Quit being so god damn picky, so it was in AAC not MP3 the point is still valid and accurate nitpicky dumbass moron.
Yes flamebait was intentional and it was deserved for the sheer stupidity.
I have read previews on the internet that the new HD-DVD players that your company will be releasing will only support the HDMI interface. This is a situation that as a consumer, and an early adopter of HDTV that seriously concerns me. HDTV is a wonderful technology, but the consumer electronics industry is totally screwing over the consumers. First the original standard was supposed to be RGB, that got changed to Y-Pb-Pr. This did hurt me in my original purchase. Since then, I have bought an HDTV, but it only has component inputs on it, there is no HDMI interface on it. So now that I have bought a new $3000 tv, I can't use one of your HD-DVD players on it? This is totally alienating people like me. Are you going to replace my 52" tv which is less than a year old? At best case, you will alienate your consumers to the point that you will not sell these units. At worst case, consumers are going to get fed up with this constantly changing standard and file a class action lawsuit against irresponsible companies that are totally screwing us over.
Please explain this situation to me.
Thank you,
Brian Emenaker,
concerned consumer
Do you apple boys ever read a press release? Apple is going to pentium 4. Not even apple fans are crazy enough to buy a $1000+ processor. Not box, processor.
Considering all die size improvements and heat and electrical improvements that AMD has put into their procs, and that they all came from IBM, I really have a hard time fully believing this. IBM even produces a large amount of AMD's chips.
I can't dismiss your post, but I swallow it with a very large grain of salt.
Apple has already said no to this. They, at the moment, are very stupidly limiting their o/s to their overpriced Intel boxes. Hence, zero gain, and even more loss in market share. My aunt and uncle are not going to pay more for an Appltel, they will buy a Dell for $300 less.
Sorry Apple, but if you want to play in Intel land, you better open up to whitebox. Oh yeah, then you couldn't stand on the little hill you made and say, see our drivers work all the time.
It's not all about volume. This is one of the points of the AMDvsIntel lawsuit, (not illegal in and of itself, but how it's accomplished is the question). Intel will give you a discount if you switch your entire product line over to them. If you RTFA, he discusses this well known fact.
It is pretty common for suppliers to give you breaks like that. It would behoove Intel to offer a discount on pentiums to move more xscale. Right now, xscale is still playing catchup to ARM which had a three year lead on xscale, (if my memory serves me right).
Then why default to an obscure file system. THE WORLD USES ISO 9660 or Juliet. I haven't seen a system out there that can't read those systems. Oh wait, Apple has to be different, can't follow industry standards. No wonder they are such a niche player.
Yes this was written in an offensive style. Why? I am sick of Appleheads coming out an screaming at the critics saying, "It aint broke, we are just different." Does it work in the other 99% of the computers out there in the world by default? NO? THEN IT'S BROKE MORON!!!!!
If you don't understand that, then you can't even begin to understand this usability discussion on linux.
You are wrong in thinking that morality has to have a judgement of a higher power. Look up the definition of morals. The main accepted definiton of morals relies on a judgement of right and wrong by you, not by a higher power.
What you are trying to imply is that you have to be an anarchist to be an atheist, and that is not true. There is an accepted definition that atheism is tied to immorality, but this is taking a lesser, but accepted definition that morality requires god.
Philisophically, I do not believe in god, I find it a silly concept. Do I believe in ethics and morals, yes. They are synonyms. I used to say I was an agnostic, and the main principle of it, is my way of viewing knowledge, show me the proof, and I'll accept it. Do I believe in god, no, nor will I ever. If you want to take it in a religious context, I have chosen my side, I don't believe in god, therefore I can no longer be an agnostic, I am an atheist.
Not to come off as hard on you as others, but the other poster is right, being an atheist has nothing to do with this. I am an atheist. I also show more respect for my fellow man, and am a bigger believer in the idea of all of us are equal, than anyone I know.
Belief in faith has absolutely nothing to do with belief in equality, morality, or ethics.
