Jones in the Fast Lane taught me and my friends everything we needed to know about success. That's why I'm the CEO of the factory, with a Post-Doc degree, and living on nothing but Monolith Fries.
To me, the big selling point on the LED is the much lower power usage (thus lower cooling requirements), and the fact that the LED displays should get close to 20k hour lifetime, compared to 3-4k for the current bulbs
Oh yeah, I definitely agree that LED illumination is a big win (should improve the color gamut, too) - I just didn't think it helped with the rainbow effect, because I thought that the speed limitation was the switching speed of the DLP array, not the spinning color wheel. But if using LED increases refresh speed too, that would be great!
The model HL-S5679W also replaces the color wheel with red, green and blue LEDs (this avoids the "rainbow" effect)
How? You still have to multiplex the three colors across one DLP chip, causing discrete "red" "green" and "blue" time frames. Or are there three DLP chips?
If you can make a gadget more durable without adding too much to the price
Sure, if durability is free then there's no reason to not include it. But those "free" improvements have for the most part already been made. Switching from, say, plastic to aluminum or ceramic is definitely not free. Making a hermetically sealed gadget is far from free. Even certain designs that increase durability come at an aesthetic price and often, consumers reject them outright because they want something lighter/smaller/cuter for their dollar.
Why? The vast majority of people want to replace their technology products after a relatively short period of time whether they are broken or not. If your technology device is over-deisgned and over-engineered to last longer than you want it, you are not getting the best value for your dollar.
Ultra-reliable and ultra-durable devices do exist, mostly for military or industrial customers. Most people, though, would never pay the prices that those products demand.
I will bet dollars to donuts that the 360 will be able to use Windows Home Server as NAS. This has the advantage of being a good solution for gamers who want big storage capacity while simultaneously creating a Microsoft ecosystem for the home computers.
I don't deny anything in your post, but I hope you realize it was just a long-winded way of saying, "these people are different from me; therefore, they are stupid." I don't blame you at all, because know-nothing bigotry is common all over the world - even in the US - but it's a bit much to expect us to take it as informed criticism, especially when delivered with a heaping serving of smug superiority.
Oh, my. "The climate will change" is "informative?"
News flash! The climate has always changed! It is changing now! It always will change!
The real question is, how did people come to accept the assumption that the baseline, "normal" state of the climate is stable and unchanging? Not only that, but stable at exactly, say, 1950's conditions?
Personally, I blame public schools. Or maybe it's boomer egotism, thinking that the only "right" climate is the one they grew up with, dammit! Kids these days and their strange climates!
Sending somebody a file in such a way that it then is DRM'd is hardly something that goes under "fair use", especially if you're free to send it non-DRM'd.
This, I think, is where we have a difference of understanding. My whole point is that the Zune does not send the file in such a way that it is DRM'd. It receives the file in such a way. The sent file is a plain, ordinary file - presumably, if you could receive it with a non-Zune device, it would be an ordinary, DRM-free file, just as the CC requires. Or, if you could send the file with a FOSS non-Zune device, the receiving Zune would still restrict its playback! The restrictions are imposed by the receiver. That's why I accused you of supporting the restriction of fair-use rights. Once I've received that file, why shouldn't I be able to listen to it on any device that I choose? If it's a device that artificially restricts my playback, who cares? And more to the point, how is that a violation of the CC license?
You do agree to a license if you use copyrighted works. The copyrighted work is licensed to you.
No. If you want to have a license that restricts my use (beyond copying and performance) of something, I must actively accept that. I can go buy a CD or a DVD - a copyrighted work - with no license restrictions.
Whose free choice? The copyright holder's free choice or yours?
Mine - that is to say, the user's - obviously. Otherwise, the CC is as worthless as a Microsoft EULA. Or am I missing the point of organizations like the FSF and creative commons?
Personally, I see no problem with it because it ensures that everyone gets the same freedom.
Really? You see no problem with a license that locks people out just for using an "unapproved" device? Congratualtions, you are a DRM advocate.
Its perfecly within the rights of the copyright holder to specify constraints such as these.
They are perfectly free to dictate the terms under which I may copy or perform the work. But if their policy is that only unaltered duplication is permissible, and I have a device which digitally transmits an unaltered duplication of the work, I have met their requirements. The problem you have is what my device does with the tracks that are distributed to it, and contrary to your baseless assertions, they have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with that copy, having obtained it in compliance with their terms, unless I agree to a separate licensing contract.
Now, if the CC wants to make a license that forbids distribution to any device that imposes playback restrictions, or even just the Zune specifically, they are free to do so, but don't you think that undercuts the whole concept of free choice? If I choose to use such a device, of what concern should it be to the author? The only person it affects is me.
Sure it is. Copyright law governs copying and performance, and that's about it. Any restrictions on what you can or can't do with your copy have to come from somewhere else.
