Right. A denial of service attack where everyone would know something was up, an investigatin would occur, etc is as big a deal as someone modifying the code so that person A always has more votes, which would be more devastating to the process and harder to find out about.
The RP Sony SXRDs have a couple viewing modes. One is "Vivid" which is the default config. This resembles what most Plasmas look like in stores. Over saturated, but good for the type of person who buys a Bose system.
One of these modes is also "Pro" which is much better.
The problems are almost always in the source material.
Hell, TNTHD upconvertes and stretches (!) normal SD content for most of the day and calls it "HD".
I've noticed that the most important part of HDTV is the source, and this is evident just through simple channel surfing. Shows that I assume can afford better cameras because they need less of them, and less mobile ones, such as Jay Leno/David Letterman, SNL, etc, have absolutely amazing quality. Watching it on a 1080p 50 inch Sony SXRD is phenomenal, with no artifacts, or lack of detail. The colors, contrast, and image quality is so good that it appears your looking through a window.
Anyone who has seen this TV displaying true HD content at my apartment is immediately excited. And almost everyone says "oh oh! put in a DVD so we can see how that looks", unaware that DVDs are of a much lower resolution.
So I put one in, usually something fun like The Matrix or what have you, with a warning that it's going to look much worse then what they just saw. I have a pretty good upconverting DVD playing that puts out 1080i/60 over HDMI. Looks better than a normal DVD player but considerably worse than the HD content. Everyone so far has been disappointed with DVD quality (except my mom, but she's...well...a mom).
Point is, there *IS* a difference, a huge difference, and those of us with good TVs are begging for a way to watch our movies in the same detail we watch our TV...other than HBOHD.
Yes, it is legal here. The poster was asking because there are several European countries that have bans on certain "hate speech" which includes facism.
Try buying a song from iTMS and (without circumventing anything) putting it right on any other portable MP3 player on the market, except of course the iPod.
Already people are commenting about how Linux can run on different processors than Windows. Not what they were testing.
From TFA:
""Quite simply, I wanted to examine this factually, using real customer scenarios to test this hypothesis: can Linux run on older hardware than Windows? In many developing countries and public institutions, such as a local library, they typically don't have deep technical staff, so they need to use software without lots of modification and customization."
The security market ONLY exists because of MS's lazy coding. Microsoft trying to fix, or even hackishy patch their OS *IS* their perogative. We can argue all night long whether it's their right to bundle a browser, etc etc. But trying to fix a problem is not shutting out a market. Ridiculous.
That's like saying if Ford made cars where the brakes wore out in a week, and there was a market that fixed it temporarily, that Ford would not be allowed to ship cars that fix it themselves, instead they would have to help the other companies with their fix. Ugh...
If you remove the DRM from an iTunes file you are breaking the law per DMCA.
A better car analogy would be if Ford cars only worked with "Ford Gas Station Gas" unless you illegally circumvented something, or made your own gas. Yes, lock-in.
It IS Apples fault that they aren't releasing their FairPlay DRM. What the fuck. You people are like cult members. Analogy.
MS Bundles IE with Windows. Do you think that was wrong? Even if you don't is this a valid arguement?
There's nothing stopping Dell from stripping out all visible parts of IE and installing Netscape on their machines, therefore it's not MS's fault.
WTF your arguement is insane. FIrst of all, Britney is probably in contract with a record comapny that WOULD prevent her from leaving. Second, if she didnt make that contact, she wouldn't be famous. It's a vicious cycle.
Apple is *PURPOSELY* keeping their FairPlay to themselves to avoid competition. They are PURPOSELY leveraging their iPod monopoly to create an online music monopoly.
Artist's should be forced to switch fucking labels so that their music will play on everyone's device.
Jesus you people are fucking blind. It's like talking to a hardcore christian about dinosaurs...
For the last fucking time people, why is this so difficult. Look, let me lay it out easily for you...
the RIAA owns almost all mainstream music The RIAA will not sell music that is not DRM'd Therefore Yahoo can not sell music that is not DRM'd
the ipod supports only one DRM scheme, FairPlay' no other DRM scheme will work on the iPod itunes is the only music store Apple allows FairPlay to be used on
A music store wishing to sell mainstream music must license it from the RIAA Therefore, they must use DRM Since Apple won't license their DRM scheme, they need to come up with their own Since the iPod won't play anything other than FairPlay, their DRM will not work on the iPod
An iPod user looking to buy mainstream music downloads a song from Yahoo! Because Apple will not let Yahoo! use FairPlay, it does not work on the iPod Therefore, the iPod user is forced to user iTunes to download legal mainstream music
How is that not lock-in? The *ONLY* reason Apple doesn't let Yahoo use FairPlay is that they might offer competition to iTunes music store. They are locking in the market. Furthermore, Apple has a monopoly on music players and is thus leveraging this monopoly to gain another one in the online music store market. Ugh! Idiots.
