That sounds like a plan, until the MPAA refuses to do DVD releases any more. If they only release on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, people will switch or lose content (or pirate). Shortly there-after, they stop selling new DVD players at major stores, and you'll have a harder and harder time tracking one down on EBay. Then by 2015, it'll be almost impossible to find a stand-alone DVD player. And by then, most computers will be treating DVD drives like floppy disks. By that point, once your old computer or DVD player break down, you almost have to upgrade your collection to Blu-Ray.
Bingo. So for pretty much 95% of America, Blu-Ray is basically worthless. They need to buy a new, several hundred dollar to multi-thousand dollar TV. And a $200 player. And the majority of Americans aren't going to want to spend that for the slightly higher quality. Those of us who care about the resolution are a lot more likely to not want it due to the DRM.
No, it's worse. We'll pay for mega-expensive outside connections at 50 Mbps speeds, and have nothing that the ISPs will allow to be fast enough to use it all. We'll have to be downloading a dozen things at once to saturate the connection. But that isn't strictly speaking relevant to this. This relates to a intranet connection, like within an office. The same principle applies: there is nothing coming that'll use this kind of speed. Unless you stream dozens of movies over one cable, it's currently pointless. not that there won't be a use for it in 2010, however.
Apple could jump back into the market with the Blackberry struggling/in limbo, and offer the sort of solution they're famous for - one which somehow integrates all parts of the product's chain. They could stick Safari on it, and have it synchonize histories and emails with the home iMac/mini, as well as having some sort of iDisk related fun (which will have to drop in price).
The cable companies will move when Google does GoogleTV, as the phone companies are in this at least partially to stop VOIP and AV chat, which draws away from antiquated landline phones.
Also, if Google and Verison could negotiate mutually exclusive fees, it'd still screw the little guys. Verizon would be free to charge them to serve the pages, and they wouldn't have the leverage to not get blocked.
On this idea: will there ever be a finished wikipedia article? One that is semi-protected or protected not because it's a vandal target, but because it's done? I mean, if there is to eventually be a Wikipedia 1.0 to be published (an idea I like very much), is there a chance that you'll 'freeze' some of the articles into their 1.0 form if there is consensus, to be re-opened if events require it?
Because they technically have little to no standing in that matter. They'd be stuck with something like slandering brand name or something. Crowbar makers can't sue the users of crowbars who give crowbars a bad rep by using them in crimes. They do have standing if you violate their copyrights, however.
So I take its like placing a beta release in a production enviornment. Finally. Words the average slashdotter can understand! I mean, it's not like we were going to be able to make sense of this whole "puberty" thing, or this "sex" the article refers to.
The two best examples of this outside the MMORPG realm are Escape Velocity and Rome: Total War. My suitemates play a mod of RTW called "Total Realism", which is practically a rewrite of everything except the basic engine and the GUI. I would say that the plug-ins for EV Nova have doubled or tripled my enjoyment of the game, because there were so many plug-ins that changed things that it was like playing a different game each time.
That, I think, is the key. No one will want to play $50 for a game they'll beat once then consign to a drawer to look at again in a year. Games that can continue to draw interest for months will be the ones people remember.
Persumably anything not equipped to do "holograms" can just use one camera feed or the other or both. That, of course, assumes that we are allowed to see the footage from the security tapes if there's an attack. Really the news'll prolly be limited to whatever cell phone cameras get, unless they catch it on their cameras.
Concur. No need for concern. I mean, it couldn't eliminate WWW, so even if there are webpages that do a ggl.search.com thing, it'd just be a different way to content, or a new, more expensive method of making exclusive content. Which could only be cool, as I see it. I mean, if I don't like it, I'll stop going to it.
OT, but that "related stories" thing is pretty cool, but it would like nicer with a green bottom, IMHO.
Well, if the top 100 websites refuse to pay, then there goes like 75% of the net usage. If I can't get Slashdot, Wikipedia, CNN, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, etc., I don't have much use for the net. Therefore I don't need an internet connection. I can get free wifi on campus, or failing that, in a coffeeshop or library somewhere. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as Joe Public is concerned, the Internet is Wikipedia, CNN, Google, MSN, Amazon, and their competitors.
Here's my question: Can the bandwidth providers sue me if I walk out on my contract when they fail to provide to me at the contracted speed?