I fully understand not every politcal leader out there believes in those things. Do you think they even teach the Magna Charter in Iran or N. Korea? How could they even teach their society about it, it would be their own downfall.
The US is not a completely free society, and unfortunately, I don't think humans are capable of sustaining one. But we are pretty open, is there better ways, sure. Information brings enlightenment, so let's let it all flow.
I can't think of the name of any of the programs off the top of my head, but there are programs written specifically to deal with China's censorship. The one I can clearly remember, randomly hops proxies for users there. They ask people outside of China to run a proxy on their machine, and small amounts of your bandwidth gets used to reflect Chinese users. The more reflectors they have, the harder it is to defeat.
You are missing the point. It is a greater social issue to ask is censorship ethical. This was one of the founding principles of the US. You could argue many instances here it is now an issue once again, but I digress.
Is it ethical to censor news and information in any form? After all, was this not where the principles of hacking came from? (yes the first hackers were building computers, but they did so away from corporations, so they could share the knowledge) The free spread of information?
I can completely understand why places like China, N. Korea, and Iran want to control the information in their countries. Their entire power structure is based on controlling society. How do you accomplish control of society, through the knowledge you grant it.
This is not about pushing US values on China, but a much larger social question. What inalienable human rights do we have to seek out information? This is the question.
I personally feel this is one of the biggest global questions we should be asking ourselves right now. Along with other human rights issues, such as those plaguing Africa.
From reading the gov't release, it sounds like the US is trying to maintain physical control over the boxes, but is still handing off all administration and support to ICANN. Am I not understanding the report correctly. I read the gov't release, and not the news statements on this issue.
I have long felt that the internet, while created by the US, should evolve into a complete international body. That ICANN should take over all authority of the internet. Unfortunately, this will bring the same level of difficulty as the UN has, but to a lesser degree.
I have long felt that as we evolve, (socially, and politically), the idea that all of the earth will eventually fall under one global gov't will happen. I also feel that this won't happen until long after space travel becomes a normal mundane thing. Systems like the internet, will not only help bring this, but are an essential part of this.
Keeping with that mentality, the internet needs to serve everyone's interest, and to do so, it must be controlled by an open body made up of an international representation.
You should study business practises a little more carefully. Intel has had a history of being just as predatory as Microsoft on and off through the years. Dell, Gateway, and Micron all have complained over the years that they wanted to sell other chips, but were threatened support/pricing from Intel if they did.
Unfortunately, the problem with high speed trains in the US is the same as everything else in the US when it comes to infrastructure. We are too damn big!! They have been fighting to get a light rail project going in Ohio for years now, (still isn't because the greedy bastards behind it served their interest first, and not the greater good. Yes that was the states reason for rejecting the original plan)
As I was saying, the problem we have here, is thousands of miles of existing track, that is completely unsuitable for high speeds. They would have to lay new, or rip up and redo all existing tracks to go high speed. Though it would be great for us, noone wants to invest in the infrastructure.
I have been wanting to see this happen for years, a $10 ticket and I can be in any city in Ohio in 2 hours? Not too mention, a good light rail system in Cincinnati, could cut the traffic problems in half. We have one of the worst public trans. systems I have ever seen here.
First off, the SC ruling is sending this case back to the appallete court to be ruled on again. Let's not forget that. The SC hasn't been willing to totally trample the Betamax decision, and from the way I am interpretting it, they are still upholding that decision. VCR's were never advertised as being able to copy the movies you rent, (sure, the video rental store had just started so, it wasn't really possible). If you remember back when these programs first started, they did pretty blatently advertise their illegal usage ability. From what the SC is saying here so far, that is what got them in trouble. Programs like BT have never pushed the idea that you can illegally d/l with it. That puts them back inline with the Betamax ruling.
So now the appallette court has to go back and look at Grokster's intent. Law is about motive and intent, well on the criminal side.