The iPod DOES chain you from buying any legal mainstream internet music. That IS lock-in. No one ever said it locks you in from all songs every. Bottom line is, it's lock in for 95% of music sales online. That's lockin whether you like it or not. Saying "well you can buy other music" IS NOT A SOLUTION. If I want to buy Britney Spears online, legally, in the USA, and I have an iPod I HAVE to use iTunes. Lockin. Because of the words "have to".
Oh, and ripping it to a CD and burning it back is a circumvention of encryption and thus a violation of DMCA, thus, it's illegal.
But these kind of things are limited. Businesses that desire to be big need the support of the major record labels, and need to sell music by the Beatles for example. Its nice that your indie music has an outlet for getting to people's ipod's but the rest of the population doesn't.
It STILL doesn't take away from the fact that it's lock-in, It locks-in 99% of music (based on sales) and leaves the small minority of music (again based on sales) to do what they want.
For the last fucking time..
APPLE WILL NOT LICENSE THEIR DRM
Do you understand that? It is NOT Yahoo!'s fault that they can't sell music that works on the iPod. Don't you think they want to? Of course they do. Apple won't let them. This is, by definition, lock-in.
Apple could have allowed those competing sites to use FairPlay, thus allowing all competition to support the iPod. Instead, Apple deliberately does NOT allow sites like Yahoo from using FairPlay and thus Apple locks Yahoo out from selling music that can play on the ipod
No.
Youre free to build your own Internet. This isn't us claiming we have the Intellectual Property pertaining to creating an Internet, this has to do with us wanting control of OUR internet that we made, and everyone else connected to.
"Were Microsoft to not put the internet explorer version of its browser on general release, Netscape would begin to sell people their browsers. This would put enormous pressure on the price of Microsoft's own browsers-- something the company is naturally keen to avoid."
Of course I now expect several comments telling me why this analogy is wrong. They will range from "Microsoft is a convicted monopolist!!!" to "Apple needs to control the hardware to create the best user experience". Bottom line is, Apple wants to keep its hardware prices high and doesn't want Dell to undersell them.
To address the second issue MS would argue that they need IE on Windows to control the Windows experience. That it wouldn't be the same without it. (This is true, it would probably be much better without it). To address the monopoly issue...everyone's gotta start somewhere;)
The right to assembly is very clearly laid out in the consititution and has been tested in court many many times. Non-profit orgs are NOT extensions to the consititution. Is the KKK an "extension to the consititution"? Is that a branch of the federal government? What the fuck are you smoking. Private, non-tax-funded organizations are PEOPLE driven. I don't care if they are considered legally seperate entitied, they are run by PEOPLE, and it's those people's right to assemble with whomever they chose whenever they chose.
Itd be a sad country if the government started telling us who we could and could not assemble with.
The organizers and owners of the school are living entities.
here's what my right to assemble means.
I can start any organization and include or exclude any one I want. For any reason. Assuming Im not getting federal money. I can exclude black people (KKK), women (catholic priests), gay people (boy scouts). I am also free to make a school. That school is allowed to exclude or include people based on ANY criteria. The children aren't forced to go to that school. They are offered a free, public alternative. If they chose not to accept the free public alternative then they need to follow the rules of that school, which may be discriminatory if the school gets no federal funding.
If the govt were to step in and tell the school they couldnt have any criteria to allow children membership to their organizatin, then the catholic church could be forced to have women priest. And no, niether of those things would be right.
The "organization" is non-living but the people behind it are very much so alive.
Why aren't the freedom of speech advocates worried about the school's consitutional right to assembly?
Furthermore, why dont these so-called advocates read the ammendment and realize it's about congress making laws abridging the freedom of speech, not about private organizations determining who they can assemble with.
We have a freedom to *assembly*. That means I can assemble with whomever I want under any criteria. This is not a "legal loophole" this is how the system was designed to work. If the school was told they had to accept these students *THEIR* right to assembly would be violated.
It is *NOT* illegal to watch an R rated movie. No matter how young you are. It is *POLICY* not law that prevents a minor from watching an R rated movie.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. A denial of service attack where everyone would know something was up, an investigatin would occur, etc is as big a deal as someone modifying the code so that person A always has more votes, which would be more devastating to the process and harder to find out about.
The RP Sony SXRDs have a couple viewing modes. One is "Vivid" which is the default config. This resembles what most Plasmas look like in stores. Over saturated, but good for the type of person who buys a Bose system.