Well, as I understand it, games are divided up into multiple projects. Thus, they hire PC guys for the parts that are similar to PCs, and hire regular console guys for that lower level stuff.
Another company? Be careful. You don't want to use capitalist arguments in situations where capitalism doesn't apply. There is no capitalism here. For one simple reason: Pure capitalism assumes no entry costs into the market. In making that assumption, you're assuming that fiber is free. which it isn't.
It doesn't look like it'll make turns for you. Or even know when to take turns. In fact, it looks like you may have to dis-engage the system to turn or pass someone. And you still have to know the way home.
That said, it seems like the #1 problem with drunk driving is staying in your lane and keeping the right speed.
If software licenses were found illegal tomorrow, then all the "good stuff" (GPL, MIT, BSD) would be fine. There would still be copyright on the software. And you'd still be free to enter into completely voluntary agreement with the FSF or whoever if you want to add to/use their copyrighted stuff. However, stuff that takes away more individual rights than copyright would be illegal.
I'd almost buy that if it was a universal decision. But it's given as is to subscribers, and delayed for the unwashed masses. You wouldn't give risky things to your paying subscribers, would you?
Your argument reminds me of something a friend said. We all have seen those "hardest American football hits ever" sports reels, right? Now they look nice and pretty, and they knock the ball carrier down, right? Now here's the problem: in almost every case, the guy had already caught the ball and picked up yards.
Do you see what I'm getting at? All those viruses and spywares and worms on your computer have already done damage when you get them removed. The goal is to keep them from getting on your computer or at least keep them from running. And MS is deliberately charging for that feature. Their online virus-removal thing is nice, and can mitigate some damage, but the horse already left the barn.
That's nice, but it still doesn't address the primary issue: If MS has a patch that they know works, they should release it. Period. There is no reason to have to pay to avoid the hassle of going to their sites to get the worm cleaned (and letting it do it's initial damage in the process).
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like a plan, until the MPAA refuses to do DVD releases any more. If they only release on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, people will switch or lose content (or pirate). Shortly there-after, they stop selling new DVD players at major stores, and you'll have a harder and harder time tracking one down on EBay. Then by 2015, it'll be almost impossible to find a stand-alone DVD player. And by then, most computers will be treating DVD drives like floppy disks. By that point, once your old computer or DVD player break down, you almost have to upgrade your collection to Blu-Ray.
Bingo. So for pretty much 95% of America, Blu-Ray is basically worthless. They need to buy a new, several hundred dollar to multi-thousand dollar TV. And a $200 player. And the majority of Americans aren't going to want to spend that for the slightly higher quality. Those of us who care about the resolution are a lot more likely to not want it due to the DRM.
No, it's worse. We'll pay for mega-expensive outside connections at 50 Mbps speeds, and have nothing that the ISPs will allow to be fast enough to use it all. We'll have to be downloading a dozen things at once to saturate the connection. But that isn't strictly speaking relevant to this. This relates to a intranet connection, like within an office. The same principle applies: there is nothing coming that'll use this kind of speed. Unless you stream dozens of movies over one cable, it's currently pointless. not that there won't be a use for it in 2010, however.
Apple could jump back into the market with the Blackberry struggling/in limbo, and offer the sort of solution they're famous for - one which somehow integrates all parts of the product's chain. They could stick Safari on it, and have it synchonize histories and emails with the home iMac/mini, as well as having some sort of iDisk related fun (which will have to drop in price).
The cable companies will move when Google does GoogleTV, as the phone companies are in this at least partially to stop VOIP and AV chat, which draws away from antiquated landline phones.
Also, if Google and Verison could negotiate mutually exclusive fees, it'd still screw the little guys. Verizon would be free to charge them to serve the pages, and they wouldn't have the leverage to not get blocked.
On this idea: will there ever be a finished wikipedia article? One that is semi-protected or protected not because it's a vandal target, but because it's done? I mean, if there is to eventually be a Wikipedia 1.0 to be published (an idea I like very much), is there a chance that you'll 'freeze' some of the articles into their 1.0 form if there is consensus, to be re-opened if events require it?
Because they technically have little to no standing in that matter. They'd be stuck with something like slandering brand name or something. Crowbar makers can't sue the users of crowbars who give crowbars a bad rep by using them in crimes. They do have standing if you violate their copyrights, however.
