If you popped a Paramount BD into your Oppo Blu-ray player and it didn't pay, why would you sue Sony?
It might be possible to make incompatible discs with BD+, but it's possible to make them without BD+ too. Hell, you can make a DVD that doesn't work in regular DVD players by fooling with the scripting enough (idiot companies have done it in errant attempts to enforce region codes and such).
I'm actually pretty angered that I can't rip BDs again (and despite what the article says, there are more than 19 of them), but I can't blame Sony because FOX wanted to make Point Break unrippable.
Either the question was misunderstood or the households they surveyed do not represent a valid sample, because there weren't enough HD-DVD players sold for 11% of US households to have an HD-DVD player. There simply were not 11M made (11% of 100M households).
I would in fact say it might be useless. Clearly the pollsters didn't distinguish between a DVD player (perhaps upconverting) and an HD-DVD player well enough.
I say this because the poll would have you think that 11% of US households have an HD-DVD player. Since there are about 100M households in the US that would mean that 11M US households have an HD-DVD player. This is impossible since Toshiba said there were only 1M standalone players sold plus some number of 360 add-ons, and I can assure you there weren't nearly 10M 360 add-ons made. So there weren't enough players in the world to make this figure nearly as large as it is, even if every HD-DVD player was sold into the US and not elsewhere.
Add in the fact that this study counts consoles separate from standalone players (allegedly), and the actual penetration of HD-DVD into US households mathematically cannot be more than about 2-3% tops.
Just because you say it isn't so doesn't make it not so.
You want to declare you control the definition of the very "to steal" and then tell others how to use it. Well, you're not in control of the language, get over yourself.
Go look in a dictionary, there are a lot of forms of stealing that don't involve physical objects.
'to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.' 'to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show.'
and yes, even
'To give or enjoy (a kiss) that is unexpected or unnoticed.'
The problem here isn't that people are using words incorrectly. The problem is you, you have a narrow definition of the word and you want to tell others they can't do what you wouldn't do in their stead.
You're right, it's not exactly the same as other forms of stealing. But the general term for this is stealing. Presumably this would be listed as another definition in a dictionary.
If you can steal someone's heart, if you can steal a kiss, if you can steal cable, if you can steal an identity, there's no reason this cannot be stealing also.
It has been this way a long time too, stealing cable started in the 70s.
First of all, I am a PS3 fanboy. In the last year, the only game I've played on my 360 is Viva Pinata 2, while I've plated over a dozen on my PS3. I, as a rule, generally prefer the PS3. Your whole argument seems to be that I am a fanboy and deny it. It was a pretty arbitrary assumption on your part to assume that I deny it.
So you didn't take your own advice either.
All the attach rate stuff is garbage. You say one article is slanted? They're all incomplete. For example, you reference an article using the NPDs when the NPDs only cover the US and only cover retail sales of games, which can be misleading since the PS3 was the first major console to offer sales of full games online.
And the main reason this data is incomplete is because it doesn't matter to anyone but the platform holder. The platform holder is the one who loses money on the initial sale and tries to make it up through licensing fees, so the platform holder cares how many licensing fees are paid per console sold. Everyone else only cares about total sales of games. So there is no one who has an incentive to get the information correct and then release it.
In short, it's pointless for you to get excited about which platform has a better attach rate.
360 is slightly ahead of PS3 worldwide on console sales, but the different is (IIRC), less than 10%. It's very difficult to say that if there are enough 360s in the world to justify porting to it, that there aren't enough PS3s to justify porting to it also.
Here's a tip Xest, if you feel personally attacked when someone else says something nice about their favorite console (even incorrectly), you are a fanboy.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? By there being one guy changing parties?
You're lauding the Germans for their Democracy in response to an article about how most of the government there just voted to put in place internet censorship and a framework for DNS redirection to enforce it?
Sounds like they are experiencing many of the same problems with the principles of Democracy that many other countries are having.
