I'd much rather see Thunderbird 2.0 get released. I thought Mozilla was going to try and have the development of the two projects a little more in sync than this.
But I have no choice because later I have to ride into the sun as it's rising. Impossible to safely do without the shades. Wearing a helmet, even with a flip up face-mask, it takes too long (and again, is unsafe) to fumble with putting on shades while on the bike.
Or you could just, you know, pull over, so the bike's stopped while you change your eyewear. Kinda like how I pull over to talk on the cell phone if an important call comes in, especially since my car's a stick shift.
Is everyone suddenly a merchandiser or something? I'll replace your sku.
I was thinking the same thing the other week, I read an advertisement (something meant for the general public) and it actually referred to the "Star Wars [i]franchise[/i]" and it was something LucasFilm was involved in, it wasn't a competitor using the phrase. Since when is a word like that used in advertising? It practically screams "this is a studio cash cow" to me.
I already block them in my hosts file. This changes nothing.
If you're using Windows and blocked Microsoft sites on your hosts file, Windows will ignore it and still connect to them. If they get DoubleClick, I wont be surprised if the same thing happens with their servers.
I really don't see a need for this type of law, and I see no reason to make a law to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
I'm sure people said the same thing about Fair Use rights. "Why do we need a law that proactively states people can use their music they purchased any way they see fit?" The record companies would never do something so consumer unfriendly as to try an dictate how people enjoy their product, or say they had to buy a separate copy of an album on tape to use in their Walkman instead of just dubbing the CD they had already bought for their CD player. Right?
Hah. Okay so if we give them more money do you think charges will go down?
No, but they wont go up as often, and what eventually happens is new services are offered and lower ones get upgraded. My cable modem speed was recently doubled from 3Mbps to 6Mbps, without any increase in bill. Remember that revenue pays for network maintenance and expansion. If they don't get enough subscribers in a given area (because everyone is mooching off one subscriber) they wont ever upgrade the infrastructure in that neighborhood. There wont be a business case for it.
Bullshit. They are probably going to charge the amount that makes them the most money.
Yes, and they are making less money if they have fewer subs using lots of bandwidth (and sharing freely) than a larger customer base using more individual-sized bandwidth quotas, so they will be forced to raise rates to make up the lost revenue. They can't charge different rates within a single municipality so they have to raise everyone's rates instead because Green ST has some broadband hippie living on it and nobody but him is subscribing.
If they raise prices dramatically then they risk someone else coming in and competing. They have a strong incentive to keep costs relatively low to keep out competition. and I'm sure they don't like competition at all.
They prefer to keep competition out with legal/political action, not by competing on service/price like some free market.
By helping the wireless technolgy, I suspect you actually are keeping costs lower by providing a competing option.
It's not competing if it's free. A business can't compete with an alternative that is selling literally their same service for nothing. If we were talking about a tangible product right now, you'd be doing what's called "dumping" which is illegal. This is the same crap Microsoft pulled to ruin Netscape's browser business. But now, suddenly it's okay because we're talking about free WiFi?
The point is they sell the bandwidth with the idea only one entire household at most will be using it, not the entire neighborhood. If more people use the bandwidth than who are actually paying the bill, the broadband provider will assume this is the actual usage of the customer.
If enough people do this with their connections, the result is the provider will raise rates with this expectation they will use that kind of bandwidth. This means those of us who are not giving away access willy-nilly are now paying higher bills because one guy wants to be Santa Claus.
I have unused resources, why shouldn't someone else get them?
Because the prices the ISP charges are inevitably going to be based on how much the service costs them to operate and how much revenue they get from it. So if you have a bunch of people using the service through your open router, but not paying a subscription fee, the result is the ISP now has to raise rates to support the cost of the service and their profit margins.
So now all of us who [i]are[/i] paying for service and not just leeching off an open router are paying higher prices because of you. Higher prices also drive more people to use the neighbor's open access point instead, so it just becomes a cycle.
The hardware in the player sorta precludes it. It's a hardware decoder chip probably with very little real CPU power (enough to decrypt the stream, then pass to another decoder block).
I thought we were talking about the formats supported [i]as a business decision[/i]. You said Apple wouldn't support DivX playback because it would effect their abilities to secure distribution rights for movies on iTunes. I said that made no sense because they managed to secure the rights to music with a player that could play MP3's (which is pretty much the audio equivalent to DivX in the RIAA/MPAA's eyes).
