Lord cautioned that little of this has actually been built yet. The version that will be released early next year will largely be a demonstration of how a media player can be built on top of the Mozilla technology. Most of the advanced features people now expect from modern music software will be added over the course of further development, he said.
In other news, Cat Got Your Tongue Software is creating a package that will determine in advance if a user's appendix is ready to burst. With the optional Scalpel Hardware System, the software will remove the organ while the user sleeps.
"We have this great idea," a company spokesman noted, "and we have a few guys who are working out some of the details. All we know for sure is that this is going to revolutionize medicine."
John Armstrong, M.D., of the American Medical Association, refused to comment on this story.
Listen, Starbucks coffee is probably fine. The problem is that they over-roast said coffee. So their coffee drinks tastes burnt. Period. I was talking to the guy who delivers coffee to our office, and he agreed, noting that "in the industry, we call them Charbucks." It's approrpiate, and this is true whether you buy it by the pound or the cup.
Their specialty drinks are fine -- you can't taste the char beneath the milk and other nonsense.
The trouble with this "insight" is that it presupposes that the only reason to have 1,000 songs on your iPod is because you're going to take a 3 1/2 day drive across the country and want to ensure that you don't listen to the same song twice. If that were true, then you and the Motorola guy would be quite right.
But, of course, that's silly. You want to be able to listen to any of your music at any time. Well, most of us do. You're quite satisfied, apparently, to limit yourself to less than a dozen albums containing music that seemed appealing when you were sitting around loading the thing up at your computer, but which isn't going to fit your mood later. That's all well and good, but I feel quite certain you and Mr. Motorola are in the minority.
Don't be ridiculous, the OP is quite right.
I've got a few hours to kill, I'll go ahead and submit a story for each and every updated bit of open source software released in the last 24 hours. I'm sure the "editors" will be appreciative.
He owns the line, he's liable for any copyright infringement performed from that line.
By that logic, the MPAA ought to go after the ISP. Not only do they own the line (which the codger does not), but they also have deep enough pockets to shell out the $600k.
I just signed on to the class settlement today -- I'm a lapsed subscriber. I also noticed that fine print, and made a mental note to re-cancel after my free month. I suspect this is a tremendously good settlement for Netflix -- I wonder if the cost is going to be filed under "litigation" or "marketing".
Something I still wonder about when this story has its regular/. run -- if I'm downloading a film with BT, and stop seeding through at a 0.97 share ratio, then I haven't uploaded enough data for anybody to have a complete copy of the film, and (as far as I know) they wouldn't be able to do anything with the data they received from me other than create a coaster -- and this without even bothering to figure in the fact that my 0.97 didn't go to any single user, but was spread around. Have I actually shared a film? Does Warner Brothers hold a copyright to a particular sequence of bits, in addition to images of Neo rapping with the Architect?
Or perhaps it was all the pot I smoked before settling down in front of the screen. On the other hand, I've never heard anybody complain about the quality of picture from a DVD on their laptop, so I think it is you, my friend, with the bad eyes and/or bad PowerBook... Still, if you're in the neighborhood, stop by for a bongload and I'm sure all will be well again.
I also watched Lost last night, having never seen the program and taking the opportunity to check out the new iTunes. Rather than sending it to a tv, I watched it on my 15" PowerBook screen, and found the quality *at least* as good as the torrents I've downloaded, both the audio and video. Perhaps there's a difference between viewing these things on a tv vs. a monitor, but otherwise I'm amazed to hear you say that it was "extremely bad" compared to the torrents.
Not to mention, it was discussed in a sub-thread 1-2 weeks ago, which is just as much coverage of this sort of (admittedly entertaining) news deserves. I'd go and find it, but I've wasted enough time with this article already.
What kind of creature is Bowser? You may be right, but per the bill, Bowser must have substantially human characteristics. This is where the jurors will get to go all syllogistic in the courtroom. "Well, that acid-dripping, fire-breathing boss that stands between the player and level 4 has ears, and I have ears, so it must be substantially human."
You might wish to read the bill before determining that you "get it" based on the comments of the corporate advocacy group. There's nothing in the bill to suggest that you'll go to jail for letting a minor play a game; the law specifies only that the sale or rental of such a game is illegal.
The one thing you MUST realize is that this is not a bill being pushed by the Right-Wing Conservative Nut Jobs (granted they aren't really all against it), this is being pushed by DEMOCRATS.
Righto. It's simple to just take aim at Schwarzenegger, the dude is an easy target. The bill wouldn't have been signed, of course, had it not been for the passage by the legislature who put the thing on the Gubernator's desk. Instead of turning our rage or annoyance or whatnot against that fool, we would be better served finding out if our assemblyman or senator voted for this intrusive garbage.
