(*): For example, the missile itself is an important part of the potential danger (think Cuba), and right now for smaller bazooka like missiles, a PS2 is enough do the guidance system.
You don't even need anything close to a PS2 to guide a missile. Look at the space shuttle, it fly's between hearth and satellites and requires significantly less computer then a PS2.
As for the forcefield: the US are supposely building an anti-missile shield (hit-to-kill missiles), but it's really not working that well. And at the beggining of the cold war it would have been a _very_ risked bet.
I think you would be surprised how well the PAC-3 patriot missile operates. It's virtually one kill per launch. The proper deployment is what's tricky about the missile system.
Guess what, we have the MAD policy in place and completly neglect the figures...oh well I dont give a shit about resolving conflict, if you punch me in your face I'll hit you in your face until you pull your knife out, thats when I pull out my gun. MAD is the worst policy ever, we could have developed a force field if we didn't have to spend all of our resources on offense
You might want to think about how long it takes to develop technology before you go making a comment like that. Technology takes a long time to develop, and beyond that, defensive technology takes much longer. You have to assess everything offensively before you can build something defensively. Otherwise your analogy would work. Fact is that you cant block everything and you have to play offense sometime, either that or get your ass kicked. When dealing with the lives of millions of your own people you prefer not to have your ass kicked, so you develop a way to even the field. That's all MAD is, it's a way to even the playing field. In MAD everyone is equal. If the US had previously had a missile defense system why wouldn't they have just bombed the hell out of Russia? It would solve their problem and Russia couldn't have fought back effectively. Once you have nuclear missiles going back to not having them is quite honestly the only stupid idea. Say you spend your time on a missile defense system, but your enemy spends his time on stealthy missiles. It's quite possible your system isn't developed enough to take that kind of threat. In war a good offense really is the best defense.
My anecdotal converse is I have never had a hard drive not fail. I am a bit on the cheap side of the spectrum, I'll admit, but having lost my last 40GB drives this winter I now claim a pair of 120s as my smallest.
I always seem to have a use for a drive, so I run them until failure.
If this was the case I would seriously consider looking for a problem that's not directly related to the hard drives themselves. Around 80% of HDD failures are controller board failures, I wonder if maybe your setup is experiencing electrical problems, brownouts or surges that might mess with the controller boards. I myself have never had an HDD fail on me before even with constant abuse.
just PCLinuxOS with a different name and a different wallpaper.
Yep. The only interesting thing about this is how it was made.
The LiveCD project is dedicated to providing you with tools to create your own LiveCD from a currently installed Linux distribution. It can be used to create your own distribution, specialised CD, or to put together a demo disk to show off the power of our favourite OS.
http://livecd.berlios.de/
It dramatically lowers the barrier to producing and distributing your own Linux distro.
I suspect we'll be seeing a flood of special-interest Linux distros very shortly. It could be a breeding ground for some interesting innovations. Fedora, Ubuntu, and most other distributions, and one of my personal favorites ZenWalk, have their own set of tools for easily creating your own liveCD. This is nothing new.
From my experience "easy to use" means: features that get in your way when you try to do real work. Most distributions go down this road and it drives me fucking nuts. If you really want a distro to be easy, focus your attention on getting all the hardware you can to work out of box. Put ndiswrapper on it(I cannot believe how many distros leave this out be default), maybe(ndisGTK too), and just make sure the manual explains how to use it for the people not familiar.
Copyright Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Classroom notes easily fall under that. If someone didnt show up for a class your notes could effectively teach them the material. Or it could fall under research which you are sharing with the fellow student. It will be fun to see how this plays out, but I cannot imagine the teacher winning this case.
I have yet to run into an app that runs in XP and not Vista that I see as a useful app. It's like the XP/SP1 to SP2 "killing" backwards computability. Well built applications didn't suffer, but poor built ones and ones that used short-cuts and quick-and-dirty coding techniques would often fail. Like the proper ways to call DLLs and the lazy way some people do it would break apps in SP2.
