Napster does offer the service you are describing. They've been offering it for a couple years now. I have a subscription myself. It's $10/month and I love it. I've shared it with friends who also love it. I can't use it on my work PC (Linux), but I still keep it because A) I have three other computers that can use it, and B) if I MUST listen to it while working, I can download tracks from any of those computers to up to 5 portable devices that support playsForSure. Almost all the music I have looked for is on there and most of it is included with the monthly subscription.
Once in a while you run into a stubborn label that wants you to pay for their music. It's probably only 5% of albums, so unless it's an album I'm dying to listen to, I just find something else. If I -am- dying to listen to it, I'll just buy the CD.
Napster -- in its current form -- is the only reason I haven't got a Zune (or an iPod, for that matter). And a lot of labels are on board. More than you may think. Not to sound like a salesman, but I am pretty sure they have a free trial, if you have a windows box.
If we are experiencing a global warming trend caused by greenhouse gas emissions, the 80s (and 70s, and 60s, and 50s, and 40s) should have been hotter than the 30s. They weren't. How do you explain this anomaly?
Could it be that something else we can't measure or control is impacting our global temperatures, possibly MORE than greenhouse gases? If so, isn't this data contaminated?
And shouldn't we be trying to figure out what it is, so we can determine whether we really have a problem, or at least, whether we can solve it?
I'm using Ubuntu 7.04 right now, and when I first installed it I had problems with the partitioning, too. I had decided to get rid of Windows completely. So I told Ubuntu to erase the NTFS partition from which Windows Vista was booting and install Ubuntu linux in its place. Half an hour later, the system is ready to boot, right? Wrong. "Missing operating system". I tried both manual partitioning and automatic partitioning twice each with the same results, and never receiving any warnings or more verbose error messages than that.
Evidently the problem was the fact that I had a PATA hard drive installed, which contained an old Windows XP install that I used before Vista. I had obviously already switched the primary drive to the SATA drive (Vista booted fine from it, after all), and I double-checked this multiple times while trying to get Ubuntu to boot. The only solution I could find was to disconnect the PATA drive entirely.
I like Linux; I think it's good at what it does. Hell, I'm absolutely blown away by some of the things it does that Windows has never done (and in some cases, never will). But while it's true that the users often could put forth more effort to make it operate smoothly, linux advocates would do well to be honest when windows can still do something better.
The emphasis in my statement was intended to be on the oxymoron "privacy in public". The idea is patently absurd.
It's not unconstitutional for anyone, police or otherwise, to maintain a database of information that they observed in public places. Even if I agreed that we have a constitutional "right to privacy", it wouldn't cover this.
Think of it this way. Suppose the government wanted to make everybody wear a sign with a unique identification number on it in contrasting 4-inch lettering. Would you object? If so, why? You already voluntarily put one on your car.
What you really should be objecting to is that the law requires your identification be publically displayed in the first place, not that someone is reading it and saving it into a database.
OEM installs are on the rise. Drivers are a problem, but not as big a problem as you make them out to be. Many drivers are available. They can just be hard to install without certain knowledge.
You're right about the kernel. And though I do think games are lacking, I think that problem would solve itself if everything else was right. And the UI? I'll get to that below...
I have tried linux about once a year for the last 5 or 6 years, and every time I do, I run into a problem -- it could be a driver problem, it could be an application -- that I spend several days trying to solve. Eventually I think "well, I could be doing something productive right now" and then I give up and go back to windows.
Now obviously this means I'm not an expert, and I don't claim to be. But I do have some credentials. I am familiar with software and hardware concepts, and I do read and follow instructions. I know most shell commands. My preferred unix text editor is vi. I know how to compile and install a linux program from source, and I have successfully recompiled a linux kernel. I've installed and configured a web server with apache, PHP, and mysql multiple times using just their configuration files. I'm certified by Digium in the installation and configuration of the Asterisk PBX and I've never used that on any platform but Linux and BSD. I can fix just about any problem on a Windows machine. And yet, the problems I run into on a linux desktop have always been just beyond my ability to fix in a reasonable amount of time.
This has always indicated to me that Linux is not ready for widespread desktop use.
