Yes, I know this. Many digital camera users were purchasing iPod minis for the microdrives, since purchasing them seperately costed more, because Apple gets the microdrives in bulk for a discount. What I don't get is why companies don't choose to use the bigger minidrives, but with less GB amounts. I'd be interested to know how much that would shave off the cost.
I noticed that too... there is a lot of wasted space on the player. Rather large looking front cover, with a small (looking) screen, and even smaller control pad.
I suppose so... I guess I'm far too practical. The size difference (both in physical and hard drive space) between the Mini and fullsize iPods are not enough to warrant the minute differences in price. That's why I suggested offering the fullsize in smaller hard drive amounts to lower the cost. That's how the hard drive based players started out.
I still don't understand why there is such a small price gap between the iPod Mini and the iPod 4th Generation. I can get 4GB for $250, or a 20GB for $300?! The same goes for this player. Why is this system still so expensive? I would have thought the market had advanced enough that the prices would have dropped greater.
If it's because of the MicroDrive being used in players like the iPod mini, why not start selling iPod full size players in 5GB amounts? It would really be nice to see these "iPod killers" drop below the $200 price tag.
Yes yes yes, more grandiose promises that you know very well would never be followed through. One, because it costs money - and people claim to be willing to invest, but it's normally just talk. Two, there is no possible legal way for a non-authorized, subscription-based radio company to distribute RIAA/MPAA media without consent from the RIAA or MPAA. As soon as the company would "stick it to the man" and "fight the system" and all the rest of the cliche terms, the stations would begin pulling out of the deal because 1. they were being forced to do so by parent companies or 2. they were being forced to do so by the RIAA/MPAA. If you want to enjoy the media you listen to on the "evil" service providers, you're going to have to put up with the rules they lay down, or you don't get to enjoy the services. We don't have a "right" to music. If the RIAA wants to make music that nobody can listen to, it's their right. If they want to make music that nobody can afford, it's their right. If you want to listen to the music, you have every right to do so, as long as you follow the requirements.
So because copyright infringement occurs, the RIAA should just give up? Silence very often alludes to assent, which is definitely not the RIAA's position.
Besides that, we should not delude ourselves into believing that the copying of work or goods exists because of organizations like the RIAA. People are lazy, and are such freeloaders that they have come to expect things given to them, rather than working for the goods. Before media for copying was invented, there was no easy way to copy sounds and motion. People had to pay for the work.
The RIAA's goal is to make money. They keep wasting their time going after individuals who might be making digital recordings off "their" music. They should act like Microsoft does to piracy:
If it spreads the music and generates popularity, it's all good.
So the authorization requirement for Windows XP wasn't an attempt to stop piracy? They may not be as zealous as the RIAA, but they certainly don't appreciate piracy.
Nobody is going to start copying their music of XM radio when a slightly more expensive but massively easier alternative exists. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...they should have created iTunes.
Ironically, before iTunes was around, many people claimed that there was a need for a cheap music purchasing option, say around a dollar a song. These folks claimed piracy would dramatically drop once this was put into effect.
Once iTunes was released, these folks changed their tune, claiming that now the reason they downloaded music was because of the DRM in iTunes. I guess they were stupid enough to believe there was a chance that the RIAA would start handing out MP3 or WAV files for a dollar - while still pretending to believe that people wouldn't distribute the music. I dunno.
I think you missed the point of the commercial. The point was not that one could drive the car up to your cubicle, it was that you could use one transceiver in all your different XM radio peripherals (a very small home unit, boombox, and car unit). I understand you were being sarcastic, but I guess others didn't catch on, since you're now modified "Insightful". I fail to see how a poor representation of a commercial could be considered insightful.
Wait... because the RIAA doesn't allow people to download music without paying for it, they're ignoring their customers? I would think stopping users from acquiring their goods without paying for the items would be a definition of a potential customer!
I really tire of the crusade against the RIAA that Slashdotters so enjoy. I won't rant on about it, since this really isn't the place for it, but really. The RIAA may be overzealous, but they are not in the wrong for pursuing those who infringe copyright. Those who infringe may not like it. Big deal. People don't like getting caught for speeding on the highway, either. Are we going to side with the speeders because the posted speed is oppressive?