And of course Microsoft is forcing a time line on XP. Do you expect them to sit around and make constant improvements for every OS they've ever built? Of course they're going to phase out something they've made their money on and not put money where it wont benefit them.
I mean come on, intelligent design? evolution as a theory? velociraptors and children playing happily together? That sort of muddy clouded rubbish is surely out of date in todays world. Except in the US.
Please tell me where anyone has said velociraptors and children played together, that would be a stupid comment to make, but alone doesn't say anything about religion or God. For example, there's plenty of animals you want your kids to stay away from today; wild dogs, alligators, anything of the large cat group, what's to day/if/ velociraptors lived at the same time as humans that they had to play nice?
These idiots want to have their cake and eat it - on one hand they want to rubbish scientific thinking and deny evolution on the other they want bluray discs, microwaves and nuclear tipped bombs. Get real.
Lets see... On one hand you have bluray discs microwaves and nuclear warheads; all which involved observation AND experimentation. On the other you have evolution, which involved no experimentation and very limited observation. If you've ever read Origin of the Species you should know that Darwin himself said that if within the next decade the fossil record should show his finding true, and if it doesn't then you shouldn't listen it him. 150 years later we're still in search of some key 'missing links' so if I'm to listen to Darwin himself I shouldn't pay much attention to evolution as anything more then a theory until there is more evidence.
From my viewpoint all religious fundamentalists are just as dangerous as each other - no matter what they preach, what religion they follow, what they wear or what country they come from. Sometimes the danger is more subtle then other times. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.
I'm a libertarian, and from my viewpoint you are at the very least as dangerous religious fundamentalists. You seem to think it would be great if no one ever thought for themselves and assumed everything you said or that's "peer-reviewed" is automatically fact. Accepting anything without skepticism is stupid. There are plenty of reasons to doubt evolution or climate change which don't even involve religion in the argument. Disregarding either idea without listening to it is incredibly arrogant, to me you're no better then some religious fanatic who puts their fingers over their ears and hums pretending not to hear you about science.
Ok that's enough Devil's Advocate. I just found the velociraptor line humorous so I had to comment about it.
Since ndiswrapper taints itself when it loads a proprietary NDIS module
Can someone explain to me how creating a computability layer for a proprietary model inherently violates GPL? Linus is trying to claim that loading the Windows Driver violates GPL. But I really fail to see how, ndiswrapper is a computability layer, and itself GPL'd, the windows driver is not loaded into the kernel like other modules it is sandboxed by ndiswrapper. It edges towards that gray area of the GPL, but itself doesn't violate it.
The Hubble not making profit is like saying that people don't pay taxes. Where do you think your money goes? NASA needs projects like the Hubble to keep getting its government checks. You're sunrise is a bad analogy, since no one created, except maybe a higher power if you believe in one.
Secondly, I assume IBM has a bunch of ideas about how they could make money off of this. IBM is a company, and being a company it must turn a profit, otherwise it wont be a company for very long. They have at least one idea on how to make this a profitable adventure, just because they're not telling you it doesn't mean they don't have one.
I don't want to have to figure out disk geometry to install an OS...have they made it as easy as Ubuntu?
You don't need to figure out the disk geometry if you use the guided installer. I usually like to set that myself anyways, I find it funny you want it compared to Ubuntu, Ubuntu almost wants to hold me back from setting up my disk exactly how i want it. As far as how easy the installer is, if you can install a Slackware system its pretty similar, same solid color menus and package selection(if you don;t chose the install everything).
Secure from what? Internal or external threats? In the internal case it exhibits better protection from escalation of privilege (than windows, see Sony rootkit for an example). In the external case is affords simpler accounting of the processes laying around.
If they can run code on the machine from a stupid user you're always out of luck for security. Secondly, privilege escalation on windows? If you're talking about Vista, its have to even get some apps running in a high enough setting. But if you're talking XP, most users just keep themselves as administrators, this would be no differnt from logging in as root, or just su-ing yourself at the start of any terminal, on a Linux box. And yes, both cases you're out of luck when it comes to security.
No, it is more secure for a some applications because less of the network facing executable code needs to run at as high a privilege level.