At least, until recently. I can vouch for the fact that it really is getting better. On friday night I got fed up with Vista's slow file copying problems and performed my annual Linux installation ritual. I installed Ubuntu, which I'm using now. And I should note that this is the second time I've tried Ubuntu. I think I'm actually going to stick with it this time. I put that in bold to emphasize it because it means the number and severity of challenging problems I encountered this time is less than ever before. But the obstacles I did encounter were significant:
-> When I had my EIDE hard drive attached, linux would not boot. Even though I had been installing it on the same drive on which Windows was running, it just would not recognize that an operating system had been installed. And yes, my BIOS was configured to boot from the correct drive. I had to completely disconnect the old drive in my computer. I wasn't planning to use it anyway, but Linux gave no warnings that this might happen and no helpful errors; I had to figure it out on my own.
-> This bug prevented me from installing ATI's video drivers... at least until I found that page. Note that the driver does exist and is provided by the hardware manufacturer. I lacked the knowledge of which logs I should be looking at to find the errors I was getting. Eventually, I found them, googled the error message, found that thread, and blacklisted the modules it labeled as the culprits. But not until after I tried everything on at least a handful of other troubleshooting guides and rebooted dozens of times. As I said I'm not an expert, but there is no way an ordinary desktop user would have figured this problem out.
-> Once I had that working, I wanted to install Beryl because, as you say, Linux is not lacking in UI slickness, and Beryl is the package that makes it every bit as good as (if not better than) Vista and OSX. I did eventually get it installed and working, but in order to do so I had to disable my "universe" repository because the latest versions of Beryl in that repository are simply incompatible with fglrx. Now if I enable it again, it tells me they need to be updated, but if I let that happen, beryl stops working. Why? Who accepted this? Is there no way to at least have testing before th
Believe it or not, there are people out there who:
A) Don't have the knowledge necessary to run Linux -- even Ubuntu, B) Care about using only legitimate versions of the software they use, and C) Can't afford to purchase a copy of windows.
If you don't meet all of those three criteria, then guess what? This software isn't for you! Microsoft already thought about all your gripes and moans above and they don't care because you'd be a fool if you installed an ad-supported version of Windows under your circumstances.
Which should make at least your eyes visible quite well.
If you think about it, the consequences of not redirecting light that's aimed for your eyes (assuming "you" are the invisible person) would be that someone behind you would see two distortions -- they'd look like dark spots larger than eyeballs but they'd be translucent. They'd barely be noticeable unless he's standing just a foot or two behind you, because most of the light that makes up the things he sees won't be travelling along the same line as the light that makes up the things you see.
Someone in front of you would still see the light that was bent around the back of your head to the front of your body.
There are several good reasons to use Windows. Reliability and Dependability are not among them.
That's not to say Windows isn't reliable -- it is -- it's just not quite as reliable as its open-source counterparts (to which it's being compared).
If Mr. Murray wants to market his product in contradistinction to Linux, he needs to focus on Windows' existing user base and worldwide familiarity with their interface.
Sorry for the ambiguous response; it wasn't my intention to elicit such a vehemently explicit objection. Let me be more clear and hopefully we (read: you) can be a little more civil about it, eh?
There are a number of reasons why we can be reasonably certain that it is not commonplace for cops to carry throwaways and plant them when they accidentally shoot someone. I'm not saying none of them do, but I am saying it's not acceptable behavior in any precinct.
* Every gun does have a history, which is searchable by its serial number. When there is no serial number they use a detailed description of the weapon. Even if it has never been registered, the cops can find out from where it was originally purchased or stolen. If the gun was subsequently recovered by police in an official manner, that event is also tied to the serial number. So a cop carrying a gun either A) has confiscated a weapon and failed to note it (which could very well lead to his termination), or B) has taken it after completion of a prior investigation, in which case the gun's record is inextricably tied to police work. If it was a "throwaway", a simple investigation into the history of the gun would necessarily fail to lead back to the victim (and if it was confiscated properly, it would lead to the police).
* Most (no, not all) guns are registered or have been registered at some point, which enhances the information acquired from the history when searched.
* Particularly if the victim has no violent history, his family and friends will be outraged by the story and bring charges against the cop, testifying in that the victim did not own a gun. If it's made clear by prosecuting attorneys that they believe the weapon was a throwaway, the defense must specifically address that possibility and show that the gun was tied to the victim some other way. Of course with a jury you still have to cope with reasonable doubts and the fact that the defendant is a cop will help his case, but what I'm suggesting is that the possibility of life imprisonment under such circumstances should discourage this behavior. Cops are not superhuman and they are interested in continuing their careers just like you and I.