While this is bad for Grokster, and a few others out there, I don't see this as a blanket kill shot for P2P, and in fact, I see this as a blanket protection, for some current, and future P2P programs, but a few of the older ones, are left flapping in the breeze. The court has now told all of you developers how to protect yourself in the future. Be very explicit in stating your views in the perspective use of your P2P program, and that you are against breaking the law, and you have not shown that you intend to do so. Therefore, you get Betamax at your back.
my $.02, I've been wrong before.
"Thomas Jefferson opined in the Federalist Papers that we would not be in danger of losing our guaranteed liberties until all three branches of the government became united in their views and doctrines. It seems that we are moving in that direction, or perhaps we are already there."
I couldn't agree more!!! Tyranny of the majority is a major threat to us right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Quit being so god damn picky, so it was in AAC not MP3 the point is still valid and accurate nitpicky dumbass moron. Yes flamebait was intentional and it was deserved for the sheer stupidity.
I have read previews on the internet that the new HD-DVD players that your company will be releasing will only support the HDMI interface. This is a situation that as a consumer, and an early adopter of HDTV that seriously concerns me. HDTV is a wonderful technology, but the consumer electronics industry is totally screwing over the consumers. First the original standard was supposed to be RGB, that got changed to Y-Pb-Pr. This did hurt me in my original purchase. Since then, I have bought an HDTV, but it only has component inputs on it, there is no HDMI interface on it. So now that I have bought a new $3000 tv, I can't use one of your HD-DVD players on it? This is totally alienating people like me. Are you going to replace my 52" tv which is less than a year old? At best case, you will alienate your consumers to the point that you will not sell these units. At worst case, consumers are going to get fed up with this constantly changing standard and file a class action lawsuit against irresponsible companies that are totally screwing us over. Please explain this situation to me. Thank you, Brian Emenaker, concerned consumer
Do you apple boys ever read a press release? Apple is going to pentium 4. Not even apple fans are crazy enough to buy a $1000+ processor. Not box, processor.
I can't dismiss your post, but I swallow it with a very large grain of salt.
Sorry Apple, but if you want to play in Intel land, you better open up to whitebox. Oh yeah, then you couldn't stand on the little hill you made and say, see our drivers work all the time.
Intel is not behind AMD in 64 bit chips? Have you even seen a comparison review of the two chips lately? Put the crack pipe down.
It is pretty common for suppliers to give you breaks like that. It would behoove Intel to offer a discount on pentiums to move more xscale. Right now, xscale is still playing catchup to ARM which had a three year lead on xscale, (if my memory serves me right).
Yeah, it's called newsgroups. :D
This is the funniest post I have read all day. :) hehehehehe I can't help it, but I just can't take this post serious.
It will still carry a Mickey's Wide Mouth!!!
Are you always so specific?
SHow me proof of god, and I'll burn my science book.
Yes this was written in an offensive style. Why? I am sick of Appleheads coming out an screaming at the critics saying, "It aint broke, we are just different." Does it work in the other 99% of the computers out there in the world by default? NO? THEN IT'S BROKE MORON!!!!!
If you don't understand that, then you can't even begin to understand this usability discussion on linux.
that is why all 3 branches should not be under one house.
Not all public schools are bad. I regularly debate with people who went to catholic schools in the area, who don't have a fucking clue.
What you are trying to imply is that you have to be an anarchist to be an atheist, and that is not true. There is an accepted definition that atheism is tied to immorality, but this is taking a lesser, but accepted definition that morality requires god.
Philisophically, I do not believe in god, I find it a silly concept. Do I believe in ethics and morals, yes. They are synonyms. I used to say I was an agnostic, and the main principle of it, is my way of viewing knowledge, show me the proof, and I'll accept it. Do I believe in god, no, nor will I ever. If you want to take it in a religious context, I have chosen my side, I don't believe in god, therefore I can no longer be an agnostic, I am an atheist.
Belief in faith has absolutely nothing to do with belief in equality, morality, or ethics.
