The original poster can provide details or links to other sources that would boost the credibility of their original claim.
I could give you the name of the Academy member who I mentioned above. However, doing so could put his membership status in jeopardy since technically giving his screener copies to his assistant is a violation of Academy rules. So, oh well, as far as you're concerned I must be making the whole thing up. Boohoo, some random slashdot losertroll thinks I'm a liar.
Yeah, I do tend to get more than my share of trolls. BTW, I fully agree with your sig. I'll let you decide whether my name is sincere or if it's a bad joke...
Yes, for the full 20 hours or so that you've been able to get iTunes 6.0.2. Not to mention, this feature is advertised quite clearly on the iTunes page. Hardly a "secret".
Hehehe. I knew it would only be a minute before someone pointed this out. Yes, the difference is that the MiniStore shows you recommendations based on tracks you select in your library. This is a big difference. At this point I don't think it's clear whether they're actually collecting the data or just using it to refer similar tracks. However, since you can disable it, I'm not too worried.
The point is that the GP mentioned how the reviewers don't watch a movie that they have a difficult time viewing. My point was that it's not uncommon for the reviewers to not even view the movie at all, but rather leave it up to their assistants.
I had a friend who was an assistant to an Academy member. A few times he just gave him the stack of DVDs and VHS tapes and said "Let me know which ones are good."
The problem, it appears, was partly down to teething troubles with the limited edition DVD players issued last year to Bafta members. Developed by Cinea, a subsidiary of Dolby, the players permit their owners to view encrypted DVD "screeners", but prevent the creation of pirate copies. Munich screeners were encoded for region one, which allows them to be played in the US and Canada, rather than region two, which incorporates most of Europe.
If they're using specially encrypted DVDs meant to only be played back on specially-made DVD players, why are they even bothering to region code them? This just reeks of stupidity...
"Someone pushed the wrong button," she said. "It was a case of rotten bad luck."
I sure wish I could blame pushing the wrong button on bad luck. Unfortunately, I live in the real world and have to live with the consequences of my negligence.
They'll likely get new copies in a week or two and watch them without even having one thought of shaking their fists at the MPAA.
That's nice, however, according to TFA: "By tomorrow they have to nominate the films they think worthy of accolade, and Spielberg's Munich was expected to be among them..."
Why is it that Apple can figure out what regular people want and HP & Packard Bell saddle people with crap?
And this is one of the big reasons why Apple machines tend to cost a bit more. Bear in mind that HP and Dell and whoever else get paid to include the trialware and crippled versions of apps on their machines. They then turn around and pass the savings on to you, the consumer! They call it "adding value" to the machine. I call it loading it up with useless crap.
Seeing as how these are both Rev. A's of two new products, going with these two models will give them a reasonable cross-section for finding and ironing out problems in both the hardware and software. Think about it, you've got the home users that aren't necessarily too savvy and probably won't even know that there's an Intel chip in there. On the other side, you've got the pro crowd who've been waiting for an upgrade to the PowerBook line for a long time. A good sampling of the two main sets of Apple user types.
I used my 6100/60 with a G3 upgrade card, HPV card, and some SIMMdoublers (136MB total, baybee!) up through 2001. I was even able to coax an older version of YellowDog (2.1, I think) to take advantage of all of that. Decent little machine, it was...
Just wondering what effect burn speed has on the whole thing. I mean, there are obviously a lot of people here talking about how their CDs burned in 95-98 still work fine. Burn speeds at the time were limited to 2x-4x. Meanwhile, there are lots of stories about CDs burned in the last few years that have failed. These are generally burned at 24-40x. Any chance that it's not so much a factor of the media (though it will obviously play some role), but more a factor of the burn speed?
I have a few data CDs that I burned in 97/98 that I recently pulled out. Worked fine for me. Then again, they were burned with a good quality Yamaha drive. I'm sure some of the stuff that I've burned more recently with a cheapo LiteOn drive (which died just after a year of use) won't fare so well.
Slashdot Mirror
How stupid are you mods?
Apparently not quite as stupid as some ACs.
Do you ever hear about their crack team of investigative reporters?
Just the thought of that gives me the willies. I think I'm more comfortable with "slashdot's team of investigative reporters on crack."
The original poster can provide details or links to other sources that would boost the credibility of their original claim.
I could give you the name of the Academy member who I mentioned above. However, doing so could put his membership status in jeopardy since technically giving his screener copies to his assistant is a violation of Academy rules. So, oh well, as far as you're concerned I must be making the whole thing up. Boohoo, some random slashdot losertroll thinks I'm a liar.
