Actually, this isn't about keeping up. If you enjoy good picture and good sound (really, really good sound) then BD is the thing. It is as good or better than theater image quality and significantly better than (typical) theater sound quality. That isn't "keeping up" it is just enjoying a product to the fullest.
But you have to first be able to see any difference - otherwise it is just keeping up with the Jones'; and honestly - the difference isn't worth it unless your a cinaphile/audiophile.
If that is too rich for you then you are obviously not in the income bracket that a new video format aims to win.
Oh, I assure you I am in that income bracket - but my priorities are different than having the latest and greatest; and I see no point in having a hi-def system as Standard Def is good enough, IMHO.
I also buy a new computer about once every 10 years. It's just not that important.
"Keeping up with the Jones'" is just not important to me, nor my wife.
I'm not an IP law student or lawyer, but I don't see an exception that governs this case. I'd imagine that determining when and how to bill when your phone rings in a situation that's sufficiently public would be nightmarish, but it seems like their case passes the laugh test.
While IANAL, I think it would go under the the intended use. While some people have specifically loaded MP3/RAW Media tracks/etc onto their phone for use, the number of people that only get their ringtone's form "official providers" (e.g. their phone service, etc.) and probably either purchase (or receive for free) the ringtones from that official service. Thus, if the service licensed the use of the media with the intent of offering on that service - which probably would have had to be in their contract - then it probably goes that the intent of a ringtone is by nature a public performance and thus non-infringing by definition.
A suitable metaphor would be if you picked up a CD, and put it in your CD player. If you had license to use it in your CD player and the definition of the CD player was such that it made a "public performance" then the license would be required to allow such "public performance".
That's not to say that I agree with their definition of a "public performance" - I quite likely don't. For example, my freshmen year of college we frequently watched movies in a common area of the dorm - available only to other students and/or residents and their guests. (E.g. you had to be a student or faculty to gain access; guests had to register at the front desk.) People would come and go, and there'd probably be at most 20 people there. My sophomore year they told us we couldn't do that any more as it was a "public performance" - simply because there was no regulation of who could come by and watch, and they didn't want to deal with any legal issues that may further arise if they didn't; dorm staff did enforce it (they had to, not blaming them). Yet if we stuffed those same 20 people into a dorm room, and let anyone come and go into the dorm room it would have been a "private performance".
That's not to say that there is legitimate need to regulate "public performances" - there is. But the definition needs to be narrowed down a lot more than it is currently, and should probably require a minimum number of people and more.
We typically spend $5 for a movie now...anything more is a rarity and more or less when we want to explicitly show support for a certain movie, which is not very often. Occassionally we'll go up as high as $10.
Movie theaters nowadays use a 1080p or bigger format
Not just movies today - movies on film are analog
Film is old; DLP has begun to replace it.
Depends on the environment. The 'special features' for Star Gate Continuum has comments about them using a 16mm film camera to film up in the Artic b/c (i) anyone there could service the camera on the spot, and (ii) the camera was better adapted for the environment with a proven track record of performance.
But where the government fails, private industry flourishes: registration, plates, et al. can be done quickly and cheaply at any AAA or notary service in the Commonwealth.
I don't know about that.
I've lived in other states, and the registration process no more complicated, and at worse no more expensive. Time varies, but so does population.
On the other hand, PA has (i) state-wide vehicle "mechanical" inspections, and (ii) county-based emission inspections. In NJ (at least when I lived there years back) the "mechanical" inspections were pretty straight forward, simple, relatively little cost, and well managed by the state. Yet, every private industry run inspection system (PA, VA, that I've personally witnessed) is far more expsensive and no better in the end. (Often, with many of the private companies finding any fault they can, even if not technically a fault by the standard, to reap business in.)
Yes, the private industry can do some things better than gov't; but the gov't can also do about an equal number of things better than the private industry. The trick is to find the right balance between the two. (And I am, btw, by no means a socialist; even a centrist is often too liberal from my perspective, depending on the issue, of course.)
original Microsoft Natural (not the later rubbish that claimed to be "ergonomic" just because it had a fake leather wrist support -- while maintaining the straight-row key configuration that is bad for wrists)
I have used the MS Natural Keyboard since 1997 when I got the 1.0 model, and have loved it. It greatly improved my typing (with the split keyboards), and has probably kept me from numerous bad practices that would cause carpal tunnel.