The VSDA, according to the headline, suggests that juries will be the sole determinant in whether or not a game is "violent". The bill, however, is fairly explicit in its definitions:
(A) "Cruel" means that the player intends to virtually inflict a
high degree of pain by torture or serious physical abuse of the
victim in addition to killing the victim.
(B) "Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killing
or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced by
torture or serious physical abuse of the victim.
(C) "Heinous" means shockingly atrocious. For the killing depicted
in a video game to be heinous, it must involve additional acts of
torture or serious physical abuse of the victim as set apart from
other killings.
(D) "Serious physical abuse" means a significant or considerable
amount of injury or damage to the victim's body which involves a
substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain,
substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the function
of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse,
unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of the
abuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player must
specifically intend the abuse apart from the killing.
(E) "Torture" includes mental as well as physical abuse of the
victim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of the
abuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specifically
intend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain or
suffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim.
(3) Pertinent factors in determining whether a killing depicted in
a video game is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved include
infliction of gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that
necessary to commit the killing, needless mutilation of the victim's
body, and helplessness of the victim.
Interesting that mental torture is included in the definition; so much for Medal of Honor: Abu Ghraib. There does seem to be a theme that simply blowing away your enemies isn't enough -- you have to relish it, go out of your way to cause extra pain to the digital victim -- "gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that necessary to commit the killing."
But I'm not whining. I find it very easy to watch the few tv shows I care to watch.
A "nimrod", by the way, is a skillful hunter, named after a son of Noah, renowed for his skills with the bow. I fail to see how your reactionary-based projections about whining that doesn't exist anywhere in this entire thread has any bearing on my skill as a hunter -- which is nil, by the way.
Which part of the original poster's "Won't you please offer your shows for download via BitTorrent for $20/mo?" did you fail to comprehend?
I'd also pay the $20 a month, and I'm guessing that's more than HBO gets from my cable company as their cut of my subscription. They could even offer an a la carte subscription: I just want to watch Rome, so give me a high-quality copy once a week, and I'll give you $5 a month. Or something like that.
Anyway, yours is a humorous enough response, despite the dull, reactionary nature of your mind being revealed by equating "$20/mo" with "free".
More to the point, if only 2.4k was downloaded -- or anything at all less than 100% of the file -- then the show was not downloaded, just a bunch of useless data.
Slashdot Mirror
In other news, Cat Got Your Tongue Software is creating a package that will determine in advance if a user's appendix is ready to burst. With the optional Scalpel Hardware System, the software will remove the organ while the user sleeps.
"We have this great idea," a company spokesman noted, "and we have a few guys who are working out some of the details. All we know for sure is that this is going to revolutionize medicine."
John Armstrong, M.D., of the American Medical Association, refused to comment on this story.
Listen, Starbucks coffee is probably fine. The problem is that they over-roast said coffee. So their coffee drinks tastes burnt. Period. I was talking to the guy who delivers coffee to our office, and he agreed, noting that "in the industry, we call them Charbucks." It's approrpiate, and this is true whether you buy it by the pound or the cup. Their specialty drinks are fine -- you can't taste the char beneath the milk and other nonsense.
The trouble with this "insight" is that it presupposes that the only reason to have 1,000 songs on your iPod is because you're going to take a 3 1/2 day drive across the country and want to ensure that you don't listen to the same song twice. If that were true, then you and the Motorola guy would be quite right.
But, of course, that's silly. You want to be able to listen to any of your music at any time. Well, most of us do. You're quite satisfied, apparently, to limit yourself to less than a dozen albums containing music that seemed appealing when you were sitting around loading the thing up at your computer, but which isn't going to fit your mood later. That's all well and good, but I feel quite certain you and Mr. Motorola are in the minority.
Don't be ridiculous, the OP is quite right. I've got a few hours to kill, I'll go ahead and submit a story for each and every updated bit of open source software released in the last 24 hours. I'm sure the "editors" will be appreciative.
Disingenuous.
I believe you forgot to refute the $4 billion in cash reserves. Try again, please.
Apple's growth has been downward for years.
My stock portfolio begs to differ with you.
Having owned Apple hardware, and dealt with that flaky acephalous company, I'd never buy anything from Cupertino again.
Now that's funny! Either you don't know what acephalous means, or, umm, you don't know what acephalous means.
By that logic, the MPAA ought to go after the ISP. Not only do they own the line (which the codger does not), but they also have deep enough pockets to shell out the $600k.