None of those would apply, because the sending device is doing nothing to restrict the third party - after all, it's sending the unmodified file - it's the third party that's restricting itself.
Of course it's not illegal, since, as you pointed out, nothing is actually added to the file. Once that's taken away, the copyright holder has nothing to say about how it's used unless a licensing agreement is entered into, and there is no license to my knowledge that requires users to distribute or use it. What is the CC license going to be modified to say? Anyone who accepts a CC file must distribute that file to a certain number of other people? Anyone who accepts a CC file must listen to it more than three times? The "loophole" you are trying to close is "people using the files on the hardware of their choice."
I find it funny how people accuse others of spreading FUD when the issue is that they simply aren't informed about the things they think they are informed about.
IAAL. So don't be ambiguous, what exactly do you believe I am not informed about? Where is the illegality?
My point was that it simply isn't relevant what intelligence level the US is "renowned" to have. We are probably not the per-capita smartest nation in the world by any measure, I will readily concede. But neither are we some barely-literate jerkwater like it's popular to portray us as, and we sure as hell stack up well against Canada of all places.
As a larger point, I guess I have just grown tired of the US-bashing that is just outright slanderous. I can accept, and I welcome, legitimate criticism. But I grow weary of having to constantly battle vicious lies and rank bigotry. We struggle and contribute mightily to the body of the world's knowledge, culture, and security, and it often seems that our only reward is to have scorn heaped upon us for our apparent lack of perfection.
Just like how people are upset about the PATRIOT Act when it's just trying to stop terrorists?
Great example, because just like SOX most people don't actually know what's IN the PATRIOT Act, and so it makes a convenient whipping boy for any grievance, even though it doesn't actually do 1% of what people seem to think it does.
There is a bear in the woods. For some people the bear is easy to see. Others don't see it at all. Some people say the bear is tame. Others say it's vicious and dangerous. Since no one can really be sure who is right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear? If there is a bear?
Slashdot Mirror
Now if we were talking about Zune, I could see a real point (as it does change your media).
No, it doesn't. The files are not altered.
Jones in the Fast Lane taught me and my friends everything we needed to know about success. That's why I'm the CEO of the factory, with a Post-Doc degree, and living on nothing but Monolith Fries.
To me, the big selling point on the LED is the much lower power usage (thus lower cooling requirements), and the fact that the LED displays should get close to 20k hour lifetime, compared to 3-4k for the current bulbs
Oh yeah, I definitely agree that LED illumination is a big win (should improve the color gamut, too) - I just didn't think it helped with the rainbow effect, because I thought that the speed limitation was the switching speed of the DLP array, not the spinning color wheel. But if using LED increases refresh speed too, that would be great!
The model HL-S5679W also replaces the color wheel with red, green and blue LEDs (this avoids the "rainbow" effect)
How? You still have to multiplex the three colors across one DLP chip, causing discrete "red" "green" and "blue" time frames. Or are there three DLP chips?
If you can make a gadget more durable without adding too much to the price
Sure, if durability is free then there's no reason to not include it. But those "free" improvements have for the most part already been made. Switching from, say, plastic to aluminum or ceramic is definitely not free. Making a hermetically sealed gadget is far from free. Even certain designs that increase durability come at an aesthetic price and often, consumers reject them outright because they want something lighter/smaller/cuter for their dollar.
This is not a good thing.
Why? The vast majority of people want to replace their technology products after a relatively short period of time whether they are broken or not. If your technology device is over-deisgned and over-engineered to last longer than you want it, you are not getting the best value for your dollar.
Ultra-reliable and ultra-durable devices do exist, mostly for military or industrial customers. Most people, though, would never pay the prices that those products demand.
I will bet dollars to donuts that the 360 will be able to use Windows Home Server as NAS. This has the advantage of being a good solution for gamers who want big storage capacity while simultaneously creating a Microsoft ecosystem for the home computers.
I don't deny anything in your post, but I hope you realize it was just a long-winded way of saying, "these people are different from me; therefore, they are stupid." I don't blame you at all, because know-nothing bigotry is common all over the world - even in the US - but it's a bit much to expect us to take it as informed criticism, especially when delivered with a heaping serving of smug superiority.
Oh, my. "The climate will change" is "informative?"
News flash! The climate has always changed! It is changing now! It always will change!
The real question is, how did people come to accept the assumption that the baseline, "normal" state of the climate is stable and unchanging? Not only that, but stable at exactly, say, 1950's conditions?
Personally, I blame public schools. Or maybe it's boomer egotism, thinking that the only "right" climate is the one they grew up with, dammit! Kids these days and their strange climates!
It's as funny as nations conducting nuclear testing on their own soil!
Wait, that wasn't really funny at all. Maybe you had to be there.
Sending somebody a file in such a way that it then is DRM'd is hardly something that goes under "fair use", especially if you're free to send it non-DRM'd.
