for the benefit of the consumer. I'm sure everyone here understands that.
Steven Soderbergh and everyone else in Hollywood are only trying to figure out ways to maximize *their own profits*, not the $$$'s in *our* wallets or our own good times.
Slate recently had an excellent piece about Iger, NATO, and "the windows" that explained why Hollywood wants to shorten the windows and why Big Theater are so apopleptic about that. Highly recommended reading.
And BTW, I suspect Soderbergh et al. will continue to release movies in the theaters at least simultaneously with the On Demand / DVD / Movielink / etc. releases in order to qualify for an Academy Award -- or at least until the Academy changes that rule.
1. Sell Xbox 360 at a significant loss on each unit. 2. ??? 3. Profit!
We finally know what "2. ???" means. Indeed, the headline on news.com's home page is "Profit Plan For Xbox 360."
Seriously, TFA also reveals other interesting items in Mad Catz Interactive's agreement with Microsoft. But I consider these to be real head-scratchers. Quoting TFA:
"The Mad Catz license agreement also puts limits on the type of controllers that third parties can make. Most notably, the add-on products can only be of the corded variety, while Microsoft itself is supporting wireless controllers.
"In addition to the restrictions on wireless products, the Mad Catz contract excludes light guns, memory units, hard drives and cheat cards. Licensed peripherals include game pads, steering wheels, arcade sticks, flight sticks and dance pads."
My question: if Microsoft intends this new licensing scheme to be a signifcant source of revenue, why would Microsoft prohibit Mad Catz [and others???] from making wireless controllers? Surely Microsoft sees that as a real growth area. Is it just naked anticompetitive behavior from Microsoft? [Gee, I wonder how *this* crowd will answer *that* question?;)
I agree wholeheartedly with the Parent's point about the business case for Apple working with VMWare and/or other virtualization technology to allow OS/X Server to run in the datacenter on IBM, Dell, HP, etc., servers.
Recall the two reasons why Apple does not want to release OS/X [Desktop] for commodity desktop x86 hardware: 1) Apple makes a lot of $$$ on their proprietary hardware -- they want people to keep buying it; and 2) Apple does not want to blow this $$$ or their reputation for a quality OS by being forced to provide support for every conceivable piece of hardware out there -- Steve Jobs knows how much grief Microsoft has endured playing this game. [Contrarian view: Steve Jobs also knows how much money Microsoft has made by offering to support all of that commodity hardware, and not just one closed box.]
In the datacenter, Apple could allow VMWare et al. to worry about supporting the hardware and the Host OS -- all Apple would have to do is work with VMWare to make sure VMWare presents a faux "Mac" to the OS/X Server installation.
Then, Apple would be able to collect its licensing fees -- without the cost of competing with IBM, Dell, HP, etc., in new hardware -- and show off its OS technology to win over new converts.
Indeed, HTTP/FTP download/install is available and can be slow, depending on one's connection [my last install took over 2 hours across a reasonably good DSL line]. However, SuSE has made CD and DVD ISO's available for download, and you can also find them in the torrent.
If you want to install "from the 'Net", the procedure involves booting install CD #1 and at the inital "boot:" prompt entering:
linux install=[http/ftp]://ip.address.of.mirror/path/to/ directory/ending/with/arch/9.3[or other version]
I totally agree with parent -- Install across 'Net can be slow, but SuSE 9.3 is a *fabulous* "desktop" distro and is my distro of choice on capable hardware. I haven't set up any servers on SuSE [just because], so I can't comment either way on that.
By blocking out a certain website, they show an inclination to censor access to the internet, so they should be forced to censor porn, at least upon request. They can no longer say "we can't do that" because they've shown that actually, they can and are willing (in certain circumstances) to censor access.
IANACTL [I Am Not A Canadian Telecom Lawyer], but I think we should not assume without more authoritative information that Canada's laws are the same as or similar to the US laws vis-a-vis ISPs-as-common carriers.
From TFA: "[Company PR flak] McArthur says the company has the right to block access to certain sites under a service agreement it has with customers." It may be that Telus has both the legal and contractual right to do this. TFA also notes that the affected Union has filed a complaint with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), so there probably will be some determination about the legality of this action under Canadian [i.e., non-Slashdot] law.
Mod me "Troll" or "Offtopic" if necessary...Nothing personal re: MightyMartian...
I am reminded of a Simpsons episode [mod: Redundant] in which ComicBookGuy tries to "return" a fancy-shmancy "belt" he won as a prize at a Star Trek convention, in part because it's only a size "medium"...
The vendor says:
"Ooh, a fat, sarcastic Star Trek fan....You must be a devil with the ladies...."
I have my own fond memories of [A]D&D, but, c'mon, a front page story about a new DM Guide???
Zonk, you're killing me!!!
xo
"Not having seen the wiki myself but knowing the type of obscene pictures that would get posted from slashdot, it sounds like the LA Times got flooded with images of Goatse...."
"Oh, Wiki, You're (Not) So Fine... Last Friday, the LAT launched a "wikitorial"--an editorial in which readers took part in a grand, group rewriting--or what's known in colloquial terms as a clusterf***. It was taken down Sunday afternoon. This morning's LAT gives the gory details:
"'Sometime after midnight Saturday, [one Times editor said], he stopped monitoring the site for the night, and later pornographic images began to pour in. One image that was repeatedly posted is infamous on the Internet for its depiction of a man's private parts.'
"TP is familiar with the image. But he won't be, er, goated into revealing it...."
And here's the link to the referenced piece [whoa!] in the LAT.
Cheers.
Slashdot Mirror
for the benefit of the consumer. I'm sure everyone here understands that.