* Carrying an unregistered firearm is a misdemeanor and could end their career if it was brought to light. Carrying a firearm whose serial number has been tampered with is an additional offense. Are we to believe that it is commonplace for police to put their careers in jeopardy so that they can cover up a mistake that should never even happen?
Guns aren't like most weapons (bats, knives, IEDs, etc.) in that they are registered. Every gun has a history. If these cops do use throw away weapons, it must have a history that's been manufactured in some way or another (to make it reasonable for the jury to believe that the victim had it in his possession at the time), which means it must be official department policy to do so, which should be easy enough to find out and publically reveal.
It appears that you don't recognize what an insignificant proportion of humanity (or, indeed, of americans) is represented by the figure "hundreds of thousands" of people.
Even if each and every one is an american, we're talking less than a tenth of a percent. Less than one in a thousand. Not exactly celebrity status.
I don't know Wikipedia's standards for notability, though, so I don't know whether that would meet them or not.
Yes, but it might be a legitimate consumer who doesn't realize they are purchasing pirated software. So while they would technically be a software pirate, they would be unwittingly so.
Also, you have to understand that protecting customers IS actually in the best interest of the company, and it isn't just a mild side effect of their "real", supposedly greedy ambitions. If a naive consumer unknowingly purchased a pirated copy of windows (thinking it was legit), and it turned out to contain viruses or trojans, couldn't that significantly tarnish the reputation of the company? What company in their right mind would allow anybody to pass off malicious software as having been provided by that company?
It'd be like me distributing RHEL with a rootkit and calling it RHEL. You and I both know RedHat would not stand for it.
This sounds an awful lot like the type of code built by Intel's compilers, for which they're being sued by AMD. Is it possible Skype is using that very compiler, and just couldn't figure out how to make it work on AMD machines (presumably pre-lawsuit)?
I've climbed several towers taller than this from desperate customers. One customer in particular is losing his line-of-sight due to trees, so he's planning to extend his tower even higher. I can tell you I won't be the one moving his antenna.
It seems to be just a matter of going after the facilitating party.
If you ignore for the moment the whole mobile content angle, it's just like the old Napster case. Napster wasn't actually committing copyright infringement; they just facilitated it. Without Napster, there was no way (at the time) for people to share music easily and effectively. Similarly, without Google's indexing, people would not be able to find pirated Perfect 10 content easily and effectively. And it's not practical for P10 to legally pursue each individual website (even though that would be the best course of action). So what's the solution?
Simple. Launch a brand-new mobile content section that sells images similar to those indexed on Google, and sue Google itself.
What's ironic is that P10 will lose the support of any legitimate webmasters (since anyone displaying P10 content is being removed from GIS) and if they ever decide to launch a webmaster affiliate program its success will be limited by the results of this lawsuit. No adult webmaster wants their site to be blocked by Google.
Already RSS feeds themselves contain advertisements. I subscribe to at least three which have advertisements either in HTML in the feed, or as a feed item itself. Advertising isn't going to be a victim of RSS, in fact RSS seems to be just another method of advertising.
And make sure that our monitors turn off completely when we take the glasses off, and that they are conspicuously absent from any photographs taken whilst licensed content is playing thereupon.
I don't mean to come across as saying that either of my two requirements were true. I don't know anything about the standard (though I'm not about to take any Slashdot post's word for anything related to Microsoft).
If your first point is true, then Microsoft will inevitably see this fail since a considerable proportion of internet users are using free e-mail software NOT provided by Microsoft.
As to your second point, I guess I need more understanding of the SenderID, how it works, and why it is inadequate in comparison to other competing ideas.
Of course, but something like this "should" have been done ten years ago. Spam is nothing new.
I, for one, am glad that somebody seems to be trying to do something about spam other than blacklisting, whitelisting (a la TDMA), or bayesian filtering. I couldn't care less if it's Microsoft, as long as 1) everyone can use it, and 2) it works.
Slashdot Mirror
Napster does offer the service you are describing. They've been offering it for a couple years now. I have a subscription myself. It's $10/month and I love it. I've shared it with friends who also love it. I can't use it on my work PC (Linux), but I still keep it because A) I have three other computers that can use it, and B) if I MUST listen to it while working, I can download tracks from any of those computers to up to 5 portable devices that support playsForSure. Almost all the music I have looked for is on there and most of it is included with the monthly subscription.