Unless you know of an application which requires higher privileges just because it accesses the network, and it's this way on only Windows and not Linux. Frankly I know of none.
Windows is less secure because they target the most technologically ignorant users. When was the last time you saw your grandfather using Linux? You can keep the one Administrator(root) account on Windows, and make everyone else limited because it's a more secure model. But for the average person this is more of a hassle then the perceived benefit. If you wanted to make the average user happy on Linux you'd probably have to run the window manager as root and automatically start the terminal as su too. Frankly I would be happy with a reverse model, where most things you want run as root and you remove privilege on certain applications that you know could be vulnerable, or possibly even malicious. Because sometimes its just easier to not do "make install" watch it fail, then do "su" then "make install" again.
I am sitting in a chair, no one is going to TAX me on the fact that I own some chair (personal property).
That's not exactly true. If you're sitting in a car seat, then you're likely being taxed on it. Some states would even tax you for what's in your home, New Hampshire comes to mind, when I lived there, every 5 years or so they would come by and assess your house, now you could not let them inside, but this would cause them to estimate something that's probably higher then your house and everything that's in it. But they would always ask to see what's inside your house, and if you had say i really nice home theater system, yea that adds to the assessment. \
They've been doing it for Central New Yorkers a couple weeks now. Honestly it pisses me off. I don't want to see their page every time i type a url that isn't in their DNS, I'm paying them enough as it is I dont want them to advertise themselves for me, just give me a no response and I'll figure it out myself.
Mod this parent up he's not a Troll. Mike's Protocol is exactly that. He used the gnutella name as only a means to get people to download his project. It has nothing to do with either gnutella, or the group guiding the original gnutella protocol. Stealing a name is something they've done, just because they're FOSS doesn't meant they're automatically good themselves.
There was no competition. Everyone got IE preinstalled with their computer, so that's what they used.
To start off Netscape still blew the doors off IE. Every company I can think of kept Netscape as their browser, it was cutting edge, fast, and what people where used to. It was a better product and therefore, won its way on the desktop even though there was a 'free' alternative. Down the road though Netscape instead of moving towards innovation as IE caught up to it, decided it should focus its sights on suing the evil company that would bundle a piece of software people might want in their operating system. The smart developers knew what the problem was and went off to form what we know today as Firefox, where they put the innovation back in in order to get their browser on the desktop, and guess what, it worked. The better product, sold at a reasonable price will win (hell, Mozilla found out how to give it away and still make money). Mozilla has been picking up market share since it's release, because it's a better product. Yes there are reasons you might just use what came with windows, but if you give the end-user a reason they/need/ the new broswer, they can be persuaded.
So you take un-cited and speculative numbers from a random journalist? Werner Bros told why it dropped TotalHD, it was they pitched their hybrid-disc to other studios and none bought it. Even saying they're real, $400 million dollar bids are virtually meaningless, Werner Bros needed to be on the winning side, not one that just gave them money, even with the 400 million they could have taken a much larger hit then that if they chose wrong, that's why they wanted the hybrid-disc in the first place. Secondly, fta...
The answer lies in part with the bruising Sony experienced with Betamax, which, like Blu-ray, was also the better product on paper.
Why do they say that? Because Blu-Ray can hold more data? How about the $/Gb ratio, which HD-DVD holds a much higher number. Second how about which is a simpler technology, remember simple can be a good thing, HD-DVD wins that hands down. HD-DVD uses concentric circles where as Blu-Ray uses an outward spiral, that's why it's able to edge out in terms of size. The problem is writing/reading a disc like that, and doing it fast is extremely hard both on the hardware and software required. That's part of why blu-ray would always be more expensive then HD-DVD.