'We'? You weren't around then, how exactly do you have a place to stand to shout someone else down? Are you taking credit for having been born on the same contiguous landmass as people who invented the word democracy (and many democratic principles)?
High console price doesn't lead to a low attach rate. It leads to many other problems, but it doesn't lead to a low attach rate.
I think the problem in question is that the high price keeps the console sales down which means there are fewer owners for Activision to sell copies of their games to.
Attach rate is the number of games sold per console sold, not total number of games sold for a particular platform.
There's AT&Ts recent withdrawal of the iPhone from Pay As You Go availability.
Basically, if you want an iPhone on an affordable plan, you can't get it, because AT&T doesn't offer PAYG and because affordable operators like MetroPCS can't offer one either (yes, I realize MetroPCS isn't GSM, it's just an example).
The only problem with your argument is that more recent info has shown that the weather in the vicinity of 447 at the time it crashed was not extreme at all.
MKV cannot become the mp3 of video, because MKV is only a container, while mp3 is a codec.
The problem with container formats is that it is difficult to explain to the customer what they are. For example, say my device supports MKV. But then a customer puts an MKV on with a TrueHD audio stream in it and it doesn't play. The customer gets confused. This has been a problem since the TIFF days. And it is a big part of what's going wrong with ODF. Sure, anyone can write one, but you can't necessarily read anyone else's!
mp3 is mp3. Any mp3 player can play any mp3 file. That's the power of it and a big part of why it is successful. MKV cannot fulfill the same function.
The article doesn't say you can't disable it. In fact, in the screenshot in the article, the disable button is clearly enabled.
The last.NET update did the same thing, put in an extension to FireFox that you couldn't uninstall, only disable. Java does the same thing, I have TWO Java SE FireFox extensions disabled in my list (neither can be uninstalled).
With this latest.NET update the uninstall button actually works for the.NET extension. At least on my Windows 7 machine.
AT&T justifies it by noting that accessing internal content doesn't use up their backhaul bandwidth. I would think the FCC would be somewhat sympathetic to this argument.
What's most important is that for truly equivalent services, the providers should not be able to discriminate.
I wasn't referring to conferences. I was meaning that if you are a vendor who goes to customer locations and gives presentations. Or if you just go to conference rooms inside your company, you'll find all different projectors. I agree that VGA outnumbers DVI even in these cases by at least 3:1, but a true road warrior would need both outputs. Which meant on a MacBook Pro carrying a single adapter. On a new Mac it's 2.
There is no adapter that will let you hook a DVI output to a DisplayPort-only monitor.
There are physical adapters that let you get DVI output from some DisplayPort ports. But it just ties a line on the connector that tells the sending device to not actually send DisplayPort signaling, but send DVI instead. This has a couple problems. First is that you are still paying the DVI licensing fees, including HDCP fees. Second is that if the source device doesn't have this alternate mode, the adapter doesn't work, because it can't convert it itself, it can only tell the sending device to send DVI instead.
Apple's adoption of DisplayPort seems like a disaster so far. If you have a more then 3 month old MacPro or iMac, Apple doesn't have a 24" display they can offer you. If you want to put an Apple 30" display on your MacPro, Mac Mini, MacBook or iMac, you need a $99 adapter that is large, takes up a USB port and doesn't even work right on some displays. And if you want to be able to give a presentation from your MacBook/Macbook Pro, you had better have brought a gaggle of adapters with you, since there isn't a projector on the planet that accepts DisplayPort. Not that you would have a DisplayPort cable to connect to the projector anyway, Apple doesn't even sell one! And even if the projector had a DisplayPort cable already attached, you couldn't use that either because Apple used mini DisplayPort, so it's adapter time again, except Apple doesn't sell that adapter either.
HDTVs are cheaper than flat panel displays in equivalent sizes. But as to your question, unless you want a big panel, don't buy a big panel, it's a waste of money.