Steven Soderbergh and everyone else in Hollywood are only trying to figure out ways to maximize *their own profits*, not the $$$'s in *our* wallets or our own good times.
Slate recently had an excellent piece about Iger, NATO, and "the windows" that explained why Hollywood wants to shorten the windows and why Big Theater are so apopleptic about that. Highly recommended reading.
And BTW, I suspect Soderbergh et al. will continue to release movies in the theaters at least simultaneously with the On Demand / DVD / Movielink / etc. releases in order to qualify for an Academy Award -- or at least until the Academy changes that rule.
$.021. Sell Xbox 360 at a significant loss on each unit.
;)
/me
2. ???
3. Profit!
We finally know what "2. ???" means. Indeed, the headline on news.com's home page is "Profit Plan For Xbox 360."
Seriously, TFA also reveals other interesting items in Mad Catz Interactive's agreement with Microsoft. But I consider these to be real head-scratchers. Quoting TFA:
"The Mad Catz license agreement also puts limits on the type of controllers that third parties can make. Most notably, the add-on products can only be of the corded variety, while Microsoft itself is supporting wireless controllers.
"In addition to the restrictions on wireless products, the Mad Catz contract excludes light guns, memory units, hard drives and cheat cards. Licensed peripherals include game pads, steering wheels, arcade sticks, flight sticks and dance pads."
My question: if Microsoft intends this new licensing scheme to be a signifcant source of revenue, why would Microsoft prohibit Mad Catz [and others???] from making wireless controllers? Surely Microsoft sees that as a real growth area. Is it just naked anticompetitive behavior from Microsoft? [Gee, I wonder how *this* crowd will answer *that* question?
Cheers.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Parent's point about the business case for Apple working with VMWare and/or other virtualization technology to allow OS/X Server to run in the datacenter on IBM, Dell, HP, etc., servers.
Recall the two reasons why Apple does not want to release OS/X [Desktop] for commodity desktop x86 hardware: 1) Apple makes a lot of $$$ on their proprietary hardware -- they want people to keep buying it; and 2) Apple does not want to blow this $$$ or their reputation for a quality OS by being forced to provide support for every conceivable piece of hardware out there -- Steve Jobs knows how much grief Microsoft has endured playing this game. [Contrarian view: Steve Jobs also knows how much money Microsoft has made by offering to support all of that commodity hardware, and not just one closed box.]
In the datacenter, Apple could allow VMWare et al. to worry about supporting the hardware and the Host OS -- all Apple would have to do is work with VMWare to make sure VMWare presents a faux "Mac" to the OS/X Server installation.
Then, Apple would be able to collect its licensing fees -- without the cost of competing with IBM, Dell, HP, etc., in new hardware -- and show off its OS technology to win over new converts.
I hope Steve is thinking along the same lines.
Indeed, HTTP/FTP download/install is available and can be slow, depending on one's connection [my last install took over 2 hours across a reasonably good DSL line]. However, SuSE has made CD and DVD ISO's available for download, and you can also find them in the torrent.
If you want to install "from the 'Net", the procedure involves booting install CD #1 and at the inital "boot:" prompt entering:
linux install=[http/ftp]://ip.address.of.mirror/path/to/ directory/ending/with/arch/9.3[or other version]
I totally agree with parent -- Install across 'Net can be slow, but SuSE 9.3 is a *fabulous* "desktop" distro and is my distro of choice on capable hardware. I haven't set up any servers on SuSE [just because], so I can't comment either way on that.
By blocking out a certain website, they show an inclination to censor access to the internet, so they should be forced to censor porn, at least upon request. They can no longer say "we can't do that" because they've shown that actually, they can and are willing (in certain circumstances) to censor access.
IANACTL [I Am Not A Canadian Telecom Lawyer], but I think we should not assume without more authoritative information that Canada's laws are the same as or similar to the US laws vis-a-vis ISPs-as-common carriers.
From TFA: "[Company PR flak] McArthur says the company has the right to block access to certain sites under a service agreement it has with customers." It may be that Telus has both the legal and contractual right to do this. TFA also notes that the affected Union has filed a complaint with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), so there probably will be some determination about the legality of this action under Canadian [i.e., non-Slashdot] law.
My CAD 0.02Mod me "Troll" or "Offtopic" if necessary...Nothing personal re: MightyMartian... I am reminded of a Simpsons episode [mod: Redundant] in which ComicBookGuy tries to "return" a fancy-shmancy "belt" he won as a prize at a Star Trek convention, in part because it's only a size "medium"... The vendor says: "Ooh, a fat, sarcastic Star Trek fan....You must be a devil with the ladies...." I have my own fond memories of [A]D&D, but, c'mon, a front page story about a new DM Guide??? Zonk, you're killing me!!! xo
"Not having seen the wiki myself but knowing the type of obscene pictures that would get posted from slashdot, it sounds like the LA Times got flooded with images of Goatse...."
Slate's "Today's Papers" entry agrees:"Oh, Wiki, You're (Not) So Fine ... Last Friday, the LAT launched a "wikitorial"--an editorial in which readers took part in a grand, group rewriting--or what's known in colloquial terms as a clusterf***. It was taken down Sunday afternoon. This morning's LAT gives the gory details:
"'Sometime after midnight Saturday, [one Times editor said], he stopped monitoring the site for the night, and later pornographic images began to pour in. One image that was repeatedly posted is infamous on the Internet for its depiction of a man's private parts.'
"TP is familiar with the image. But he won't be, er, goated into revealing it...."
And here's the link to the referenced piece [whoa!] in the LAT. Cheers.