I fully understand not every politcal leader out there believes in those things. Do you think they even teach the Magna Charter in Iran or N. Korea? How could they even teach their society about it, it would be their own downfall.
The US is not a completely free society, and unfortunately, I don't think humans are capable of sustaining one. But we are pretty open, is there better ways, sure. Information brings enlightenment, so let's let it all flow.
I can't think of the name of any of the programs off the top of my head, but there are programs written specifically to deal with China's censorship. The one I can clearly remember, randomly hops proxies for users there. They ask people outside of China to run a proxy on their machine, and small amounts of your bandwidth gets used to reflect Chinese users. The more reflectors they have, the harder it is to defeat.
Is it ethical to censor news and information in any form? After all, was this not where the principles of hacking came from? (yes the first hackers were building computers, but they did so away from corporations, so they could share the knowledge) The free spread of information?
I can completely understand why places like China, N. Korea, and Iran want to control the information in their countries. Their entire power structure is based on controlling society. How do you accomplish control of society, through the knowledge you grant it.
This is not about pushing US values on China, but a much larger social question. What inalienable human rights do we have to seek out information? This is the question.
I personally feel this is one of the biggest global questions we should be asking ourselves right now. Along with other human rights issues, such as those plaguing Africa.
I have long felt that the internet, while created by the US, should evolve into a complete international body. That ICANN should take over all authority of the internet. Unfortunately, this will bring the same level of difficulty as the UN has, but to a lesser degree.
I have long felt that as we evolve, (socially, and politically), the idea that all of the earth will eventually fall under one global gov't will happen. I also feel that this won't happen until long after space travel becomes a normal mundane thing. Systems like the internet, will not only help bring this, but are an essential part of this.
Keeping with that mentality, the internet needs to serve everyone's interest, and to do so, it must be controlled by an open body made up of an international representation.
You should study business practises a little more carefully. Intel has had a history of being just as predatory as Microsoft on and off through the years. Dell, Gateway, and Micron all have complained over the years that they wanted to sell other chips, but were threatened support/pricing from Intel if they did.
Didn't Dell complain one time that this was part of the reason they don't sell AMD?
As I was saying, the problem we have here, is thousands of miles of existing track, that is completely unsuitable for high speeds. They would have to lay new, or rip up and redo all existing tracks to go high speed. Though it would be great for us, noone wants to invest in the infrastructure.
I have been wanting to see this happen for years, a $10 ticket and I can be in any city in Ohio in 2 hours? Not too mention, a good light rail system in Cincinnati, could cut the traffic problems in half. We have one of the worst public trans. systems I have ever seen here.
First off, the SC ruling is sending this case back to the appallete court to be ruled on again. Let's not forget that. The SC hasn't been willing to totally trample the Betamax decision, and from the way I am interpretting it, they are still upholding that decision. VCR's were never advertised as being able to copy the movies you rent, (sure, the video rental store had just started so, it wasn't really possible). If you remember back when these programs first started, they did pretty blatently advertise their illegal usage ability. From what the SC is saying here so far, that is what got them in trouble. Programs like BT have never pushed the idea that you can illegally d/l with it. That puts them back inline with the Betamax ruling. So now the appallette court has to go back and look at Grokster's intent. Law is about motive and intent, well on the criminal side. While this is bad for Grokster, and a few others out there, I don't see this as a blanket kill shot for P2P, and in fact, I see this as a blanket protection, for some current, and future P2P programs, but a few of the older ones, are left flapping in the breeze. The court has now told all of you developers how to protect yourself in the future. Be very explicit in stating your views in the perspective use of your P2P program, and that you are against breaking the law, and you have not shown that you intend to do so. Therefore, you get Betamax at your back. my $.02, I've been wrong before.
"Thomas Jefferson opined in the Federalist Papers that we would not be in danger of losing our guaranteed liberties until all three branches of the government became united in their views and doctrines. It seems that we are moving in that direction, or perhaps we are already there." I couldn't agree more!!! Tyranny of the majority is a major threat to us right now.