Computer display has not been in rapid flux compared to TVs. TVs have gone from not having any input except an antenna input to having composite inputs, then s-video, then component, then HDMI in a little bit under 30 years. In the same time, computer monitors used 3 connectors, the original DB-9 (three flavors, RGB+I, RrGgBb, then analog RGB), then the HDI-15 (VGA connector), then DVI in a slightly shorter timeframe.
In the case of TVs, every change of connector/signaling was due to needing increased resolution except for HDMI. HDMI was to simplify connections, and indeed, a single HDMI connector is far simpler (and cheaper) than 3 RCAs for video + 2 RCAs or a single optical cable for audio.
TVs are by FAR not simpler than computer displays. HDMI allows 36 bit color, it allows more than 3 (RGB) channel color. It also brings audio, including multichannel audio. It also brings control signaling through CEC and now ethernet. With HDMI, turning on your TV can automatically turn on your amp. That doesn't happen with computers unless you use a 2nd cable, a USB cable.
I can't say I'm thrilled that the HDMI group can't understand that changing the spec less often will help make sure it is successful. But I do like the idea of return audio on HDMI 1.4. I do like the audio sync that was brought with HDMI 1.3. The multichannel audio in HDMI 1.1a was a fantastic idea, solving the problem computers never solved properly (which is why computers have 3 1/8" jacks for audio on the back instead of a single audio connector).
HDMI and DVI are the same, just HDMI adds audio and uses a different connector. Virtually all HDTVs that have DVI also have HDCP. I know mine does, and my previous one that had DVI (which was not my previous HDTV, but my one before that) also did.
Why do people conflate HDCP with HDMI?
Also, HDCP is only $1. So it doesn't add more than $2-$3 to the price of the HDTV.
Slashdot Mirror
If you popped a Paramount BD into your Oppo Blu-ray player and it didn't pay, why would you sue Sony?
It might be possible to make incompatible discs with BD+, but it's possible to make them without BD+ too. Hell, you can make a DVD that doesn't work in regular DVD players by fooling with the scripting enough (idiot companies have done it in errant attempts to enforce region codes and such).
I'm actually pretty angered that I can't rip BDs again (and despite what the article says, there are more than 19 of them), but I can't blame Sony because FOX wanted to make Point Break unrippable.
Not the current metal ones, but the plastic ones before. Huge escape key.
Either the question was misunderstood or the households they surveyed do not represent a valid sample, because there weren't enough HD-DVD players sold for 11% of US households to have an HD-DVD player. There simply were not 11M made (11% of 100M households).
I would in fact say it might be useless. Clearly the pollsters didn't distinguish between a DVD player (perhaps upconverting) and an HD-DVD player well enough.
I say this because the poll would have you think that 11% of US households have an HD-DVD player. Since there are about 100M households in the US that would mean that 11M US households have an HD-DVD player. This is impossible since Toshiba said there were only 1M standalone players sold plus some number of 360 add-ons, and I can assure you there weren't nearly 10M 360 add-ons made. So there weren't enough players in the world to make this figure nearly as large as it is, even if every HD-DVD player was sold into the US and not elsewhere.
Add in the fact that this study counts consoles separate from standalone players (allegedly), and the actual penetration of HD-DVD into US households mathematically cannot be more than about 2-3% tops.
Just because you say it isn't so doesn't make it not so.
You want to declare you control the definition of the very "to steal" and then tell others how to use it. Well, you're not in control of the language, get over yourself.
Go look in a dictionary, there are a lot of forms of stealing that don't involve physical objects.
'to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.'
'to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show.'
and yes, even
'To give or enjoy (a kiss) that is unexpected or unnoticed.'
The problem here isn't that people are using words incorrectly. The problem is you, you have a narrow definition of the word and you want to tell others they can't do what you wouldn't do in their stead.
I hope it doesn't sound like too minor of a gripe, but I greatly prefer to call it encumbered by DRM.
I prefer to call it infested with DRM.