Once in a while you run into a stubborn label that wants you to pay for their music. It's probably only 5% of albums, so unless it's an album I'm dying to listen to, I just find something else. If I -am- dying to listen to it, I'll just buy the CD.
Napster -- in its current form -- is the only reason I haven't got a Zune (or an iPod, for that matter). And a lot of labels are on board. More than you may think. Not to sound like a salesman, but I am pretty sure they have a free trial, if you have a windows box.
If we are experiencing a global warming trend caused by greenhouse gas emissions, the 80s (and 70s, and 60s, and 50s, and 40s) should have been hotter than the 30s. They weren't. How do you explain this anomaly?
Could it be that something else we can't measure or control is impacting our global temperatures, possibly MORE than greenhouse gases? If so, isn't this data contaminated?
And shouldn't we be trying to figure out what it is, so we can determine whether we really have a problem, or at least, whether we can solve it?
I'm using Ubuntu 7.04 right now, and when I first installed it I had problems with the partitioning, too. I had decided to get rid of Windows completely. So I told Ubuntu to erase the NTFS partition from which Windows Vista was booting and install Ubuntu linux in its place. Half an hour later, the system is ready to boot, right? Wrong. "Missing operating system". I tried both manual partitioning and automatic partitioning twice each with the same results, and never receiving any warnings or more verbose error messages than that.
Evidently the problem was the fact that I had a PATA hard drive installed, which contained an old Windows XP install that I used before Vista. I had obviously already switched the primary drive to the SATA drive (Vista booted fine from it, after all), and I double-checked this multiple times while trying to get Ubuntu to boot. The only solution I could find was to disconnect the PATA drive entirely.
I like Linux; I think it's good at what it does. Hell, I'm absolutely blown away by some of the things it does that Windows has never done (and in some cases, never will). But while it's true that the users often could put forth more effort to make it operate smoothly, linux advocates would do well to be honest when windows can still do something better.
The emphasis in my statement was intended to be on the oxymoron "privacy in public". The idea is patently absurd.
It's not unconstitutional for anyone, police or otherwise, to maintain a database of information that they observed in public places. Even if I agreed that we have a constitutional "right to privacy", it wouldn't cover this.
Think of it this way. Suppose the government wanted to make everybody wear a sign with a unique identification number on it in contrasting 4-inch lettering. Would you object? If so, why? You already voluntarily put one on your car.
What you really should be objecting to is that the law requires your identification be publically displayed in the first place, not that someone is reading it and saving it into a database.
Is it "wrong"? Perhaps. It's worth discussing. But that's not the question at hand, now is it?
If you want privacy when you're out in public, ride a bike and wear a mask.
OEM installs are on the rise. Drivers are a problem, but not as big a problem as you make them out to be. Many drivers are available. They can just be hard to install without certain knowledge.
You're right about the kernel. And though I do think games are lacking, I think that problem would solve itself if everything else was right. And the UI? I'll get to that below...
I have tried linux about once a year for the last 5 or 6 years, and every time I do, I run into a problem -- it could be a driver problem, it could be an application -- that I spend several days trying to solve. Eventually I think "well, I could be doing something productive right now" and then I give up and go back to windows.
Now obviously this means I'm not an expert, and I don't claim to be. But I do have some credentials. I am familiar with software and hardware concepts, and I do read and follow instructions. I know most shell commands. My preferred unix text editor is vi. I know how to compile and install a linux program from source, and I have successfully recompiled a linux kernel. I've installed and configured a web server with apache, PHP, and mysql multiple times using just their configuration files. I'm certified by Digium in the installation and configuration of the Asterisk PBX and I've never used that on any platform but Linux and BSD. I can fix just about any problem on a Windows machine. And yet, the problems I run into on a linux desktop have always been just beyond my ability to fix in a reasonable amount of time.
This has always indicated to me that Linux is not ready for widespread desktop use.
At least, until recently. I can vouch for the fact that it really is getting better. On friday night I got fed up with Vista's slow file copying problems and performed my annual Linux installation ritual. I installed Ubuntu, which I'm using now. And I should note that this is the second time I've tried Ubuntu. I think I'm actually going to stick with it this time. I put that in bold to emphasize it because it means the number and severity of challenging problems I encountered this time is less than ever before. But the obstacles I did encounter were significant:
-> When I had my EIDE hard drive attached, linux would not boot. Even though I had been installing it on the same drive on which Windows was running, it just would not recognize that an operating system had been installed. And yes, my BIOS was configured to boot from the correct drive. I had to completely disconnect the old drive in my computer. I wasn't planning to use it anyway, but Linux gave no warnings that this might happen and no helpful errors; I had to figure it out on my own.