This, I think, is where we have a difference of understanding. My whole point is that the Zune does not send the file in such a way that it is DRM'd. It receives the file in such a way. The sent file is a plain, ordinary file - presumably, if you could receive it with a non-Zune device, it would be an ordinary, DRM-free file, just as the CC requires. Or, if you could send the file with a FOSS non-Zune device, the receiving Zune would still restrict its playback! The restrictions are imposed by the receiver. That's why I accused you of supporting the restriction of fair-use rights. Once I've received that file, why shouldn't I be able to listen to it on any device that I choose? If it's a device that artificially restricts my playback, who cares? And more to the point, how is that a violation of the CC license?
You do agree to a license if you use copyrighted works. The copyrighted work is licensed to you.
No. If you want to have a license that restricts my use (beyond copying and performance) of something, I must actively accept that. I can go buy a CD or a DVD - a copyrighted work - with no license restrictions.
Whose free choice? The copyright holder's free choice or yours?
Mine - that is to say, the user's - obviously. Otherwise, the CC is as worthless as a Microsoft EULA. Or am I missing the point of organizations like the FSF and creative commons?
Personally, I see no problem with it because it ensures that everyone gets the same freedom.
Really? You see no problem with a license that locks people out just for using an "unapproved" device? Congratualtions, you are a DRM advocate.
"Lobbyists" are the guys who attempt to persuade politicians directly. This is about persuading voters. Shouldn't there be a difference?
Its perfecly within the rights of the copyright holder to specify constraints such as these.
They are perfectly free to dictate the terms under which I may copy or perform the work. But if their policy is that only unaltered duplication is permissible, and I have a device which digitally transmits an unaltered duplication of the work, I have met their requirements. The problem you have is what my device does with the tracks that are distributed to it, and contrary to your baseless assertions, they have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with that copy, having obtained it in compliance with their terms, unless I agree to a separate licensing contract.
Now, if the CC wants to make a license that forbids distribution to any device that imposes playback restrictions, or even just the Zune specifically, they are free to do so, but don't you think that undercuts the whole concept of free choice? If I choose to use such a device, of what concern should it be to the author? The only person it affects is me.
Sure it is. Copyright law governs copying and performance, and that's about it. Any restrictions on what you can or can't do with your copy have to come from somewhere else.
None of those would apply, because the sending device is doing nothing to restrict the third party - after all, it's sending the unmodified file - it's the third party that's restricting itself.
In this specific case, it may not be illegal
Of course it's not illegal, since, as you pointed out, nothing is actually added to the file. Once that's taken away, the copyright holder has nothing to say about how it's used unless a licensing agreement is entered into, and there is no license to my knowledge that requires users to distribute or use it. What is the CC license going to be modified to say? Anyone who accepts a CC file must distribute that file to a certain number of other people? Anyone who accepts a CC file must listen to it more than three times? The "loophole" you are trying to close is "people using the files on the hardware of their choice."
I find it funny how people accuse others of spreading FUD when the issue is that they simply aren't informed about the things they think they are informed about.
IAAL. So don't be ambiguous, what exactly do you believe I am not informed about? Where is the illegality?
It even (illegally, in some cases) ads DRM to your non-DRM'd files if you "squirt" them.
That's just pure, Grade-A, USDA-Approved FUD. "Illegally"?
What's your point?
My point was that it simply isn't relevant what intelligence level the US is "renowned" to have. We are probably not the per-capita smartest nation in the world by any measure, I will readily concede. But neither are we some barely-literate jerkwater like it's popular to portray us as, and we sure as hell stack up well against Canada of all places.
As a larger point, I guess I have just grown tired of the US-bashing that is just outright slanderous. I can accept, and I welcome, legitimate criticism. But I grow weary of having to constantly battle vicious lies and rank bigotry. We struggle and contribute mightily to the body of the world's knowledge, culture, and security, and it often seems that our only reward is to have scorn heaped upon us for our apparent lack of perfection.
Just like how people are upset about the PATRIOT Act when it's just trying to stop terrorists?
Great example, because just like SOX most people don't actually know what's IN the PATRIOT Act, and so it makes a convenient whipping boy for any grievance, even though it doesn't actually do 1% of what people seem to think it does.
Yes, it's true. This man was no Wii.
Apparently there are DVD players on the market that actually skip this. Anyone know what they are?
Xbox Media Center, for one.
So when the bears attack, our Army will be ready!
There is a bear in the woods. For some people the bear is easy to see. Others don't see it at all. Some people say the bear is tame. Others say it's vicious and dangerous. Since no one can really be sure who is right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear? If there is a bear?(though who isn't renowned for being more intelligent than America? sorry America)
Well, I guess it's good for "America" then that intelligence isn't measured by popular opinion, but by actual results.
triCorder