I never got the second generation model, which was made for people with smaller hands than the first gen model was; and I couldn't stand it - especially the arrow key layout.
Fortunately, MS went back to the original layout with some of the Wireless models, and the Natural Ergonomic 4000, from which I am typing this.
I will grant you though that the straight "ergonomic" keyboards they did for a while were not really that ergonomic; but the split-keyboard series is an excellent keyboard - especially if you have larger hands.
Given that a driving licence is supposed to be proof of your ability to drive, I would have thought that the more licences a person could obtain from different states, the less likely it would be for that person to be a bad driver.
Or doesn't the driving licence in your country require passing a driving test, as it does in mine?
It requires passing a test - but it's a very simple basic test: (i) do you know what this means (e.g. signs)? (ii) can do these things sufficiently (e.g. drive around the block @ 25MPH, park)?
Possession of a license from one state is generally enough to not take a test in other states.
It is also generally enough to get an international driving permit, something that probably works in your country.
I'll agree there. I've lived in PA (where I got my license initially), moved to VA, then back to PA, again in PA, and now to SC. The last test I took was when I got my initial license - ~13 years ago.
Translation: We know that for the past 8 years this has been pushed to prevent homeland terrorism but you know there hasn't really been any major events without it since 9/11.
And you know, it wouldn't have prevented 9/11 either as they all had valid IDs on them. They would have done whatever was necessary to get a valid ID.
Needless to say, it was a pain for my wife to get her VA License after we got married and she moved in with me.
Well...in PA there is really only one DMV - in Harrisburg, PA - for the entire state. They do have satellite centers, but all they do is licenses and license photos. Nothing else.
So if you want to go to the DMV to register your car, get new plates, etc, you only have one DMV to go to regardless of whether you live in Pittsburgh, PA, Philadelphia, PA, Matamoras, PA, Erie, PA, or any where in between.
Would you really want to have to travel like that for health care too?
For example: Suppose an aircraft is going to fly into a hill. The pilot pulls back hard on the yoke and engages maximum thrust.
Suffice it to say, that is one moment where I think the pilot should have absolute control over the craft without any limitations. I would much rather the pilot overstress the plane a little (after which he can immediately land if need be) than have the computer decide that he can't do what he needs to and fly it into the hill.
What you also have to realize is that these planes are built such that they can do far more than their pilots would ever need them to do - acrobatics, while not recommended, can be achieved; but you better have the plane carefully inspected afterwards before saying it is safe again.
And if enough stress was needed to cause structural failure in order to clear the hill, then at least it would land (on its belly)and the passengers have the possibility to survive, versus just plowing straight away into the hill.
And, btw, this situation is one that may not necessarily be visible to the computer - depending on the terrain.
Thanks for proving my point.;-)
And I also very much agree with Starker Kull's parallel response too.
However, when things go wrong, the computer allows the pilot to override the computer's assessment of what is safe.
And the point is that the pilot may be able to tell when things are going wrong before the computer may, or that the computer may fail and not relinquish control even though it should. The pilot should always have a quick method to override the computer no matter the circumstances. If, after that, the pilot does something stupid - well, that's pilot error for you; but it's still a necessary requirement to allow the pilot to do so if the pilot chooses to purposefully do so.
I'm salaried as well; however, I make certain that any job I take does not have any rights to anything I do off-the-clock - e.g. not using company resources, or company time. And company time is defined any time I am allocating to the company per time sheet. If it doesn't go on a time sheet and I'm not at the office, it's my own time, my own dime, and my own work to own - not the company's. It's a pre-requisite to me for any job I take.
I have not problem with them taking the "rights" for what I do with company time and resources. That's a natural part of the work agreement. But even for salaried employees it does not require that all things created during the time of employment - whether using company time and resources or not - belong to the employer.
