It's not implying anything of the sort. It's making the point that DivX was so popular, even Sony (who loves creating proprietary, Sony-only formats) added support for it to the PS3.
But that's not was written. It simply said that Sony loves proprietary formats - not that it loves Sony-created proprietary formats. Even if it did say that, it still doesn't make sense, as Sony also supports MPEG, H.264 and Windows Media on the PS3. So, what's so surprising about DivX?
Seems to me it was just an excuse to add a troll about Sony. I mean why not mention Microsoft in the same sentence, a company which loves proprietary formats just as much as Sony.
Eventually even Sony, the king of proprietary formats, caved into pressure and added DivX support to its DVD players and the PlayStation 3.
DivX is a proprietary format. The summary seems to be implying that somehow it is not. Sony licensed DivX from the company that created it, it didn't use some "open" implementation.
And since Apple is infringing patents and doesn't agree to the standard cross licensing,
What's your evidence of this? Nokia alleges that its patents are being infringed, but that doesn't mean it's true. Same in reverse. Does the fact that Apple has alleged that Nokia is infringing its patents mean it is true?
But these companies have always acted in their own self-interest. So wanting openness from others, while not wanting to give openness to others is not irony, just standard business practice.
About a week ago I noticed that Firefox kept crashing on some specific pages, so out of curiosity I decided to load one of them in IE - bad, bad idea. The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippled.
What kind of web page was that, and what was so compelling about it that you decided to use IE to get it to load?
Well, of course you can't rely on reviews alone. That's why I suggested a variety of methods. And, of course, I included "common sense" which involves realizing that test data might be inaccurate, or reviews biased.
Overall, I've always found buying the least expensive item to usually be one of the worst choices. If you buy based simply on what's cheapest, you often end up with stuff that breaks and is unreliable. You end up paying more in the long-run, because you need to replace your stuff more often, and you also get a worse experience while using that stuff.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to fork out for the most expensive gear, which often has minimal advantage over the mid-range gear. Unless, of course, you have very specific needs where paying several times more is absolutely worth it.
In summary, it all depends on the particular scenario, and going with a one-size-fits-all rule is not very wise.
I find this very interesting, as I deal quite a bit with this kind of equipment. However, I guess the difference is that I don't really follow small, less-known companies that sell equipment for suspiciously marked-up prices, or make bold claims about their quality.
Sure, I know there are tons of Chinese/Taiwanese companies making cheap knock-offs of popular products, but this is an entirely different game. How do they find enough suckers to fall for it? It seems so obvious and too easy to be caught out.
One of the sites linked to by this story, in turn linked to a glowing review of this Blu-Ray player by another site that praised its superiority over the very Oppo unit it is "based" on.
With my interest piqued, I browsed a little more on this site, and found a review for an HD projector that sounded weirdly similar in that it appears to be a JVC projector that has been repackaged and rebadged at a higher price, and got a similarly glowing review. Without any real technical scrutiny, of course. I wonder how many more products are out there of a similarly repackaged and fraudulent nature.
Haha, and some people ridicule me...because I always buy cheapest.
That's just as stupid as always buying the most expensive thing. What you should be looking for is quality and value.
I'm curious, though. Do you apply this philosophy to everything? For example do you always buy the cheapest food, regardless of how it tastes, or how nutritious it is? Are you posting this from a 286 or a Vic 20, rather than a more expensive modern computer?
Isn't it ironic that owners of other video codecs who are renowned for locking the public out of their formats, by keeping them secret, or trying to charge fees for their use, now don't "want" to be locked out?
Not really, unless you have some radically different definition of "irony" than the rest of the world (excluding Alanis Morrisette) does.
That's a bullshit excuse. What does "economy of scale" have to do with decent design? Even small companies can get basic design right, but apparently Kodak cannot. What does "economy of scale" have to do with business strategy? Even small companies can get basic business strategy right.
Making a few sensors for some high-end camera doesn't make a company a leader. Kodak is in no way a leader in digital imaging. And I say this as someone who was once a big fan of the company.
Yes, the future is either going to be biologically engineered disaster of zombies, or robots that get programmed for peace keeping by killing all humans.
Why the false dichotomy? It could just as likely be zombie robots, or robot zombies.
A controller is anything that controls something. Anyone with a basic knowledge of English can tell you that. The term is not limited to "the thing with sticks and buttons."
Slashdot Mirror
No, its been that way since the dawn of recorded time.
That's impossible, since the USA has not existed since the dawn of recorded time.
It will continue long after America is no longer of any importance at all.
If the US is no longer important, how would it have the power to push around Central America?
Just figuring this out now ... did you bother to go to your high school history class?
Did you?
But Sony didn't implement Xvid, it implemented DivX, and Xvid's openness is actually not guaranteed because of patents.
It's not implying anything of the sort. It's making the point that DivX was so popular, even Sony (who loves creating proprietary, Sony-only formats) added support for it to the PS3.
But that's not was written. It simply said that Sony loves proprietary formats - not that it loves Sony-created proprietary formats. Even if it did say that, it still doesn't make sense, as Sony also supports MPEG, H.264 and Windows Media on the PS3. So, what's so surprising about DivX?
Seems to me it was just an excuse to add a troll about Sony. I mean why not mention Microsoft in the same sentence, a company which loves proprietary formats just as much as Sony.