One of these modes is also "Pro" which is much better.
the Sony SXRD has 2 HDMIs
The problems are almost always in the source material.
...well...a mom).
Hell, TNTHD upconvertes and stretches (!) normal SD content for most of the day and calls it "HD".
I've noticed that the most important part of HDTV is the source, and this is evident just through simple channel surfing. Shows that I assume can afford better cameras because they need less of them, and less mobile ones, such as Jay Leno/David Letterman, SNL, etc, have absolutely amazing quality. Watching it on a 1080p 50 inch Sony SXRD is phenomenal, with no artifacts, or lack of detail. The colors, contrast, and image quality is so good that it appears your looking through a window.
Anyone who has seen this TV displaying true HD content at my apartment is immediately excited. And almost everyone says "oh oh! put in a DVD so we can see how that looks", unaware that DVDs are of a much lower resolution.
So I put one in, usually something fun like The Matrix or what have you, with a warning that it's going to look much worse then what they just saw. I have a pretty good upconverting DVD playing that puts out 1080i/60 over HDMI. Looks better than a normal DVD player but considerably worse than the HD content. Everyone so far has been disappointed with DVD quality (except my mom, but she's
Point is, there *IS* a difference, a huge difference, and those of us with good TVs are begging for a way to watch our movies in the same detail we watch our TV...other than HBOHD.
Yes, it is legal here. The poster was asking because there are several European countries that have bans on certain "hate speech" which includes facism.
"the real world however...)" .... ...is already in 3D :-)
"I have never, ever come across any limitation."
Try buying a song from iTMS and (without circumventing anything) putting it right on any other portable MP3 player on the market, except of course the iPod.
Have fun trying.
Already people are commenting about how Linux can run on different processors than Windows. Not what they were testing.
From TFA:
""Quite simply, I wanted to examine this factually, using real customer scenarios to test this hypothesis: can Linux run on older hardware than Windows? In many developing countries and public institutions, such as a local library, they typically don't have deep technical staff, so they need to use software without lots of modification and customization."
Such a silly arguement.
The security market ONLY exists because of MS's lazy coding. Microsoft trying to fix, or even hackishy patch their OS *IS* their perogative. We can argue all night long whether it's their right to bundle a browser, etc etc. But trying to fix a problem is not shutting out a market. Ridiculous.
That's like saying if Ford made cars where the brakes wore out in a week, and there was a market that fixed it temporarily, that Ford would not be allowed to ship cars that fix it themselves, instead they would have to help the other companies with their fix. Ugh...
If you remove the DRM from an iTunes file you are breaking the law per DMCA.
A better car analogy would be if Ford cars only worked with "Ford Gas Station Gas" unless you illegally circumvented something, or made your own gas. Yes, lock-in.
UGH!!!!
Jesus Christ!!!
It IS Apples fault that they aren't releasing their FairPlay DRM. What the fuck. You people are like cult members. Analogy.
MS Bundles IE with Windows. Do you think that was wrong? Even if you don't is this a valid arguement?
There's nothing stopping Dell from stripping out all visible parts of IE and installing Netscape on their machines, therefore it's not MS's fault.
WTF your arguement is insane. FIrst of all, Britney is probably in contract with a record comapny that WOULD prevent her from leaving. Second, if she didnt make that contact, she wouldn't be famous. It's a vicious cycle.
Apple is *PURPOSELY* keeping their FairPlay to themselves to avoid competition. They are PURPOSELY leveraging their iPod monopoly to create an online music monopoly.
Artist's should be forced to switch fucking labels so that their music will play on everyone's device.
Jesus you people are fucking blind. It's like talking to a hardcore christian about dinosaurs...
No
They
Couldn't
For the last fucking time people, why is this so difficult. Look, let me lay it out easily for you...
the RIAA owns almost all mainstream music
The RIAA will not sell music that is not DRM'd
Therefore Yahoo can not sell music that is not DRM'd
the ipod supports only one DRM scheme, FairPlay'
no other DRM scheme will work on the iPod
itunes is the only music store Apple allows FairPlay to be used on
A music store wishing to sell mainstream music must license it from the RIAA
Therefore, they must use DRM
Since Apple won't license their DRM scheme, they need to come up with their own
Since the iPod won't play anything other than FairPlay, their DRM will not work on the iPod
An iPod user looking to buy mainstream music downloads a song from Yahoo!