-> This bug prevented me from installing ATI's video drivers... at least until I found that page. Note that the driver does exist and is provided by the hardware manufacturer. I lacked the knowledge of which logs I should be looking at to find the errors I was getting. Eventually, I found them, googled the error message, found that thread, and blacklisted the modules it labeled as the culprits. But not until after I tried everything on at least a handful of other troubleshooting guides and rebooted dozens of times. As I said I'm not an expert, but there is no way an ordinary desktop user would have figured this problem out.
-> Once I had that working, I wanted to install Beryl because, as you say, Linux is not lacking in UI slickness, and Beryl is the package that makes it every bit as good as (if not better than) Vista and OSX. I did eventually get it installed and working, but in order to do so I had to disable my "universe" repository because the latest versions of Beryl in that repository are simply incompatible with fglrx. Now if I enable it again, it tells me they need to be updated, but if I let that happen, beryl stops working. Why? Who accepted this? Is there no way to at least have testing before th
Believe it or not, there are people out there who:
A) Don't have the knowledge necessary to run Linux -- even Ubuntu,
B) Care about using only legitimate versions of the software they use, and
C) Can't afford to purchase a copy of windows.
If you don't meet all of those three criteria, then guess what? This software isn't for you! Microsoft already thought about all your gripes and moans above and they don't care because you'd be a fool if you installed an ad-supported version of Windows under your circumstances.
Which should make at least your eyes visible quite well.
If you think about it, the consequences of not redirecting light that's aimed for your eyes (assuming "you" are the invisible person) would be that someone behind you would see two distortions -- they'd look like dark spots larger than eyeballs but they'd be translucent. They'd barely be noticeable unless he's standing just a foot or two behind you, because most of the light that makes up the things he sees won't be travelling along the same line as the light that makes up the things you see.
Someone in front of you would still see the light that was bent around the back of your head to the front of your body.
There are several good reasons to use Windows. Reliability and Dependability are not among them.
That's not to say Windows isn't reliable -- it is -- it's just not quite as reliable as its open-source counterparts (to which it's being compared).
If Mr. Murray wants to market his product in contradistinction to Linux, he needs to focus on Windows' existing user base and worldwide familiarity with their interface.
Sorry for the ambiguous response; it wasn't my intention to elicit such a vehemently explicit objection. Let me be more clear and hopefully we (read: you) can be a little more civil about it, eh?
There are a number of reasons why we can be reasonably certain that it is not commonplace for cops to carry throwaways and plant them when they accidentally shoot someone. I'm not saying none of them do, but I am saying it's not acceptable behavior in any precinct.
* Every gun does have a history, which is searchable by its serial number. When there is no serial number they use a detailed description of the weapon. Even if it has never been registered, the cops can find out from where it was originally purchased or stolen. If the gun was subsequently recovered by police in an official manner, that event is also tied to the serial number. So a cop carrying a gun either A) has confiscated a weapon and failed to note it (which could very well lead to his termination), or B) has taken it after completion of a prior investigation, in which case the gun's record is inextricably tied to police work. If it was a "throwaway", a simple investigation into the history of the gun would necessarily fail to lead back to the victim (and if it was confiscated properly, it would lead to the police).
* Most (no, not all) guns are registered or have been registered at some point, which enhances the information acquired from the history when searched.
* Particularly if the victim has no violent history, his family and friends will be outraged by the story and bring charges against the cop, testifying in that the victim did not own a gun. If it's made clear by prosecuting attorneys that they believe the weapon was a throwaway, the defense must specifically address that possibility and show that the gun was tied to the victim some other way. Of course with a jury you still have to cope with reasonable doubts and the fact that the defendant is a cop will help his case, but what I'm suggesting is that the possibility of life imprisonment under such circumstances should discourage this behavior. Cops are not superhuman and they are interested in continuing their careers just like you and I.