Actually, they have managed to use an engine that is easily modified, and let the users keep the game alive. If it wasn't for the user interest, Valve would have dropped the game long ago.
Valve is far far far from intelligent. The WON patches, source code leak, a release date that is overdue one year, Counter-Strike: Condition Zero, content servers that authenticate, run the main website, and deliver content, and the Half-Life 2 plot leak (rumor) all point toward a company that has trouble keeping both of its brain cells in working order. It's far from a smart company. It's a very, very, very lucky company, who was fortunate enough to hit a goldmine of a game. A goldmine only kept alive with the mods that users produce.
The average user probably won't have this problem, because the average user won't deal with FTP or programs that may require opening ports by hand.
This isn't a big deal, really. Other software firewalls require the same "learning" process that the Windows Firewall now requires. If the Windows Firewall didn't block outgoing communication, it wouldn't be that good of a firewall, now would it?
The opening of ports is for a select few programs. I'm not saying this issue is acceptable, but it's not foreign to other software firewalls, either.
Actually, I think it is as well. Most businesses have to pay a license fee to play music in the overhead speakers, don't they? Same would be for personal use, I would think.
It only has to convince a jury. What are 12 random citizens more likely to believe, a complicated mathematical formula or a photograph they can see with their own eyes?
Actually, if it was deemed a forgery, I don't think the photo would be presented to jury as evidence. It would be deemed inadmissable.
Stretch [an image], and image-editing software like Adobe Photoshop will assign the picture's original pixels to every other slot in the new picture. That leaves 100 pixels "blank," or without values. Image-editing software fills in the gaps by examining what their neighbors look like.
What happens if an image pasted on to another is not transformed? What if it's not stretched, but shrunk?
But Professor Farid said that for now the technique does not work as well with files created in JPEG, the compressed picture format most commonly used online. As the size of a JPEG file shrinks, the correlations between pixels become much less obvious. "At 90 percent quality, it falls apart very quickly," Professor Farid noted.
Doesn't this make this algorithim useless, since digital cameras primarily use JPEGs? And 90% quality trips this algorithim up?!
I fail to see how an image can have a "random set of pixels" as the article suggests. With color and brightness balancing, the pasted areas of an image blend in with the rest of the image (especially when the artist uses Photoshop's clone brush to combine the two images). This sounds to me like the computer could very well throw out false positives for images that have extreme color or brightness differences.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know this. Many digital camera users were purchasing iPod minis for the microdrives, since purchasing them seperately costed more, because Apple gets the microdrives in bulk for a discount. What I don't get is why companies don't choose to use the bigger minidrives, but with less GB amounts. I'd be interested to know how much that would shave off the cost.
I noticed that too... there is a lot of wasted space on the player. Rather large looking front cover, with a small (looking) screen, and even smaller control pad.
I suppose so... I guess I'm far too practical. The size difference (both in physical and hard drive space) between the Mini and fullsize iPods are not enough to warrant the minute differences in price. That's why I suggested offering the fullsize in smaller hard drive amounts to lower the cost. That's how the hard drive based players started out.
If it's because of the MicroDrive being used in players like the iPod mini, why not start selling iPod full size players in 5GB amounts? It would really be nice to see these "iPod killers" drop below the $200 price tag.
Yes yes yes, more grandiose promises that you know very well would never be followed through. One, because it costs money - and people claim to be willing to invest, but it's normally just talk. Two, there is no possible legal way for a non-authorized, subscription-based radio company to distribute RIAA/MPAA media without consent from the RIAA or MPAA. As soon as the company would "stick it to the man" and "fight the system" and all the rest of the cliche terms, the stations would begin pulling out of the deal because 1. they were being forced to do so by parent companies or 2. they were being forced to do so by the RIAA/MPAA. If you want to enjoy the media you listen to on the "evil" service providers, you're going to have to put up with the rules they lay down, or you don't get to enjoy the services. We don't have a "right" to music. If the RIAA wants to make music that nobody can listen to, it's their right. If they want to make music that nobody can afford, it's their right. If you want to listen to the music, you have every right to do so, as long as you follow the requirements.