Because Apple will not let Yahoo! use FairPlay, it does not work on the iPod
Therefore, the iPod user is forced to user iTunes to download legal mainstream music
How is that not lock-in? The *ONLY* reason Apple doesn't let Yahoo use FairPlay is that they might offer competition to iTunes music store. They are locking in the market. Furthermore, Apple has a monopoly on music players and is thus leveraging this monopoly to gain another one in the online music store market. Ugh! Idiots.
Jesus people...
The point does *NOT* stand.
The iPod DOES chain you from buying any legal mainstream internet music. That IS lock-in. No one ever said it locks you in from all songs every. Bottom line is, it's lock in for 95% of music sales online. That's lockin whether you like it or not. Saying "well you can buy other music" IS NOT A SOLUTION. If I want to buy Britney Spears online, legally, in the USA, and I have an iPod I HAVE to use iTunes. Lockin. Because of the words "have to".
Oh, and ripping it to a CD and burning it back is a circumvention of encryption and thus a violation of DMCA, thus, it's illegal.
But these kind of things are limited. Businesses that desire to be big need the support of the major record labels, and need to sell music by the Beatles for example. Its nice that your indie music has an outlet for getting to people's ipod's but the rest of the population doesn't.
It STILL doesn't take away from the fact that it's lock-in, It locks-in 99% of music (based on sales) and leaves the small minority of music (again based on sales) to do what they want.
What bullshit.
Search for "Beatles" 3 tracks come up, none of them from the beatles. Do any of the REAL labels sell their music on this?
For the last fucking time.. APPLE WILL NOT LICENSE THEIR DRM Do you understand that? It is NOT Yahoo!'s fault that they can't sell music that works on the iPod. Don't you think they want to? Of course they do. Apple won't let them. This is, by definition, lock-in.
Wrong.
Apple could have allowed those competing sites to use FairPlay, thus allowing all competition to support the iPod. Instead, Apple deliberately does NOT allow sites like Yahoo from using FairPlay and thus Apple locks Yahoo out from selling music that can play on the ipod
No. Youre free to build your own Internet. This isn't us claiming we have the Intellectual Property pertaining to creating an Internet, this has to do with us wanting control of OUR internet that we made, and everyone else connected to.
My unit requires no futher testing, thank you very much!
"Were Microsoft to not put the internet explorer version of its browser on general release, Netscape would begin to sell people their browsers. This would put enormous pressure on the price of Microsoft's own browsers-- something the company is naturally keen to avoid."
;)
Of course I now expect several comments telling me why this analogy is wrong. They will range from "Microsoft is a convicted monopolist!!!" to "Apple needs to control the hardware to create the best user experience". Bottom line is, Apple wants to keep its hardware prices high and doesn't want Dell to undersell them.
To address the second issue MS would argue that they need IE on Windows to control the Windows experience. That it wouldn't be the same without it. (This is true, it would probably be much better without it). To address the monopoly issue...everyone's gotta start somewhere
What bullshit
The right to assembly is very clearly laid out in the consititution and has been tested in court many many times. Non-profit orgs are NOT extensions to the consititution. Is the KKK an "extension to the consititution"? Is that a branch of the federal government? What the fuck are you smoking. Private, non-tax-funded organizations are PEOPLE driven. I don't care if they are considered legally seperate entitied, they are run by PEOPLE, and it's those people's right to assemble with whomever they chose whenever they chose.
Itd be a sad country if the government started telling us who we could and could not assemble with.
The organizers and owners of the school are living entities.
here's what my right to assemble means.
I can start any organization and include or exclude any one I want. For any reason. Assuming Im not getting federal money. I can exclude black people (KKK), women (catholic priests), gay people (boy scouts). I am also free to make a school. That school is allowed to exclude or include people based on ANY criteria. The children aren't forced to go to that school. They are offered a free, public alternative. If they chose not to accept the free public alternative then they need to follow the rules of that school, which may be discriminatory if the school gets no federal funding.
If the govt were to step in and tell the school they couldnt have any criteria to allow children membership to their organizatin, then the catholic church could be forced to have women priest. And no, niether of those things would be right.
The "organization" is non-living but the people behind it are very much so alive.
Why aren't the freedom of speech advocates worried about the school's consitutional right to assembly?
Furthermore, why dont these so-called advocates read the ammendment and realize it's about congress making laws abridging the freedom of speech, not about private organizations determining who they can assemble with.
Read the REST of that ammendment.
We have a freedom to *assembly*. That means I can assemble with whomever I want under any criteria. This is not a "legal loophole" this is how the system was designed to work. If the school was told they had to accept these students *THEIR* right to assembly would be violated.
idiot.
It is *NOT* illegal to watch an R rated movie. No matter how young you are. It is *POLICY* not law that prevents a minor from watching an R rated movie.