You're right, it's not exactly the same as other forms of stealing. But the general term for this is stealing. Presumably this would be listed as another definition in a dictionary.
If you can steal someone's heart, if you can steal a kiss, if you can steal cable, if you can steal an identity, there's no reason this cannot be stealing also.
It has been this way a long time too, stealing cable started in the 70s.
First of all, I am a PS3 fanboy. In the last year, the only game I've played on my 360 is Viva Pinata 2, while I've plated over a dozen on my PS3. I, as a rule, generally prefer the PS3. Your whole argument seems to be that I am a fanboy and deny it. It was a pretty arbitrary assumption on your part to assume that I deny it.
So you didn't take your own advice either.
All the attach rate stuff is garbage. You say one article is slanted? They're all incomplete. For example, you reference an article using the NPDs when the NPDs only cover the US and only cover retail sales of games, which can be misleading since the PS3 was the first major console to offer sales of full games online.
And the main reason this data is incomplete is because it doesn't matter to anyone but the platform holder. The platform holder is the one who loses money on the initial sale and tries to make it up through licensing fees, so the platform holder cares how many licensing fees are paid per console sold. Everyone else only cares about total sales of games. So there is no one who has an incentive to get the information correct and then release it.
In short, it's pointless for you to get excited about which platform has a better attach rate.
360 is slightly ahead of PS3 worldwide on console sales, but the different is (IIRC), less than 10%. It's very difficult to say that if there are enough 360s in the world to justify porting to it, that there aren't enough PS3s to justify porting to it also.
Here's a tip Xest, if you feel personally attacked when someone else says something nice about their favorite console (even incorrectly), you are a fanboy.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? By there being one guy changing parties?
You're lauding the Germans for their Democracy in response to an article about how most of the government there just voted to put in place internet censorship and a framework for DNS redirection to enforce it?
Sounds like they are experiencing many of the same problems with the principles of Democracy that many other countries are having.
'We'? You weren't around then, how exactly do you have a place to stand to shout someone else down? Are you taking credit for having been born on the same contiguous landmass as people who invented the word democracy (and many democratic principles)?
High console price doesn't lead to a low attach rate. It leads to many other problems, but it doesn't lead to a low attach rate.
I think the problem in question is that the high price keeps the console sales down which means there are fewer owners for Activision to sell copies of their games to.
Attach rate is the number of games sold per console sold, not total number of games sold for a particular platform.
There's AT&Ts recent withdrawal of the iPhone from Pay As You Go availability.
Basically, if you want an iPhone on an affordable plan, you can't get it, because AT&T doesn't offer PAYG and because affordable operators like MetroPCS can't offer one either (yes, I realize MetroPCS isn't GSM, it's just an example).
There's no revenue here, the money was frozen, not seized (despite what the summary says).
Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to stupidity.
The only problem with your argument is that more recent info has shown that the weather in the vicinity of 447 at the time it crashed was not extreme at all.
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/health/safety/news.php?q=1244309852
That is just one link among many explaining this.
My understanding is you turn that off in the Java control panel.
And that thing drives me crazy too. It has some kind of bug such that it install two copies of itself in my Firefox. Both without explicit permission.
MKV cannot become the mp3 of video, because MKV is only a container, while mp3 is a codec.
The problem with container formats is that it is difficult to explain to the customer what they are. For example, say my device supports MKV. But then a customer puts an MKV on with a TrueHD audio stream in it and it doesn't play. The customer gets confused. This has been a problem since the TIFF days. And it is a big part of what's going wrong with ODF. Sure, anyone can write one, but you can't necessarily read anyone else's!
mp3 is mp3. Any mp3 player can play any mp3 file. That's the power of it and a big part of why it is successful. MKV cannot fulfill the same function.
The article doesn't say you can't disable it. In fact, in the screenshot in the article, the disable button is clearly enabled.
The last .NET update did the same thing, put in an extension to FireFox that you couldn't uninstall, only disable. Java does the same thing, I have TWO Java SE FireFox extensions disabled in my list (neither can be uninstalled).