Eventually even Sony, the king of proprietary formats, caved into pressure and added DivX support to its DVD players and the PlayStation 3.
DivX is a proprietary format. The summary seems to be implying that somehow it is not. Sony licensed DivX from the company that created it, it didn't use some "open" implementation.
And since Apple is infringing patents and doesn't agree to the standard cross licensing,
What's your evidence of this? Nokia alleges that its patents are being infringed, but that doesn't mean it's true. Same in reverse. Does the fact that Apple has alleged that Nokia is infringing its patents mean it is true?
But these companies have always acted in their own self-interest. So wanting openness from others, while not wanting to give openness to others is not irony, just standard business practice.
Why do I get the feeling that the bot's first words are going to be OMGWTFBBQ?
Except that is not a word, let alone words.
It's a German federal agency, not the German government.
???
About a week ago I noticed that Firefox kept crashing on some specific pages, so out of curiosity I decided to load one of them in IE - bad, bad idea. The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippled.
What kind of web page was that, and what was so compelling about it that you decided to use IE to get it to load?
Well, of course you can't rely on reviews alone. That's why I suggested a variety of methods. And, of course, I included "common sense" which involves realizing that test data might be inaccurate, or reviews biased.
Overall, I've always found buying the least expensive item to usually be one of the worst choices. If you buy based simply on what's cheapest, you often end up with stuff that breaks and is unreliable. You end up paying more in the long-run, because you need to replace your stuff more often, and you also get a worse experience while using that stuff.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to fork out for the most expensive gear, which often has minimal advantage over the mid-range gear. Unless, of course, you have very specific needs where paying several times more is absolutely worth it.
In summary, it all depends on the particular scenario, and going with a one-size-fits-all rule is not very wise.
I find this very interesting, as I deal quite a bit with this kind of equipment. However, I guess the difference is that I don't really follow small, less-known companies that sell equipment for suspiciously marked-up prices, or make bold claims about their quality.
Sure, I know there are tons of Chinese/Taiwanese companies making cheap knock-offs of popular products, but this is an entirely different game. How do they find enough suckers to fall for it? It seems so obvious and too easy to be caught out.
But how can I determine quality? Most THX buyers would have thought, that they bought quality.
By using your intelligence, your senses, your common sense. By reading reviews and examining test data.
Faster ram? Better quality? I would not notice the difference so I don't care. When I take the cheapest I cannot be cheated.
On the contrary. Poor quality RAM is a significant cause of computer crashes and problems.
Janet Napolitano who makes former FEMA chief Mike Brown look like Rudy Giuliani.
Is that supposed to be a compliment or an insult?
INVITED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SAUDI ARABIA... Do you concede to the lunatic fringe
The government of Saudi Arabia is a part of the lunatic fringe.
One of the sites linked to by this story, in turn linked to a glowing review of this Blu-Ray player by another site that praised its superiority over the very Oppo unit it is "based" on.
With my interest piqued, I browsed a little more on this site, and found a review for an HD projector that sounded weirdly similar in that it appears to be a JVC projector that has been repackaged and rebadged at a higher price, and got a similarly glowing review. Without any real technical scrutiny, of course. I wonder how many more products are out there of a similarly repackaged and fraudulent nature.
Haha, and some people ridicule me ...because I always buy cheapest.
That's just as stupid as always buying the most expensive thing. What you should be looking for is quality and value.
I'm curious, though. Do you apply this philosophy to everything? For example do you always buy the cheapest food, regardless of how it tastes, or how nutritious it is? Are you posting this from a 286 or a Vic 20, rather than a more expensive modern computer?
Thursday, 2004 July 1
That's some really fucking weird date formatting. What's up with that?
Isn't it ironic that owners of other video codecs who are renowned for locking the public out of their formats, by keeping them secret, or trying to charge fees for their use, now don't "want" to be locked out?
Not really, unless you have some radically different definition of "irony" than the rest of the world (excluding Alanis Morrisette) does.
That's a bullshit excuse. What does "economy of scale" have to do with decent design? Even small companies can get basic design right, but apparently Kodak cannot. What does "economy of scale" have to do with business strategy? Even small companies can get basic business strategy right.
Making a few sensors for some high-end camera doesn't make a company a leader. Kodak is in no way a leader in digital imaging. And I say this as someone who was once a big fan of the company.
Given that Google would be the one to "untie" itself from IE, it would make a lot of difference.
How, exactly?
Yes, the future is either going to be biologically engineered disaster of zombies, or robots that get programmed for peace keeping by killing all humans.
Why the false dichotomy? It could just as likely be zombie robots, or robot zombies.
Is a steering wheel a controller, or it is a steering wheel? It controls a car.
It's both, obviously.
Back on topic, if Natal is not a controller, then it's useless for gaming. How do you play a game if you can't control it?
'Prior to being appointed'? So the man now with the power DOESN'T believe this?
Doesn't believe WHAT? The paper is a discussion of conspiracy theorists, not a policy recommendation.
A controller is anything that controls something. Anyone with a basic knowledge of English can tell you that. The term is not limited to "the thing with sticks and buttons."
Why is our tax money being used for this?
It isn't. The article is about an academic paper written by the appointee, prior to being appointed. It's not an actual policy or proposal.