And yes, I would go somewhere else if it became an issue.
I'm also not saying that criminal prosecution should be possible for all kinds of certifications, but some certainly. And you certainly point out a difference that should be taken into account.
If the consequences of failure by the auditor to report accurately result in (i) death to one or more people, (ii) massive financial loss to one or more entities (e.g. people, companies), (iii) failure to comply with law resulting in either of the above, etc. then yes, there should likely be criminal prosecution by the gov't alongside any lawsuits by those who relied on it.
On the other hand, if a failure by the auditor to report accurately results in minor issues, then the lawsuits should be sufficient or at worse a fine by those who accredited the auditor.
Now, just to be clear, when I say a "failure by the auditor to report accurately" I mean it is again a known accreditation that is current at the time of the audit as specified by the contract. So if they sign the contract saying the auditor will accredit against version 1.0, and 10 seconds later version 1.1 is release by the agency providing the audit guidelines then the auditor should be held against version 1.0, not 1.1. (That's not to say that it might be appropriate for the auditor to note it to the customer, and ensure they get audited against the right version - they should.) That is to say - there are limits.
If, however, the quality of the audit or preventative measures were poor, then the auditor SHOULD be liable. Why should he not be? If you hire an inspector to certify a new bridge, and he does not do his job, then he should be liable for it.
In other industries (e.g. the bridge building) it can also mean criminal prosecution of the auditor - for criminal negligence. I would argue the same should apply here.
Microsoft were competing unfairly long before they became a monopoly, and this is also illegal.
IANAL, but...
It depends on what they did to "compete unfairly". For example, it is not illegal for a vendor to have a contract with an OEM that the OEM could not buy a competitor's products if the vendor is not in a market monopoly position.
On the other hand, it is illegal for them to bribe, blackmail, or threaten someone to sign the contract.
To summarize - my point (and the GP's point) is the antitrust laws define a monopoly, and unless the entity falls into that definition there is a lot they can do that they couldn't do otherwise. Anti-trust laws only limit what a monopoly can do - not everyone else.
It's certainly possible that upgradeable BIOS-like OS's may be where the OS market is going, but it will mostly depend on the implementation and the requirement that it be upgradeable be present.
If they try to do the BIOS OS without any ability to upgrade it, then there will be no way to fix the problems of the OS, and enthusiasts won't buy them. So being able to upgrade the BIOS OS would be necessary.
Secondly, why limit the BIOS OS to just being a thin-client? The user could have a hard drive of some sort (external, internal, USB stick, etc.). Why not provide the ability to store and load apps from there? Let there be thick-clients too.
This would be nice from the aspect that the hardware vendor would have to ensure the BIOS OS could work with all the hardware present. So out-of-the-box support by Linux would be the norm (since nearly all the present BIOS OS-like solutions are Linux-based).
Vendors like MS would have a more difficult time playing in the market since they require more space/power/memory/etc to function, and they won't likely go for letting WinCE be put on every computer when they could be selling Vista or Win7 instead.
So there is a lot of promise, but only if vendors do it right. Otherwise, it'll fail quite badly.
You still face the problem of receiving the data over the network and parsing the header first using unknown buffer sizes...so no, while that may help at the application/XML layer, it does not solve the problem across the spectrum...
There's far more to using memcpy than reallocating memory buffers. You may go from compile-time buffers to fully dynamic buffers or vice-versa, (realloc() won't help you there) or you may go to existing already allocated memory....
Regardless (we do agree) you do need to keep track of what you're doing. And ANY good program(mer) does.
Personally, I detest Microsoft's "Secure" style here. It's not standards based, and it breaks portability like crazy. In some ways its nice they are doing this, but they should have it disabled by default per warnings, or at least let people set via a compiler flag (instead - accessible as part of the project, even if its turned on by default in the settings) whether you want to do that and give a warning about portability as a result. That, for starters, would be a lot more helpful than their current implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this isn't about keeping up. If you enjoy good picture and good sound (really, really good sound) then BD is the thing. It is as good or better than theater image quality and significantly better than (typical) theater sound quality. That isn't "keeping up" it is just enjoying a product to the fullest.