So now you're saying this is about the hardware Apple uses? That still makes no sense. Apple TV has an actual microprocessor, not just a SOC, and H264 requires much higher processing than DivX. Even going back to the iPod example, the SOCs Apple was using actually supported WMA as well, but we sure couldn't play WMA on our iPods.
Stories are starting to pop up all over the web about the AppleTV, which evidently means that Apple has set loose the hounds of marketing and the units are (or will be tomorrow) available in Apple stores.
.
Yeah... it's a marketing campaign that's generating all the stories. That's it.
While I did get an email from Apple about the AppleTV. I already knew it was shipping thanks to stories on all the Mac rumor websites that were [i]the result of readers reporting they had received notice their units were on the way.[/i]
If there's one thing that strikes of marketing, its actually releasing your product.:rolleyes:
The thing will play specially encoded H.264 movies from iTunes with DRM bolted onto, end of story. There's no way Apple would have been able to secure the licensing to sell stuff on iTunes if they didn't.
Right, because supporting one automatically precludes the other. Just like how the iPod can play iTMS purchases since Apple didn't allow it to play MP3s. After all, Apple would not have been able to secure the licensing rights from the RIAA otherwise.
On the otherhand, it's about time they went after violence on TV.
They really shouldn't have to if people used the tools they had already. If parents used the V-Chip or the channel/timeslot blocking capable on digital cable boxes, the audience (and therefore the ratings and ad revenue) would also shrink. If it still had a large enough viewership to keep the program on the air, the system would be working fine. Writers would have to start paying more attention to what they wrote into the plot and tailoring the shows for the actual demographics they want watching them.
The effect of this in the world of entertainment, where something has to be a huge hit to get a second season, would be very interesting. Dare I say you might see more of the biggest series of the last ten years holding the same niche-appeal sized ratings as specialty shows.
Why does porn have such a limited market with "mainstream" viewship? Because it's segregated. It's kept in that back room of the video store or at that age verifying movie theater downtown. The products' ability to capture audience through advertising is limited by the people who are in areas it has access to. Think how this might effect the ratings of mainstream TV shows if some of them were suddenly on a group of special "graphic violence" stations.
And the FCC has prepared a draft report suggesting that Congress authorize it to regulate broadcast violence, as it now does obscenity, and possibly force cable companies to let subscribers opt out of paying for channels that run brutal content
Since sex and violence are staples of most prime time broadcasting, doesn't that mean I wont have to pay for any of my cable channels?
Slashdot Mirror
I would say it appears they don't since they did take down the post-Katrina images to put up pre-Katrina images to start with, causing all of this.
Gaim 2.0 has been in release candidate phase for a couple years now.
I'd much rather see Thunderbird 2.0 get released. I thought Mozilla was going to try and have the development of the two projects a little more in sync than this.
Nonsense! Elvis was put on a stamp after all.
Yet another reason CFLs are better!
Or you could just, you know, pull over, so the bike's stopped while you change your eyewear. Kinda like how I pull over to talk on the cell phone if an important call comes in, especially since my car's a stick shift.
I found a rare photo of the new accelerated review processing machine!
I was thinking the same thing the other week, I read an advertisement (something meant for the general public) and it actually referred to the "Star Wars [i]franchise[/i]" and it was something LucasFilm was involved in, it wasn't a competitor using the phrase. Since when is a word like that used in advertising? It practically screams "this is a studio cash cow" to me.
So in other words... never?
He can't welcome them unfortunately. Our primitive U.S. technology appears to be unable to interface with their superior Norwegian wares.
If you're using Windows and blocked Microsoft sites on your hosts file, Windows will ignore it and still connect to them. If they get DoubleClick, I wont be surprised if the same thing happens with their servers.
Only if the financial world find out they're unlimited before I have a chance to spend them.
Why don't you just buy one off eBay, there are quite a few available.
I'm sure people said the same thing about Fair Use rights. "Why do we need a law that proactively states people can use their music they purchased any way they see fit?" The record companies would never do something so consumer unfriendly as to try an dictate how people enjoy their product, or say they had to buy a separate copy of an album on tape to use in their Walkman instead of just dubbing the CD they had already bought for their CD player. Right?
I was thinking "identity theft".