Besides that, we should not delude ourselves into believing that the copying of work or goods exists because of organizations like the RIAA. People are lazy, and are such freeloaders that they have come to expect things given to them, rather than working for the goods. Before media for copying was invented, there was no easy way to copy sounds and motion. People had to pay for the work.
If it spreads the music and generates popularity, it's all good.
So the authorization requirement for Windows XP wasn't an attempt to stop piracy? They may not be as zealous as the RIAA, but they certainly don't appreciate piracy.
Nobody is going to start copying their music of XM radio when a slightly more expensive but massively easier alternative exists. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...they should have created iTunes.
Ironically, before iTunes was around, many people claimed that there was a need for a cheap music purchasing option, say around a dollar a song. These folks claimed piracy would dramatically drop once this was put into effect.
Once iTunes was released, these folks changed their tune, claiming that now the reason they downloaded music was because of the DRM in iTunes. I guess they were stupid enough to believe there was a chance that the RIAA would start handing out MP3 or WAV files for a dollar - while still pretending to believe that people wouldn't distribute the music. I dunno.
I think you missed the point of the commercial. The point was not that one could drive the car up to your cubicle, it was that you could use one transceiver in all your different XM radio peripherals (a very small home unit, boombox, and car unit). I understand you were being sarcastic, but I guess others didn't catch on, since you're now modified "Insightful". I fail to see how a poor representation of a commercial could be considered insightful.
I really tire of the crusade against the RIAA that Slashdotters so enjoy. I won't rant on about it, since this really isn't the place for it, but really. The RIAA may be overzealous, but they are not in the wrong for pursuing those who infringe copyright. Those who infringe may not like it. Big deal. People don't like getting caught for speeding on the highway, either. Are we going to side with the speeders because the posted speed is oppressive?
Actually, if I recall correctly, this was an issue, same with VCRs. Radio stations are required to pay a fee for the public transmission of the music.
Valve is far far far from intelligent. The WON patches, source code leak, a release date that is overdue one year, Counter-Strike: Condition Zero, content servers that authenticate, run the main website, and deliver content, and the Half-Life 2 plot leak (rumor) all point toward a company that has trouble keeping both of its brain cells in working order. It's far from a smart company. It's a very, very, very lucky company, who was fortunate enough to hit a goldmine of a game. A goldmine only kept alive with the mods that users produce.
The average user probably won't have this problem, because the average user won't deal with FTP or programs that may require opening ports by hand. This isn't a big deal, really. Other software firewalls require the same "learning" process that the Windows Firewall now requires. If the Windows Firewall didn't block outgoing communication, it wouldn't be that good of a firewall, now would it? The opening of ports is for a select few programs. I'm not saying this issue is acceptable, but it's not foreign to other software firewalls, either.
Actually, I think it is as well. Most businesses have to pay a license fee to play music in the overhead speakers, don't they? Same would be for personal use, I would think.
Actually, if it was deemed a forgery, I don't think the photo would be presented to jury as evidence. It would be deemed inadmissable.
From the NYT article:
Stretch [an image], and image-editing software like Adobe Photoshop will assign the picture's original pixels to every other slot in the new picture. That leaves 100 pixels "blank," or without values. Image-editing software fills in the gaps by examining what their neighbors look like.
What happens if an image pasted on to another is not transformed? What if it's not stretched, but shrunk?
But Professor Farid said that for now the technique does not work as well with files created in JPEG, the compressed picture format most commonly used online. As the size of a JPEG file shrinks, the correlations between pixels become much less obvious. "At 90 percent quality, it falls apart very quickly," Professor Farid noted.
Doesn't this make this algorithim useless, since digital cameras primarily use JPEGs? And 90% quality trips this algorithim up?!
I fail to see how an image can have a "random set of pixels" as the article suggests. With color and brightness balancing, the pasted areas of an image blend in with the rest of the image (especially when the artist uses Photoshop's clone brush to combine the two images). This sounds to me like the computer could very well throw out false positives for images that have extreme color or brightness differences.