Videolan has worked very, very, well for me. The -only- thing I can find that it won't play is DRM audio/video. I highly recommend it, even has a great GUI and lets u reencode files.
How did he even know the IP addresses of these machines? I am pretty sure the government doesn't store their classified information on the same servers that are the frontend to their websites. Hacking the server "fbi.gov" won't get you any fbi database, just access to the website content.
So how did he know the IP address of these servers? They aren't exactly listed anywhere.
And why are these servers accepting connections from anybody? Wouldn't it make sense to only allow connections from IP addresses owned by the government?
"neither phone nor cable companies will be required to share their Internet connections with competitors"
You're trying to increase our access to the internet by eliminating competetion? This will drive the price up, and make it harder to get on the internet. The competetion is the only reason its as cheap as it is now.
If he had it his way, it would seem we don't pick our internet provider, but rather how we get the internet (dsl, or cable). I want to pick my ISP, not have it forced on me.
Now that that's out of the way, I like Comcast and am happy with their service... so this post was pointless.
"neither phone nor cable companies will be required to share their Internet connections with competitors"
You're trying to increase our access to the internet by eliminating competetion? This will drive the price up, and make it harder to get on the internet. The competetion is the only reason its as cheap as it is now.
If he had it his way, it would seem we don't pick our internet provider, but rather how we get the internet (dsl, or cable). I want to pick my ISP, not have it forced on me.
Now that that's out of the way, I like Comcast and am happy with their service... so this post was pointless. -1 redundant.
Is it really fair to call it market share, when firefox isn't something that's on the market, but rather free... and you can't go by shares of the Mozilla Organization. There's no market or shares.
After all... Linux and Unix don't need antiviruses, Windows does.
"Linux doesn't get enough viruses to warant an anti-virus product, but Windows does. We will stop the development of the Linux product because the resources would be better spent making pathetic attempts to make Windows more secure" is basically what I got when I first saw this.
Droping support for your competitors anti-virus products doesn't look good on you. If anything they should have dropped Windows' support because "Windows is secure, all the problems are user errors."
I disagree. They can pressure the broadcasters to use this technology, and people will want to upgrade their receivers to receive this media.
But giving it a little more thought, either way people would be forced to upgrade. And for the most part, people tuning into broadcast television do so because they can't afford cable. They probably won't want to spend the money on fancy equipment just to get halfway decent movies with fuzzy reception. This technology would lose viewers.
Why is a law necessary? It's really none of the government's business...
What's stopping them from being detailed in the contract; like tell the networks "You can broadcast this movie only if you use this technology." If enough companies did this, they'd eventually get their way without a law.
But don't force a law on us which stops broadcasters from broadcasting how they want to.
"I love Microsoft products! Unlike all of my friends, I have almost no problems. I rarely have to reinstall, everytime i get a virus they patch it before I lose too much of my information, which isn't really valuable anyways. Window's works so well for me, that I can leave it on for several hours without having to reboot. Don't listen to all of my friends who are having problems, their biased against windows and exagerate. I am the typical customer, and it almost always works at least halfway decently."
Microsoft thinks they can just make a better product and people will start using it? People have made products better than windows and people aren't using it, do they think the rules only apply when it benefits them?
I mean, its not like they are losing money. A person can't go out and buy the tv show. Perhaps it should be legal to do, with the requirement that you don't cut out commercials. If the commercials are left in, then they really aren't losing.
Trying to stop MOVIES on p2p networks I can understand. If i could go out to the corner store, or some online store, and buy last night's episode of "King of the Hill", I would. But its not an option and they aren't losing money.
Slashdot Mirror
Videolan has worked very, very, well for me. The -only- thing I can find that it won't play is DRM audio/video. I highly recommend it, even has a great GUI and lets u reencode files.
Step 1: Start a free webhosting company, that requires credit card info to verify identify
Step 2: In the terms of service, say that if you are caught spamming you agree to be charged $500
Step 3: Profit!
How did he even know the IP addresses of these machines? I am pretty sure the government doesn't store their classified information on the same servers that are the frontend to their websites. Hacking the server "fbi.gov" won't get you any fbi database, just access to the website content.
So how did he know the IP address of these servers? They aren't exactly listed anywhere.