With this latest .NET update the uninstall button actually works for the .NET extension. At least on my Windows 7 machine.
That seems quite fair to me.
This is not at all strange.
AT&T justifies it by noting that accessing internal content doesn't use up their backhaul bandwidth. I would think the FCC would be somewhat sympathetic to this argument.
What's most important is that for truly equivalent services, the providers should not be able to discriminate.
I wasn't referring to conferences. I was meaning that if you are a vendor who goes to customer locations and gives presentations. Or if you just go to conference rooms inside your company, you'll find all different projectors. I agree that VGA outnumbers DVI even in these cases by at least 3:1, but a true road warrior would need both outputs. Which meant on a MacBook Pro carrying a single adapter. On a new Mac it's 2.
No there isn't.
There is no adapter that will let you hook a DVI output to a DisplayPort-only monitor.
There are physical adapters that let you get DVI output from some DisplayPort ports. But it just ties a line on the connector that tells the sending device to not actually send DisplayPort signaling, but send DVI instead. This has a couple problems. First is that you are still paying the DVI licensing fees, including HDCP fees. Second is that if the source device doesn't have this alternate mode, the adapter doesn't work, because it can't convert it itself, it can only tell the sending device to send DVI instead.
Apple's adoption of DisplayPort seems like a disaster so far. If you have a more then 3 month old MacPro or iMac, Apple doesn't have a 24" display they can offer you. If you want to put an Apple 30" display on your MacPro, Mac Mini, MacBook or iMac, you need a $99 adapter that is large, takes up a USB port and doesn't even work right on some displays. And if you want to be able to give a presentation from your MacBook/Macbook Pro, you had better have brought a gaggle of adapters with you, since there isn't a projector on the planet that accepts DisplayPort. Not that you would have a DisplayPort cable to connect to the projector anyway, Apple doesn't even sell one! And even if the projector had a DisplayPort cable already attached, you couldn't use that either because Apple used mini DisplayPort, so it's adapter time again, except Apple doesn't sell that adapter either.
HDTVs are cheaper than flat panel displays in equivalent sizes. But as to your question, unless you want a big panel, don't buy a big panel, it's a waste of money.
Computer display has not been in rapid flux compared to TVs. TVs have gone from not having any input except an antenna input to having composite inputs, then s-video, then component, then HDMI in a little bit under 30 years. In the same time, computer monitors used 3 connectors, the original DB-9 (three flavors, RGB+I, RrGgBb, then analog RGB), then the HDI-15 (VGA connector), then DVI in a slightly shorter timeframe.
In the case of TVs, every change of connector/signaling was due to needing increased resolution except for HDMI. HDMI was to simplify connections, and indeed, a single HDMI connector is far simpler (and cheaper) than 3 RCAs for video + 2 RCAs or a single optical cable for audio.
TVs are by FAR not simpler than computer displays. HDMI allows 36 bit color, it allows more than 3 (RGB) channel color. It also brings audio, including multichannel audio. It also brings control signaling through CEC and now ethernet. With HDMI, turning on your TV can automatically turn on your amp. That doesn't happen with computers unless you use a 2nd cable, a USB cable.
I can't say I'm thrilled that the HDMI group can't understand that changing the spec less often will help make sure it is successful. But I do like the idea of return audio on HDMI 1.4. I do like the audio sync that was brought with HDMI 1.3. The multichannel audio in HDMI 1.1a was a fantastic idea, solving the problem computers never solved properly (which is why computers have 3 1/8" jacks for audio on the back instead of a single audio connector).
HDMI and DVI are the same, just HDMI adds audio and uses a different connector. Virtually all HDTVs that have DVI also have HDCP. I know mine does, and my previous one that had DVI (which was not my previous HDTV, but my one before that) also did.
Why do people conflate HDCP with HDMI?
Also, HDCP is only $1. So it doesn't add more than $2-$3 to the price of the HDTV.