But you have to first be able to see any difference - otherwise it is just keeping up with the Jones'; and honestly - the difference isn't worth it unless your a cinaphile/audiophile.
Oh, I assure you I am in that income bracket - but my priorities are different than having the latest and greatest; and I see no point in having a hi-def system as Standard Def is good enough, IMHO.
I also buy a new computer about once every 10 years. It's just not that important.
"Keeping up with the Jones'" is just not important to me, nor my wife.
Even if ASCAP doesn't win, the RIAA will sue for your phone to see if you have any illegal downloaded ring tones.
Well, I think the case begs an interesting question: If this isn't a public performance, then why not? Which exception governs it?
I'm not an IP law student or lawyer, but I don't see an exception that governs this case. I'd imagine that determining when and how to bill when your phone rings in a situation that's sufficiently public would be nightmarish, but it seems like their case passes the laugh test.
While IANAL, I think it would go under the the intended use. While some people have specifically loaded MP3/RAW Media tracks/etc onto their phone for use, the number of people that only get their ringtone's form "official providers" (e.g. their phone service, etc.) and probably either purchase (or receive for free) the ringtones from that official service. Thus, if the service licensed the use of the media with the intent of offering on that service - which probably would have had to be in their contract - then it probably goes that the intent of a ringtone is by nature a public performance and thus non-infringing by definition.
A suitable metaphor would be if you picked up a CD, and put it in your CD player. If you had license to use it in your CD player and the definition of the CD player was such that it made a "public performance" then the license would be required to allow such "public performance".
That's not to say that I agree with their definition of a "public performance" - I quite likely don't. For example, my freshmen year of college we frequently watched movies in a common area of the dorm - available only to other students and/or residents and their guests. (E.g. you had to be a student or faculty to gain access; guests had to register at the front desk.) People would come and go, and there'd probably be at most 20 people there. My sophomore year they told us we couldn't do that any more as it was a "public performance" - simply because there was no regulation of who could come by and watch, and they didn't want to deal with any legal issues that may further arise if they didn't; dorm staff did enforce it (they had to, not blaming them). Yet if we stuffed those same 20 people into a dorm room, and let anyone come and go into the dorm room it would have been a "private performance".
That's not to say that there is legitimate need to regulate "public performances" - there is. But the definition needs to be narrowed down a lot more than it is currently, and should probably require a minimum number of people and more.
We typically spend $5 for a movie now...anything more is a rarity and more or less when we want to explicitly show support for a certain movie, which is not very often. Occassionally we'll go up as high as $10.
Movie theaters nowadays use a 1080p or bigger format
Not just movies today - movies on film are analog
Film is old; DLP has begun to replace it.
Depends on the environment. The 'special features' for Star Gate Continuum has comments about them using a 16mm film camera to film up in the Artic b/c (i) anyone there could service the camera on the spot, and (ii) the camera was better adapted for the environment with a proven track record of performance.
But where the government fails, private industry flourishes: registration, plates, et al. can be done quickly and cheaply at any AAA or notary service in the Commonwealth.
I don't know about that.
I've lived in other states, and the registration process no more complicated, and at worse no more expensive. Time varies, but so does population.
On the other hand, PA has (i) state-wide vehicle "mechanical" inspections, and (ii) county-based emission inspections. In NJ (at least when I lived there years back) the "mechanical" inspections were pretty straight forward, simple, relatively little cost, and well managed by the state. Yet, every private industry run inspection system (PA, VA, that I've personally witnessed) is far more expsensive and no better in the end. (Often, with many of the private companies finding any fault they can, even if not technically a fault by the standard, to reap business in.)
Yes, the private industry can do some things better than gov't; but the gov't can also do about an equal number of things better than the private industry. The trick is to find the right balance between the two. (And I am, btw, by no means a socialist; even a centrist is often too liberal from my perspective, depending on the issue, of course.)
You should qualify that with where you live in Jersey - given the close proximity of southern Jersey to Delaware.