And why are these servers accepting connections from anybody? Wouldn't it make sense to only allow connections from IP addresses owned by the government?
http://www.illhostit.com/slashdot/hate_apache.txt
Same thing, ran through pdftotext... for those of you who hate pdfs.
What exactly is wrong with home servers?
"neither phone nor cable companies will be required to share their Internet connections with competitors"
You're trying to increase our access to the internet by eliminating competetion? This will drive the price up, and make it harder to get on the internet. The competetion is the only reason its as cheap as it is now.
If he had it his way, it would seem we don't pick our internet provider, but rather how we get the internet (dsl, or cable). I want to pick my ISP, not have it forced on me.
Now that that's out of the way, I like Comcast and am happy with their service... so this post was pointless.
-1 redundant.
"neither phone nor cable companies will be required to share their Internet connections with competitors" You're trying to increase our access to the internet by eliminating competetion? This will drive the price up, and make it harder to get on the internet. The competetion is the only reason its as cheap as it is now. If he had it his way, it would seem we don't pick our internet provider, but rather how we get the internet (dsl, or cable). I want to pick my ISP, not have it forced on me. Now that that's out of the way, I like Comcast and am happy with their service... so this post was pointless. -1 redundant.
Is it really fair to call it market share, when firefox isn't something that's on the market, but rather free... and you can't go by shares of the Mozilla Organization. There's no market or shares.
Unless they can offer HDTV for the same price as my current, basic, subscription of $15, then I won't be watching TV after January, 2005.
if only everybody were mexican...
oh, wait. that's not what you meant is it?
"But my fingernail clippers ate my homework"
After all... Linux and Unix don't need antiviruses, Windows does. "Linux doesn't get enough viruses to warant an anti-virus product, but Windows does. We will stop the development of the Linux product because the resources would be better spent making pathetic attempts to make Windows more secure" is basically what I got when I first saw this. Droping support for your competitors anti-virus products doesn't look good on you. If anything they should have dropped Windows' support because "Windows is secure, all the problems are user errors."
His point was comparing two word processors' performance.
What is your point? That a text editor is faster than a word processor? Apple's and oranges...
kinda off subject, but why is moses always affiliated with the jewish? I mean, christians believe in the old testament too.
Sony is losing money on their sales of CD burners, Sony begins demanding more piracy to cover the losses.
I disagree. They can pressure the broadcasters to use this technology, and people will want to upgrade their receivers to receive this media.
But giving it a little more thought, either way people would be forced to upgrade. And for the most part, people tuning into broadcast television do so because they can't afford cable. They probably won't want to spend the money on fancy equipment just to get halfway decent movies with fuzzy reception. This technology would lose viewers.
Why is a law necessary? It's really none of the government's business...
What's stopping them from being detailed in the contract; like tell the networks "You can broadcast this movie only if you use this technology." If enough companies did this, they'd eventually get their way without a law.
But don't force a law on us which stops broadcasters from broadcasting how they want to.
yeah, yay for electricity.
but does it run linux?
Who is Bill Gates?
Do I get troll points now?
cue cheezy music here
"I love Microsoft products! Unlike all of my friends, I have almost no problems. I rarely have to reinstall, everytime i get a virus they patch it before I lose too much of my information, which isn't really valuable anyways. Window's works so well for me, that I can leave it on for several hours without having to reboot. Don't listen to all of my friends who are having problems, their biased against windows and exagerate. I am the typical customer, and it almost always works at least halfway decently."
Actually, it went something like this:
BAIL ORGANA: I'm placing these droids in your care. Treat them well. Clean them up. Have the Protocol Droid's mind wiped.
R2D2 was allowed to keep his memory.
Microsoft thinks they can just make a better product and people will start using it? People have made products better than windows and people aren't using it, do they think the rules only apply when it benefits them?
That quote was from the article, and are not the words of the submitter.
You could get a foreign vpn account.
I mean, its not like they are losing money. A person can't go out and buy the tv show. Perhaps it should be legal to do, with the requirement that you don't cut out commercials. If the commercials are left in, then they really aren't losing.
Trying to stop MOVIES on p2p networks I can understand. If i could go out to the corner store, or some online store, and buy last night's episode of "King of the Hill", I would. But its not an option and they aren't losing money.