I just signed on to the class settlement today -- I'm a lapsed subscriber. I also noticed that fine print, and made a mental note to re-cancel after my free month. I suspect this is a tremendously good settlement for Netflix -- I wonder if the cost is going to be filed under "litigation" or "marketing".
What's old news is that a /. story is old news.
Something I still wonder about when this story has its regular /. run -- if I'm downloading a film with BT, and stop seeding through at a 0.97 share ratio, then I haven't uploaded enough data for anybody to have a complete copy of the film, and (as far as I know) they wouldn't be able to do anything with the data they received from me other than create a coaster -- and this without even bothering to figure in the fact that my 0.97 didn't go to any single user, but was spread around. Have I actually shared a film? Does Warner Brothers hold a copyright to a particular sequence of bits, in addition to images of Neo rapping with the Architect?
You can be sure the mice are happy, at any rate...
Or perhaps it was all the pot I smoked before settling down in front of the screen. On the other hand, I've never heard anybody complain about the quality of picture from a DVD on their laptop, so I think it is you, my friend, with the bad eyes and/or bad PowerBook... Still, if you're in the neighborhood, stop by for a bongload and I'm sure all will be well again.
I also watched Lost last night, having never seen the program and taking the opportunity to check out the new iTunes. Rather than sending it to a tv, I watched it on my 15" PowerBook screen, and found the quality *at least* as good as the torrents I've downloaded, both the audio and video. Perhaps there's a difference between viewing these things on a tv vs. a monitor, but otherwise I'm amazed to hear you say that it was "extremely bad" compared to the torrents.
Not to mention, it was discussed in a sub-thread 1-2 weeks ago, which is just as much coverage of this sort of (admittedly entertaining) news deserves. I'd go and find it, but I've wasted enough time with this article already.
What kind of creature is Bowser? You may be right, but per the bill, Bowser must have substantially human characteristics. This is where the jurors will get to go all syllogistic in the courtroom. "Well, that acid-dripping, fire-breathing boss that stands between the player and level 4 has ears, and I have ears, so it must be substantially human."
You might wish to read the bill before determining that you "get it" based on the comments of the corporate advocacy group. There's nothing in the bill to suggest that you'll go to jail for letting a minor play a game; the law specifies only that the sale or rental of such a game is illegal.
The VSDA, according to the headline, suggests that juries will be the sole determinant in whether or not a game is "violent". The bill, however, is fairly explicit in its definitions:
(A) "Cruel" means that the player intends to virtually inflict a high degree of pain by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim in addition to killing the victim.
(B) "Depraved" means that the player relishes the virtual killing or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim, as evidenced by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim.
(C) "Heinous" means shockingly atrocious. For the killing depicted in a video game to be heinous, it must involve additional acts of torture or serious physical abuse of the victim as set apart from other killings.
(D) "Serious physical abuse" means a significant or considerable amount of injury or damage to the victim's body which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse, unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player must specifically intend the abuse apart from the killing.
(E) "Torture" includes mental as well as physical abuse of the victim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specifically intend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim.
(3) Pertinent factors in determining whether a killing depicted in a video game is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved include infliction of gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that necessary to commit the killing, needless mutilation of the victim's body, and helplessness of the victim.
Interesting that mental torture is included in the definition; so much for Medal of Honor: Abu Ghraib. There does seem to be a theme that simply blowing away your enemies isn't enough -- you have to relish it, go out of your way to cause extra pain to the digital victim -- "gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that necessary to commit the killing."
First: I did not graduate from Cambridge, but rather from Oxford. Second: I am not a Best Buy manager, but rather a long-haul trucker.
But I'm not whining. I find it very easy to watch the few tv shows I care to watch.
A "nimrod", by the way, is a skillful hunter, named after a son of Noah, renowed for his skills with the bow. I fail to see how your reactionary-based projections about whining that doesn't exist anywhere in this entire thread has any bearing on my skill as a hunter -- which is nil, by the way.
Cute, but I don't have a tv.
Which part of the original poster's "Won't you please offer your shows for download via BitTorrent for $20/mo?" did you fail to comprehend?
I'd also pay the $20 a month, and I'm guessing that's more than HBO gets from my cable company as their cut of my subscription. They could even offer an a la carte subscription: I just want to watch Rome, so give me a high-quality copy once a week, and I'll give you $5 a month. Or something like that.
Anyway, yours is a humorous enough response, despite the dull, reactionary nature of your mind being revealed by equating "$20/mo" with "free".
More to the point, if only 2.4k was downloaded -- or anything at all less than 100% of the file -- then the show was not downloaded, just a bunch of useless data.