That's not necessarily any where near the distance from Erie to Harrisburg in PA.
I have used the MS Natural Keyboard since 1997 when I got the 1.0 model, and have loved it. It greatly improved my typing (with the split keyboards), and has probably kept me from numerous bad practices that would cause carpal tunnel.
I never got the second generation model, which was made for people with smaller hands than the first gen model was; and I couldn't stand it - especially the arrow key layout.
Fortunately, MS went back to the original layout with some of the Wireless models, and the Natural Ergonomic 4000, from which I am typing this.
I will grant you though that the straight "ergonomic" keyboards they did for a while were not really that ergonomic; but the split-keyboard series is an excellent keyboard - especially if you have larger hands.
Given that a driving licence is supposed to be proof of your ability to drive, I would have thought that the more licences a person could obtain from different states, the less likely it would be for that person to be a bad driver. Or doesn't the driving licence in your country require passing a driving test, as it does in mine?
It requires passing a test - but it's a very simple basic test: (i) do you know what this means (e.g. signs)? (ii) can do these things sufficiently (e.g. drive around the block @ 25MPH, park)?
Possession of a license from one state is generally enough to not take a test in other states.
It is also generally enough to get an international driving permit, something that probably works in your country.
I'll agree there. I've lived in PA (where I got my license initially), moved to VA, then back to PA, again in PA, and now to SC. The last test I took was when I got my initial license - ~13 years ago.
And you know, it wouldn't have prevented 9/11 either as they all had valid IDs on them. They would have done whatever was necessary to get a valid ID.
Needless to say, it was a pain for my wife to get her VA License after we got married and she moved in with me.
Well...in PA there is really only one DMV - in Harrisburg, PA - for the entire state. They do have satellite centers, but all they do is licenses and license photos. Nothing else.
So if you want to go to the DMV to register your car, get new plates, etc, you only have one DMV to go to regardless of whether you live in Pittsburgh, PA, Philadelphia, PA, Matamoras, PA, Erie, PA, or any where in between.
Would you really want to have to travel like that for health care too?
Also see comment 28303443.
Here's Amendment 10 for reference.
I voted, and this doesn't reflect me - or anyone else I know.
Problem is - even most voters don't have the technical understanding to figure it out - nor do most politicians.
Politicians just hear FCC is collecting billions of dollars that they can then spend.
Voters (and non-voters) just hear "it'll be clearer."
Honestly, I don't think we'll see the true out-cry for a few more weeks as people realize that DTV isn't going to work in anything but good weather.
Suffice it to say, that is one moment where I think the pilot should have absolute control over the craft without any limitations. I would much rather the pilot overstress the plane a little (after which he can immediately land if need be) than have the computer decide that he can't do what he needs to and fly it into the hill.
;-)
What you also have to realize is that these planes are built such that they can do far more than their pilots would ever need them to do - acrobatics, while not recommended, can be achieved; but you better have the plane carefully inspected afterwards before saying it is safe again.
And if enough stress was needed to cause structural failure in order to clear the hill, then at least it would land (on its belly)and the passengers have the possibility to survive, versus just plowing straight away into the hill.
And, btw, this situation is one that may not necessarily be visible to the computer - depending on the terrain.
Thanks for proving my point.
And I also very much agree with Starker Kull's parallel response too.
And the point is that the pilot may be able to tell when things are going wrong before the computer may, or that the computer may fail and not relinquish control even though it should. The pilot should always have a quick method to override the computer no matter the circumstances. If, after that, the pilot does something stupid - well, that's pilot error for you; but it's still a necessary requirement to allow the pilot to do so if the pilot chooses to purposefully do so.
That's all fine and dandy until the computer fails to switch modes and applies "Normal Law" in a "Direct Law" situation.
And don't say "it can't happen"...because it can. Whether or not it has yet to happen is a different issue...
I'm salaried as well; however, I make certain that any job I take does not have any rights to anything I do off-the-clock - e.g. not using company resources, or company time. And company time is defined any time I am allocating to the company per time sheet. If it doesn't go on a time sheet and I'm not at the office, it's my own time, my own dime, and my own work to own - not the company's. It's a pre-requisite to me for any job I take.