My hope is that this format is completely destroyed by the rise of computers and the internet sales market, which I think will happen. The adoption rate is still very small, and if the movie companies have any idea what they're doing at all they're going to move into the internet distribution market. Bottom line though, both formats suck, when i think back to the IBM floppy being surpassed by the Sony Compact Disk, is see real improvement, nearly 3 orders of magnitude difference in storage capacity. Then I look to DVD possibly being ousted by this new format, the Blu-Ray disc, and it's not even a full order of magnitude between a dual-layer dvd and a Blu-Ray disc. Sure there was DVD upping CD, but everyone still uses CDs. DVDs are more of a tweener, you put on them what you cant quite fit on a CD. Blu-Ray is another tweener, but it's for DVD, which is already barely over its next competition the CD. And yes, my argument is strongly based on the disc's viability for computer usage, but just think about it, they really arn't a huge improvement over the regular DVD, they're just barely good enough to give you true high-def, locking them in to serve only one purpose really well, if that.
That's right, back to the drawing board with this one. In the mean time you can either use another browser, or install the NoScript plugin to mitigate these issues. Or you can take the first step like you always should, and not visit sites you don't trust. Vulnerabilities always exist, betting that the developers will find them before someone else can exploit them is not a smart thing to do. Visiting only sites you trust will keep you away from people who want to compromise your computer 99.99999999% of the time, it really is the best thing you can do it terms of browser security.
I for one just hope the FCC screws them over for their bittorrent violation. If you want to fuck with the service you give people who are paying you for it, you better sure as hell have it in the contract to start with. Changing it after the fact like this is just bad business, and a good way to get yourself in trouble if you violate any laws/statues.
I really don't understand how they wouldn't be under free speech. Defamatory remarks are only ones made that where stated as fact, as so people will believe them when they're not true. That has been decided it doesn't fall under freedom of speech because of its deceiving nature. Whereas trolls aren't trying to deceive anyone, they're just ranting. What it comes down to for me is that the right to freedom of speech is useless unless you piss someone off, the reason its in the constitution is so you can use it to piss people off. If no one ever pissed anyone off with speech then there would be no need for the first amendment.
-----
Oh and go ahead and troll this comment, just for kicks.
Slashdot Mirror
(*): For example, the missile itself is an important part of the potential danger (think Cuba), and right now for smaller bazooka like missiles, a PS2 is enough do the guidance system.
You don't even need anything close to a PS2 to guide a missile. Look at the space shuttle, it fly's between hearth and satellites and requires significantly less computer then a PS2.
As for the forcefield: the US are supposely building an anti-missile shield (hit-to-kill missiles), but it's really not working that well. And at the beggining of the cold war it would have been a _very_ risked bet.
I think you would be surprised how well the PAC-3 patriot missile operates. It's virtually one kill per launch. The proper deployment is what's tricky about the missile system.
Guess what, we have the MAD policy in place and completly neglect the figures...oh well I dont give a shit about resolving conflict, if you punch me in your face I'll hit you in your face until you pull your knife out, thats when I pull out my gun. MAD is the worst policy ever, we could have developed a force field if we didn't have to spend all of our resources on offense
You might want to think about how long it takes to develop technology before you go making a comment like that. Technology takes a long time to develop, and beyond that, defensive technology takes much longer. You have to assess everything offensively before you can build something defensively. Otherwise your analogy would work. Fact is that you cant block everything and you have to play offense sometime, either that or get your ass kicked. When dealing with the lives of millions of your own people you prefer not to have your ass kicked, so you develop a way to even the field. That's all MAD is, it's a way to even the playing field. In MAD everyone is equal. If the US had previously had a missile defense system why wouldn't they have just bombed the hell out of Russia? It would solve their problem and Russia couldn't have fought back effectively. Once you have nuclear missiles going back to not having them is quite honestly the only stupid idea. Say you spend your time on a missile defense system, but your enemy spends his time on stealthy missiles. It's quite possible your system isn't developed enough to take that kind of threat. In war a good offense really is the best defense.
My anecdotal converse is I have never had a hard drive not fail. I am a bit on the cheap side of the spectrum, I'll admit, but having lost my last 40GB drives this winter I now claim a pair of 120s as my smallest. I always seem to have a use for a drive, so I run them until failure.