Do they mean OS X on Intel Macs, or working on cracking a generic version of OS X86 to run on beige boxes (illegal)? The article isn't too clear.
You must be new here. Median /.er age: 11-12.
So I take its like placing a beta release in a production enviornment.
Finally. Words the average slashdotter can understand! I mean, it's not like we were going to be able to make sense of this whole "puberty" thing, or this "sex" the article refers to.
The two best examples of this outside the MMORPG realm are Escape Velocity and Rome: Total War. My suitemates play a mod of RTW called "Total Realism", which is practically a rewrite of everything except the basic engine and the GUI. I would say that the plug-ins for EV Nova have doubled or tripled my enjoyment of the game, because there were so many plug-ins that changed things that it was like playing a different game each time.
That, I think, is the key. No one will want to play $50 for a game they'll beat once then consign to a drawer to look at again in a year. Games that can continue to draw interest for months will be the ones people remember.
"I am your death That is all you need to know"
Persumably anything not equipped to do "holograms" can just use one camera feed or the other or both. That, of course, assumes that we are allowed to see the footage from the security tapes if there's an attack. Really the news'll prolly be limited to whatever cell phone cameras get, unless they catch it on their cameras.
Concur. No need for concern. I mean, it couldn't eliminate WWW, so even if there are webpages that do a ggl.search.com thing, it'd just be a different way to content, or a new, more expensive method of making exclusive content. Which could only be cool, as I see it. I mean, if I don't like it, I'll stop going to it.
OT, but that "related stories" thing is pretty cool, but it would like nicer with a green bottom, IMHO.
Anyone else worried about militaries getting even more involved in space?
Well, if the top 100 websites refuse to pay, then there goes like 75% of the net usage. If I can't get Slashdot, Wikipedia, CNN, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, etc., I don't have much use for the net. Therefore I don't need an internet connection. I can get free wifi on campus, or failing that, in a coffeeshop or library somewhere. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as Joe Public is concerned, the Internet is Wikipedia, CNN, Google, MSN, Amazon, and their competitors.
Here's my question: Can the bandwidth providers sue me if I walk out on my contract when they fail to provide to me at the contracted speed?
Well, as I understand it, games are divided up into multiple projects. Thus, they hire PC guys for the parts that are similar to PCs, and hire regular console guys for that lower level stuff.
Yeah, asking for Sourceforge alternatives on /. is like asking about Mac OS X on winsupersite or something.
Another company? Be careful. You don't want to use capitalist arguments in situations where capitalism doesn't apply. There is no capitalism here. For one simple reason: Pure capitalism assumes no entry costs into the market. In making that assumption, you're assuming that fiber is free. which it isn't.
It doesn't look like it'll make turns for you. Or even know when to take turns. In fact, it looks like you may have to dis-engage the system to turn or pass someone. And you still have to know the way home.
That said, it seems like the #1 problem with drunk driving is staying in your lane and keeping the right speed.
If software licenses were found illegal tomorrow, then all the "good stuff" (GPL, MIT, BSD) would be fine. There would still be copyright on the software. And you'd still be free to enter into completely voluntary agreement with the FSF or whoever if you want to add to/use their copyrighted stuff. However, stuff that takes away more individual rights than copyright would be illegal.
I'd almost buy that if it was a universal decision. But it's given as is to subscribers, and delayed for the unwashed masses. You wouldn't give risky things to your paying subscribers, would you?
Your argument reminds me of something a friend said. We all have seen those "hardest American football hits ever" sports reels, right? Now they look nice and pretty, and they knock the ball carrier down, right? Now here's the problem: in almost every case, the guy had already caught the ball and picked up yards.
Do you see what I'm getting at? All those viruses and spywares and worms on your computer have already done damage when you get them removed. The goal is to keep them from getting on your computer or at least keep them from running. And MS is deliberately charging for that feature. Their online virus-removal thing is nice, and can mitigate some damage, but the horse already left the barn.
That's nice, but it still doesn't address the primary issue: If MS has a patch that they know works, they should release it. Period. There is no reason to have to pay to avoid the hassle of going to their sites to get the worm cleaned (and letting it do it's initial damage in the process).
IE7 will be in WinXP SP3, which'll come out in Vista + 6-8 months.