I have not problem with them taking the "rights" for what I do with company time and resources. That's a natural part of the work agreement. But even for salaried employees it does not require that all things created during the time of employment - whether using company time and resources or not - belong to the employer.
And yes, I would go somewhere else if it became an issue.
No, I'm not mistaking - though others may be.
I'm also not saying that criminal prosecution should be possible for all kinds of certifications, but some certainly. And you certainly point out a difference that should be taken into account.
If the consequences of failure by the auditor to report accurately result in (i) death to one or more people, (ii) massive financial loss to one or more entities (e.g. people, companies), (iii) failure to comply with law resulting in either of the above, etc. then yes, there should likely be criminal prosecution by the gov't alongside any lawsuits by those who relied on it.
On the other hand, if a failure by the auditor to report accurately results in minor issues, then the lawsuits should be sufficient or at worse a fine by those who accredited the auditor.
Now, just to be clear, when I say a "failure by the auditor to report accurately" I mean it is again a known accreditation that is current at the time of the audit as specified by the contract. So if they sign the contract saying the auditor will accredit against version 1.0, and 10 seconds later version 1.1 is release by the agency providing the audit guidelines then the auditor should be held against version 1.0, not 1.1. (That's not to say that it might be appropriate for the auditor to note it to the customer, and ensure they get audited against the right version - they should.) That is to say - there are limits.
In other industries (e.g. the bridge building) it can also mean criminal prosecution of the auditor - for criminal negligence. I would argue the same should apply here.
Looks like we'd have found it without the Ancients or Goul'ds too...
Well...someone had to say it.
IANAL, but...
It depends on what they did to "compete unfairly". For example, it is not illegal for a vendor to have a contract with an OEM that the OEM could not buy a competitor's products if the vendor is not in a market monopoly position.
On the other hand, it is illegal for them to bribe, blackmail, or threaten someone to sign the contract.
To summarize - my point (and the GP's point) is the antitrust laws define a monopoly, and unless the entity falls into that definition there is a lot they can do that they couldn't do otherwise. Anti-trust laws only limit what a monopoly can do - not everyone else.
It's certainly possible that upgradeable BIOS-like OS's may be where the OS market is going, but it will mostly depend on the implementation and the requirement that it be upgradeable be present.
If they try to do the BIOS OS without any ability to upgrade it, then there will be no way to fix the problems of the OS, and enthusiasts won't buy them. So being able to upgrade the BIOS OS would be necessary.
Secondly, why limit the BIOS OS to just being a thin-client? The user could have a hard drive of some sort (external, internal, USB stick, etc.). Why not provide the ability to store and load apps from there? Let there be thick-clients too.
This would be nice from the aspect that the hardware vendor would have to ensure the BIOS OS could work with all the hardware present. So out-of-the-box support by Linux would be the norm (since nearly all the present BIOS OS-like solutions are Linux-based).
Vendors like MS would have a more difficult time playing in the market since they require more space/power/memory/etc to function, and they won't likely go for letting WinCE be put on every computer when they could be selling Vista or Win7 instead.
So there is a lot of promise, but only if vendors do it right. Otherwise, it'll fail quite badly.
You still face the problem of receiving the data over the network and parsing the header first using unknown buffer sizes...so no, while that may help at the application/XML layer, it does not solve the problem across the spectrum...
There's far more to using memcpy than reallocating memory buffers. You may go from compile-time buffers to fully dynamic buffers or vice-versa, (realloc() won't help you there) or you may go to existing already allocated memory....
Regardless (we do agree) you do need to keep track of what you're doing. And ANY good program(mer) does.
Personally, I detest Microsoft's "Secure" style here. It's not standards based, and it breaks portability like crazy. In some ways its nice they are doing this, but they should have it disabled by default per warnings, or at least let people set via a compiler flag (instead - accessible as part of the project, even if its turned on by default in the settings) whether you want to do that and give a warning about portability as a result. That, for starters, would be a lot more helpful than their current implementation.