If this was the case I would seriously consider looking for a problem that's not directly related to the hard drives themselves. Around 80% of HDD failures are controller board failures, I wonder if maybe your setup is experiencing electrical problems, brownouts or surges that might mess with the controller boards. I myself have never had an HDD fail on me before even with constant abuse.
The LiveCD project is dedicated to providing you with tools to create your own LiveCD from a currently installed Linux distribution. It can be used to create your own distribution, specialised CD, or to put together a demo disk to show off the power of our favourite OS. http://livecd.berlios.de/
It dramatically lowers the barrier to producing and distributing your own Linux distro. I suspect we'll be seeing a flood of special-interest Linux distros very shortly. It could be a breeding ground for some interesting innovations. Fedora, Ubuntu, and most other distributions, and one of my personal favorites ZenWalk, have their own set of tools for easily creating your own liveCD. This is nothing new.
From my experience "easy to use" means: features that get in your way when you try to do real work. Most distributions go down this road and it drives me fucking nuts. If you really want a distro to be easy, focus your attention on getting all the hardware you can to work out of box. Put ndiswrapper on it(I cannot believe how many distros leave this out be default), maybe(ndisGTK too), and just make sure the manual explains how to use it for the people not familiar.
Copyright Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Classroom notes easily fall under that. If someone didnt show up for a class your notes could effectively teach them the material. Or it could fall under research which you are sharing with the fellow student. It will be fun to see how this plays out, but I cannot imagine the teacher winning this case.
If peeling off the stickers and re-pasting them in a completed order doesn't count as a move, I can do it in 0. That magic enough for you?
I have yet to run into an app that runs in XP and not Vista that I see as a useful app. It's like the XP/SP1 to SP2 "killing" backwards computability. Well built applications didn't suffer, but poor built ones and ones that used short-cuts and quick-and-dirty coding techniques would often fail. Like the proper ways to call DLLs and the lazy way some people do it would break apps in SP2.
And of course Microsoft is forcing a time line on XP. Do you expect them to sit around and make constant improvements for every OS they've ever built? Of course they're going to phase out something they've made their money on and not put money where it wont benefit them.
It seems to be a special hypervisor with an API linking the "root" and "child" systems. Look at the wikipedia article for more info I guess.
I mean come on, intelligent design? evolution as a theory? velociraptors and children playing happily together? That sort of muddy clouded rubbish is surely out of date in todays world. Except in the US.
/if/ velociraptors lived at the same time as humans that they had to play nice?
Please tell me where anyone has said velociraptors and children played together, that would be a stupid comment to make, but alone doesn't say anything about religion or God. For example, there's plenty of animals you want your kids to stay away from today; wild dogs, alligators, anything of the large cat group, what's to day
These idiots want to have their cake and eat it - on one hand they want to rubbish scientific thinking and deny evolution on the other they want bluray discs, microwaves and nuclear tipped bombs. Get real.
Lets see... On one hand you have bluray discs microwaves and nuclear warheads; all which involved observation AND experimentation. On the other you have evolution, which involved no experimentation and very limited observation. If you've ever read Origin of the Species you should know that Darwin himself said that if within the next decade the fossil record should show his finding true, and if it doesn't then you shouldn't listen it him. 150 years later we're still in search of some key 'missing links' so if I'm to listen to Darwin himself I shouldn't pay much attention to evolution as anything more then a theory until there is more evidence.
From my viewpoint all religious fundamentalists are just as dangerous as each other - no matter what they preach, what religion they follow, what they wear or what country they come from. Sometimes the danger is more subtle then other times. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.
I'm a libertarian, and from my viewpoint you are at the very least as dangerous religious fundamentalists. You seem to think it would be great if no one ever thought for themselves and assumed everything you said or that's "peer-reviewed" is automatically fact. Accepting anything without skepticism is stupid. There are plenty of reasons to doubt evolution or climate change which don't even involve religion in the argument. Disregarding either idea without listening to it is incredibly arrogant, to me you're no better then some religious fanatic who puts their fingers over their ears and hums pretending not to hear you about science.
Ok that's enough Devil's Advocate. I just found the velociraptor line humorous so I had to comment about it.
