party PDF generation apps.
XPDF is great (as everyone is quick to shout) and I use it quite a bit on my linux box, however it is not without its warts and albeit fast, it doesn't handle everything (although it seems to handle 90 some percent of commonly used PDFs out there). My thought is, AA Reader 7 for Linux may not be everyones cup of tea, it does show that Adobe is making an effort in embracing, in a limited regard, Linux users as a marketbase. I think that AA Pro 7 for Linux would be a nice "next step" to bring Linux into the community. Sure, AA Pro 7 (or 6 for that matter) is big and huge and at times slowish, however it has the ability to do everything (which I haven't been able to say about 3rd party PDF generating software). It also is not too shabby to use (especially if you are familiar with how Adobe lays out things in their applications). Although Photoshop or Illustator for Linux would show that Adobe is seeing the market and the need for professional-grade design and editting software of this sort (and Adobe's gear does happen to be the de facto standard, and I would argue for pretty good reason), if Adobe would release a (closed source, commerical) Adobe Acrobat Pro, the Linux community would rightly be on the path to becoming "on par" with Windows and Mac platforms in terms of professional software.
Diane, it 10:37 PM. We just finished cracking the WEP keys for Benjamin Horne's office at the Great Northern Hotel and concluded that he looks at a lot of porn. I would have to comment that I would like more pie, I'm going to be up looking at few more things. Goodnight, Diane.
I'm not entirely convinced that legality is the issue (home-taping/burning and modification by the purchased user, if AFAIK "fair-use"). It is more the fear (and in some respects rightly so) of the RIAA and Apple of the said purchased media being deseminated.
Pure and simple, distributing copyrighted material (whether you burn CDs using iTMS tunes or you break the DRM) is illegal. However, what you do with your purchased music in private (e.g. for yourself, on your own computer) is your business, so long as you are not deseminating it to those who didn't buy it, or you are not using the said copyrighted material for public performance. Electronic media, in terms of copyright, does not disallow personal backups, remixing for fun (no profit), or any sort of arbitrary modification. You own that file, albeit, not the media therein (the music in this case).
In the cases of fair-use, home-taping has been defended (likewise photocopying library books for personal/academic/private use). There are certain rights that extend to the public over what they own.
In the case of DVD Jon and others, what they see that they are doing (and arguably they are) is cleverly extending the capabilities of the end-user in lines of usage. When exploited for desemination, profit, and piracy, it is not the process or tool that is wrong, but the use. The tool does have legitamate, legal uses (playing purchased media on your Linux box, for example).
I personally think PyMusique, Hymn, and the FairPlay mechanisms for VLC are legitimate and can (and should) be used for Fair Use. If exploited, like any other tool, for illegal ends, then the people infringing on copyrights should be prosicuted (albeit the RIAA has been in recent years more proactive is fining grandma and various 12-year olds that busting pirating rings).
I have been using Hymn for months now, for fair-use purposes. I buy from iTMS (when you ride the Boston T every morning and evening, your iPod is your best friend) and I frequently get gift cards from family. I and my fiance think it is great, however, if she buys something and I buy something and we want to make a mix CD for our car when we go on a trip, something that allows extended fair-use would be great.
I personally, and I don't think I am alone, think what DVD Jon is doing is great because it is useful to the consumer (although as a side effect, the pirate). The consumer can better enjoy the beniefits of the purchase.
This will probably be corrected by iTMS with a subsequent version of iTunes and I have no problem with that. Apple is there to make money from their sales (so preventing piracy is a good motive) and they have to protect the fidgety record labels who are still uncomfortable with digital media, although CDs themselves are not secure in any regard. Those (like DVD Jon and myself) who see a need as a consumer to modify their legitamately purchased music to use it on all computers/OS they have, should make an effort to archive their media in forms they can use, with the technology at their disposal, and if the DRM system is changed, keep up or enjoy what they already bought.
Somebody mentioned subscription services, and I don't think that subscription services are only legally de-DRMed if you currently subscribe to the service, e.g. it is blantantly illegal to rip and crack a storehouse of music and continue to use them once you no longer subscribe. However, with these models, fair-use would apply to burning CDs for your car, ripping tracks and making MP3s for your iPod or whatever. It is when the use is exploited and people are not being pais is when you have a problem.
I'm not so certain. I think, with today's technology and mass-marketing of games, $50 is more than reasonable...
Think about it... the SNES or Genesis game was a piece of hardware in itself. The game today is about $.10 of pressed plastic and some (terse and uninformative) manuals. Also, call me a fogie, but quality of many games (Half-Life 2 and others excluded) are ... eh...
Asking for more that $50 is like saying "find me on bittorrent, Buccaneer-Americans"... seriously.
Saying the "typical" (yet ever-shifting) demographic of games ranges from 12 year olds to 27 year olds. Say they on average make $10-$20 an hour. So after taxes, etc. they have to put down about 3-6 hours of blood sweat and tears for a game... Reasonable for something they will enjoy, but not really a compulsive buy at the $50 price point. Raising it to $60 or $70 puts a little bit of a twist and a flick in turning that particular blade.
The economics is clearly linked to how broad of a market base you have. Jacking the price up 20% may push people away.
I am still impressed with cheap, but wonderful games that are still available, some from indie firms, others not. Either way... I can't see myself (as a respectible, employed person in his mid-twenties) forking down more than $50 for a game unless I knew it was brilliant. I often wait a few months (egad) or pick up older titles I know are good that I never got a chance to play.
Just my 2 cents.
In other news, the fun is back oh yesiree, its the 2600 from A-atari.
They prefer the term "Buccaneer-Americans".
http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=148