No, but they wont go up as often, and what eventually happens is new services are offered and lower ones get upgraded. My cable modem speed was recently doubled from 3Mbps to 6Mbps, without any increase in bill. Remember that revenue pays for network maintenance and expansion. If they don't get enough subscribers in a given area (because everyone is mooching off one subscriber) they wont ever upgrade the infrastructure in that neighborhood. There wont be a business case for it.
Yes, and they are making less money if they have fewer subs using lots of bandwidth (and sharing freely) than a larger customer base using more individual-sized bandwidth quotas, so they will be forced to raise rates to make up the lost revenue. They can't charge different rates within a single municipality so they have to raise everyone's rates instead because Green ST has some broadband hippie living on it and nobody but him is subscribing.
They prefer to keep competition out with legal/political action, not by competing on service/price like some free market.
It's not competing if it's free. A business can't compete with an alternative that is selling literally their same service for nothing. If we were talking about a tangible product right now, you'd be doing what's called "dumping" which is illegal. This is the same crap Microsoft pulled to ruin Netscape's browser business. But now, suddenly it's okay because we're talking about free WiFi?
I agree.
The point is they sell the bandwidth with the idea only one entire household at most will be using it, not the entire neighborhood. If more people use the bandwidth than who are actually paying the bill, the broadband provider will assume this is the actual usage of the customer.
If enough people do this with their connections, the result is the provider will raise rates with this expectation they will use that kind of bandwidth. This means those of us who are not giving away access willy-nilly are now paying higher bills because one guy wants to be Santa Claus.
Because the prices the ISP charges are inevitably going to be based on how much the service costs them to operate and how much revenue they get from it. So if you have a bunch of people using the service through your open router, but not paying a subscription fee, the result is the ISP now has to raise rates to support the cost of the service and their profit margins.
So now all of us who [i]are[/i] paying for service and not just leeching off an open router are paying higher prices because of you. Higher prices also drive more people to use the neighbor's open access point instead, so it just becomes a cycle.
I thought we were talking about the formats supported [i]as a business decision[/i]. You said Apple wouldn't support DivX playback because it would effect their abilities to secure distribution rights for movies on iTunes. I said that made no sense because they managed to secure the rights to music with a player that could play MP3's (which is pretty much the audio equivalent to DivX in the RIAA/MPAA's eyes).
So now you're saying this is about the hardware Apple uses? That still makes no sense. Apple TV has an actual microprocessor, not just a SOC, and H264 requires much higher processing than DivX. Even going back to the iPod example, the SOCs Apple was using actually supported WMA as well, but we sure couldn't play WMA on our iPods.
Yeah... it's a marketing campaign that's generating all the stories. That's it.
While I did get an email from Apple about the AppleTV. I already knew it was shipping thanks to stories on all the Mac rumor websites that were [i]the result of readers reporting they had received notice their units were on the way.[/i]
If there's one thing that strikes of marketing, its actually releasing your product.
Right, because supporting one automatically precludes the other. Just like how the iPod can play iTMS purchases since Apple didn't allow it to play MP3s. After all, Apple would not have been able to secure the licensing rights from the RIAA otherwise.
Oh, wait. That's not how it happened...
In Soviet Russia-- no wait! In former Eastern Bloc nations:
Microsoft gives in to EU!
[running from Slashdot crowd with torches and pitchforks]
Now Google can actually say "Your honor, we move for the dismissal of this case based on the precedent set by the landmark case of Pot v. Kettle."
They really shouldn't have to if people used the tools they had already. If parents used the V-Chip or the channel/timeslot blocking capable on digital cable boxes, the audience (and therefore the ratings and ad revenue) would also shrink. If it still had a large enough viewership to keep the program on the air, the system would be working fine. Writers would have to start paying more attention to what they wrote into the plot and tailoring the shows for the actual demographics they want watching them.
The effect of this in the world of entertainment, where something has to be a huge hit to get a second season, would be very interesting. Dare I say you might see more of the biggest series of the last ten years holding the same niche-appeal sized ratings as specialty shows.
Why does porn have such a limited market with "mainstream" viewship? Because it's segregated. It's kept in that back room of the video store or at that age verifying movie theater downtown. The products' ability to capture audience through advertising is limited by the people who are in areas it has access to. Think how this might effect the ratings of mainstream TV shows if some of them were suddenly on a group of special "graphic violence" stations.
Since sex and violence are staples of most prime time broadcasting, doesn't that mean I wont have to pay for any of my cable channels?