I used to live in LA. And yes, your theory of success/failure is 100% correct in accordance with the laws of LA.
Yeah, I do tend to get more than my share of trolls. BTW, I fully agree with your sig. I'll let you decide whether my name is sincere or if it's a bad joke...
And all of it seems to be secret (until now).
Yes, for the full 20 hours or so that you've been able to get iTunes 6.0.2. Not to mention, this feature is advertised quite clearly on the iTunes page. Hardly a "secret".
Hehehe. I knew it would only be a minute before someone pointed this out. Yes, the difference is that the MiniStore shows you recommendations based on tracks you select in your library. This is a big difference. At this point I don't think it's clear whether they're actually collecting the data or just using it to refer similar tracks. However, since you can disable it, I'm not too worried.
Amazon.com is a malicious website! When I click on a book, they show me other books that people have purchased with it!!!
The point is that the GP mentioned how the reviewers don't watch a movie that they have a difficult time viewing. My point was that it's not uncommon for the reviewers to not even view the movie at all, but rather leave it up to their assistants.
Point taken. : )
What are you talking about?!? These are the END TIMES, man! Bad luck? More like divine providence!
No worries. And yes, the reviewers won't blame this on the stupid artificial lockout schemes. This is all the fault of the manufacturer.
I had a friend who was an assistant to an Academy member. A few times he just gave him the stack of DVDs and VHS tapes and said "Let me know which ones are good."
The problem, it appears, was partly down to teething troubles with the limited edition DVD players issued last year to Bafta members. Developed by Cinea, a subsidiary of Dolby, the players permit their owners to view encrypted DVD "screeners", but prevent the creation of pirate copies. Munich screeners were encoded for region one, which allows them to be played in the US and Canada, rather than region two, which incorporates most of Europe.
If they're using specially encrypted DVDs meant to only be played back on specially-made DVD players, why are they even bothering to region code them? This just reeks of stupidity...
"Someone pushed the wrong button," she said. "It was a case of rotten bad luck."
I sure wish I could blame pushing the wrong button on bad luck. Unfortunately, I live in the real world and have to live with the consequences of my negligence.
They'll likely get new copies in a week or two and watch them without even having one thought of shaking their fists at the MPAA.
That's nice, however, according to TFA: "By tomorrow they have to nominate the films they think worthy of accolade, and Spielberg's Munich was expected to be among them..."
Why is it that Apple can figure out what regular people want and HP & Packard Bell saddle people with crap?
And this is one of the big reasons why Apple machines tend to cost a bit more. Bear in mind that HP and Dell and whoever else get paid to include the trialware and crippled versions of apps on their machines. They then turn around and pass the savings on to you, the consumer! They call it "adding value" to the machine. I call it loading it up with useless crap.
!!!
Seeing as how these are both Rev. A's of two new products, going with these two models will give them a reasonable cross-section for finding and ironing out problems in both the hardware and software. Think about it, you've got the home users that aren't necessarily too savvy and probably won't even know that there's an Intel chip in there. On the other side, you've got the pro crowd who've been waiting for an upgrade to the PowerBook line for a long time. A good sampling of the two main sets of Apple user types.
I used my 6100/60 with a G3 upgrade card, HPV card, and some SIMMdoublers (136MB total, baybee!) up through 2001. I was even able to coax an older version of YellowDog (2.1, I think) to take advantage of all of that. Decent little machine, it was...
The PowerBook line of laptops did indeed exist before the PPC. However, the PowerMac line of machines was named due to the use of the PPC chip.
This guy has one. There's even a few pics linked at the bottom of the page. Perhaps he'll let you borrow it.
It's not the hiss. It's the pops and rumble.
Just wondering what effect burn speed has on the whole thing. I mean, there are obviously a lot of people here talking about how their CDs burned in 95-98 still work fine. Burn speeds at the time were limited to 2x-4x. Meanwhile, there are lots of stories about CDs burned in the last few years that have failed. These are generally burned at 24-40x. Any chance that it's not so much a factor of the media (though it will obviously play some role), but more a factor of the burn speed?
I have a few data CDs that I burned in 97/98 that I recently pulled out. Worked fine for me. Then again, they were burned with a good quality Yamaha drive. I'm sure some of the stuff that I've burned more recently with a cheapo LiteOn drive (which died just after a year of use) won't fare so well.