* Carrying an unregistered firearm is a misdemeanor and could end their career if it was brought to light. Carrying a firearm whose serial number has been tampered with is an additional offense. Are we to believe that it is commonplace for police to put their careers in jeopardy so that they can cover up a mistake that should never even happen?
Guns aren't like most weapons (bats, knives, IEDs, etc.) in that they are registered. Every gun has a history. If these cops do use throw away weapons, it must have a history that's been manufactured in some way or another (to make it reasonable for the jury to believe that the victim had it in his possession at the time), which means it must be official department policy to do so, which should be easy enough to find out and publically reveal.
It appears that you don't recognize what an insignificant proportion of humanity (or, indeed, of americans) is represented by the figure "hundreds of thousands" of people.
Even if each and every one is an american, we're talking less than a tenth of a percent. Less than one in a thousand. Not exactly celebrity status.
I don't know Wikipedia's standards for notability, though, so I don't know whether that would meet them or not.
Yes, but it might be a legitimate consumer who doesn't realize they are purchasing pirated software. So while they would technically be a software pirate, they would be unwittingly so.
Also, you have to understand that protecting customers IS actually in the best interest of the company, and it isn't just a mild side effect of their "real", supposedly greedy ambitions. If a naive consumer unknowingly purchased a pirated copy of windows (thinking it was legit), and it turned out to contain viruses or trojans, couldn't that significantly tarnish the reputation of the company? What company in their right mind would allow anybody to pass off malicious software as having been provided by that company?
It'd be like me distributing RHEL with a rootkit and calling it RHEL. You and I both know RedHat would not stand for it.
I don't like the Firefox community either; I think they give their browser too much credit. But this "article" is just a waste of time.
See this page for a more thorough list of inaccuracies that are continually perpetuated by the Firefox community.
More precisely, I think it means that by modifying the source code, your limits can be imposed by your hardware instead of your software.
This sounds an awful lot like the type of code built by Intel's compilers, for which they're being sued by AMD. Is it possible Skype is using that very compiler, and just couldn't figure out how to make it work on AMD machines (presumably pre-lawsuit)?
I've climbed several towers taller than this from desperate customers. One customer in particular is losing his line-of-sight due to trees, so he's planning to extend his tower even higher. I can tell you I won't be the one moving his antenna.
It seems to be just a matter of going after the facilitating party.
If you ignore for the moment the whole mobile content angle, it's just like the old Napster case. Napster wasn't actually committing copyright infringement; they just facilitated it. Without Napster, there was no way (at the time) for people to share music easily and effectively. Similarly, without Google's indexing, people would not be able to find pirated Perfect 10 content easily and effectively. And it's not practical for P10 to legally pursue each individual website (even though that would be the best course of action). So what's the solution?
Simple. Launch a brand-new mobile content section that sells images similar to those indexed on Google, and sue Google itself.
What's ironic is that P10 will lose the support of any legitimate webmasters (since anyone displaying P10 content is being removed from GIS) and if they ever decide to launch a webmaster affiliate program its success will be limited by the results of this lawsuit. No adult webmaster wants their site to be blocked by Google.
Already RSS feeds themselves contain advertisements. I subscribe to at least three which have advertisements either in HTML in the feed, or as a feed item itself. Advertising isn't going to be a victim of RSS, in fact RSS seems to be just another method of advertising.
Yes, because we know that open source developers NEVER release ANY product until it is fully and completely finished and certified bug-free.
And make sure that our monitors turn off completely when we take the glasses off, and that they are conspicuously absent from any photographs taken whilst licensed content is playing thereupon.
Brilliant!!
Perhaps now is the perfect time for Google OS...
I don't mean to come across as saying that either of my two requirements were true. I don't know anything about the standard (though I'm not about to take any Slashdot post's word for anything related to Microsoft).
If your first point is true, then Microsoft will inevitably see this fail since a considerable proportion of internet users are using free e-mail software NOT provided by Microsoft.
As to your second point, I guess I need more understanding of the SenderID, how it works, and why it is inadequate in comparison to other competing ideas.
Of course, but something like this "should" have been done ten years ago. Spam is nothing new.
I, for one, am glad that somebody seems to be trying to do something about spam other than blacklisting, whitelisting (a la TDMA), or bayesian filtering. I couldn't care less if it's Microsoft, as long as 1) everyone can use it, and 2) it works.
you can't do 720p on 1024x768 without downscaling. The resolution of 720p is 1280x720. You just don't have enough pixels.