It's fun to tinker with your system. It's fun to change all the settings, break the system, then have to go to recovery mode to repair it.
I actually find it easier to tinker with the system and break it with Windows.
Since ndiswrapper taints itself when it loads a proprietary NDIS module
Can someone explain to me how creating a computability layer for a proprietary model inherently violates GPL? Linus is trying to claim that loading the Windows Driver violates GPL. But I really fail to see how, ndiswrapper is a computability layer, and itself GPL'd, the windows driver is not loaded into the kernel like other modules it is sandboxed by ndiswrapper. It edges towards that gray area of the GPL, but itself doesn't violate it.
Mebroot boot loader modifying rootkit is attempting to modify the MBR.
[Cancel] [Allow]
Or maybe he knew exacly what it meant. Champ - The field or ground of a field. It ran itself into the ground.
Does the Hubble bring profit?
The Hubble not making profit is like saying that people don't pay taxes. Where do you think your money goes? NASA needs projects like the Hubble to keep getting its government checks. You're sunrise is a bad analogy, since no one created, except maybe a higher power if you believe in one.
Secondly, I assume IBM has a bunch of ideas about how they could make money off of this. IBM is a company, and being a company it must turn a profit, otherwise it wont be a company for very long. They have at least one idea on how to make this a profitable adventure, just because they're not telling you it doesn't mean they don't have one.
I don't want to have to figure out disk geometry to install an OS...have they made it as easy as Ubuntu?
You don't need to figure out the disk geometry if you use the guided installer. I usually like to set that myself anyways, I find it funny you want it compared to Ubuntu, Ubuntu almost wants to hold me back from setting up my disk exactly how i want it. As far as how easy the installer is, if you can install a Slackware system its pretty similar, same solid color menus and package selection(if you don;t chose the install everything).
Secure from what? Internal or external threats? In the internal case it exhibits better protection from escalation of privilege (than windows, see Sony rootkit for an example). In the external case is affords simpler accounting of the processes laying around.
If they can run code on the machine from a stupid user you're always out of luck for security. Secondly, privilege escalation on windows? If you're talking about Vista, its have to even get some apps running in a high enough setting. But if you're talking XP, most users just keep themselves as administrators, this would be no differnt from logging in as root, or just su-ing yourself at the start of any terminal, on a Linux box. And yes, both cases you're out of luck when it comes to security.
No, it is more secure for a some applications because less of the network facing executable code needs to run at as high a privilege level.
Unless you know of an application which requires higher privileges just because it accesses the network, and it's this way on only Windows and not Linux. Frankly I know of none.
Windows is less secure because they target the most technologically ignorant users. When was the last time you saw your grandfather using Linux? You can keep the one Administrator(root) account on Windows, and make everyone else limited because it's a more secure model. But for the average person this is more of a hassle then the perceived benefit. If you wanted to make the average user happy on Linux you'd probably have to run the window manager as root and automatically start the terminal as su too. Frankly I would be happy with a reverse model, where most things you want run as root and you remove privilege on certain applications that you know could be vulnerable, or possibly even malicious. Because sometimes its just easier to not do "make install" watch it fail, then do "su" then "make install" again.
I am sitting in a chair, no one is going to TAX me on the fact that I own some chair (personal property).
That's not exactly true. If you're sitting in a car seat, then you're likely being taxed on it. Some states would even tax you for what's in your home, New Hampshire comes to mind, when I lived there, every 5 years or so they would come by and assess your house, now you could not let them inside, but this would cause them to estimate something that's probably higher then your house and everything that's in it. But they would always ask to see what's inside your house, and if you had say i really nice home theater system, yea that adds to the assessment. \
They've been doing it for Central New Yorkers a couple weeks now. Honestly it pisses me off. I don't want to see their page every time i type a url that isn't in their DNS, I'm paying them enough as it is I dont want them to advertise themselves for me, just give me a no response and I'll figure it out myself.
FreeBSD has Linux 2.4.x binary support built into it, as well as support for the 2.6.x branch is almost complete.
Mod this parent up he's not a Troll. Mike's Protocol is exactly that. He used the gnutella name as only a means to get people to download his project. It has nothing to do with either gnutella, or the group guiding the original gnutella protocol. Stealing a name is something they've done, just because they're FOSS doesn't meant they're automatically good themselves.
There was no competition. Everyone got IE preinstalled with their computer, so that's what they used.
/need/ the new broswer, they can be persuaded.
To start off Netscape still blew the doors off IE. Every company I can think of kept Netscape as their browser, it was cutting edge, fast, and what people where used to. It was a better product and therefore, won its way on the desktop even though there was a 'free' alternative. Down the road though Netscape instead of moving towards innovation as IE caught up to it, decided it should focus its sights on suing the evil company that would bundle a piece of software people might want in their operating system. The smart developers knew what the problem was and went off to form what we know today as Firefox, where they put the innovation back in in order to get their browser on the desktop, and guess what, it worked. The better product, sold at a reasonable price will win (hell, Mozilla found out how to give it away and still make money). Mozilla has been picking up market share since it's release, because it's a better product. Yes there are reasons you might just use what came with windows, but if you give the end-user a reason they
So you take un-cited and speculative numbers from a random journalist? Werner Bros told why it dropped TotalHD, it was they pitched their hybrid-disc to other studios and none bought it. Even saying they're real, $400 million dollar bids are virtually meaningless, Werner Bros needed to be on the winning side, not one that just gave them money, even with the 400 million they could have taken a much larger hit then that if they chose wrong, that's why they wanted the hybrid-disc in the first place. Secondly, fta...
The answer lies in part with the bruising Sony experienced with Betamax, which, like Blu-ray, was also the better product on paper.
Why do they say that? Because Blu-Ray can hold more data? How about the $/Gb ratio, which HD-DVD holds a much higher number. Second how about which is a simpler technology, remember simple can be a good thing, HD-DVD wins that hands down. HD-DVD uses concentric circles where as Blu-Ray uses an outward spiral, that's why it's able to edge out in terms of size. The problem is writing/reading a disc like that, and doing it fast is extremely hard both on the hardware and software required. That's part of why blu-ray would always be more expensive then HD-DVD.
My hope is that this format is completely destroyed by the rise of computers and the internet sales market, which I think will happen. The adoption rate is still very small, and if the movie companies have any idea what they're doing at all they're going to move into the internet distribution market. Bottom line though, both formats suck, when i think back to the IBM floppy being surpassed by the Sony Compact Disk, is see real improvement, nearly 3 orders of magnitude difference in storage capacity. Then I look to DVD possibly being ousted by this new format, the Blu-Ray disc, and it's not even a full order of magnitude between a dual-layer dvd and a Blu-Ray disc. Sure there was DVD upping CD, but everyone still uses CDs. DVDs are more of a tweener, you put on them what you cant quite fit on a CD. Blu-Ray is another tweener, but it's for DVD, which is already barely over its next competition the CD. And yes, my argument is strongly based on the disc's viability for computer usage, but just think about it, they really arn't a huge improvement over the regular DVD, they're just barely good enough to give you true high-def, locking them in to serve only one purpose really well, if that.
Why use 'password' when you can just use '12345' coincidentally that's the same combination i have on my luggage.
I for one just hope the FCC screws them over for their bittorrent violation. If you want to fuck with the service you give people who are paying you for it, you better sure as hell have it in the contract to start with. Changing it after the fact like this is just bad business, and a good way to get yourself in trouble if you violate any laws/statues.
I really don't understand how they wouldn't be under free speech. Defamatory remarks are only ones made that where stated as fact, as so people will believe them when they're not true. That has been decided it doesn't fall under freedom of speech because of its deceiving nature. Whereas trolls aren't trying to deceive anyone, they're just ranting. What it comes down to for me is that the right to freedom of speech is useless unless you piss someone off, the reason its in the constitution is so you can use it to piss people off. If no one ever pissed anyone off with speech then there would be no need for the first amendment.
-----
Oh and go ahead and troll this comment, just for kicks.