Even better, if you don't specifically say you have no desire to be represented for a kazoo (even if you don't know about it until after) you still give up your right to legal recourse, even if you never claim your kazoo.
I was not factoring in the cost of the printer for the prints. The way I did my cost calculations was material costs per print and then calculated capital payoff based on the price difference between equivalent prolab quality. I went into more details of my analysis on it in my response to h4rr4r. I own a PIXMA Pro-1 which is a gallery quality 13x19 printer. It uses Lucia 12 pigments and I'm printing on Chromalife 100+ papers. That gives it 150 to 200 year album life combined with the pigment ink and over 60 years light fastness under glass in sunlight. It is also effectively waterproof (I soaked a picture for 8 hours with no degradation in quality compared to a fresh print.) The paper is in fact a significant part of the cost (around 25 to 35% depending on size and paper stock). Ink is relatively cheap since it uses large cartridges (less than $1 per ml.)
Photography outlets generally use actual photographic paper and laser or led expose it and develop it using a normal development process. This produces a smaller gamut and typically inferior life to archival papers and pigment inks. Fuji Crystal Archive which is one of the better ones only has a life of about 40 years (compared to 60 for my cheaper paper or 70 for the more expensive.) For a long time I thought the same thing as you until someone convinced me to take a serious look at how far pigment based ink jets have come. They now produce superior quality and longevity at a cheaper price than wet processes can achieve.
If you are a pro photographer or an avid consumer, you can end up with similar quantities of prints. I happen to be a little of both. I've actually got a Pixma Pro-1 which is a professional printer. The costs don't get significantly cheaper as you move up scale from that point since it's already using large ink cartridges with cheap per ml costs. You do need a certain amount of base printing though since you need to go through a set of fairly large cartridges every year or two do to shelf life (if you are printing less than a few 8x10s, 20 or so 4x6s or one 13x19 a month, then you simply aren't going to go through the ink fast enough to have it not go bad on you, but if you are, the payback time for the printer is pretty fast (like 50 or so 13x19s)).
Personally, I do the occasional event professionally, so I hit the break even point really fast, but I also know people in the photographic community that are consumers that print far more than that for friends, family and the occasional random person that wants to buy a copy of one of their photos. You need to be an avid photographer, but it can still be a savings for a non-professional if you need gallery quality. I completely agree that anything below gallery quality prints can be done cheaper in a store though (and if you don't understand printing, then most likely gallery quality prints will be better in a store as well.)
If you have very small quantities this may be true, but I picked up a color laser jet that costs me less than a cent per page from home and I have a professional photo printer that costs me less than 50 cents for a 4 by 6 or $6 for a 13 by 19 and the quality far exceeds anything that Rite Aid could do. It's more on par with what would cost $5 to $50 from a pro lab. Now granted, for smaller, cheaper consumer photo printers, the quality isn't as good and the ink is more expensive so Rite Aid or Costco might still be a better option, but good photo printers or laser jets for frequent users of either device are still a substantial savings.
Because of the benefit to tax payers from it. If mass media requests information, they generally intend to relay it to lots of people if they find anything interesting or noteworthy. This is very different from Joe Blow Conspiracy Nut making hundreds of FOIA requests that cost lots of money to process to get the information that isn't useful to anyone, including the person who is asking for it. I agree there need to be reasonable limits on costs, but you still need some mechanism to prevent wasteful abuse by a few over eager individuals who would become a drain on the system overall.
I'm not completely convinced of this. I can reliably distinguish the difference in detail on my 55 inch screen from more than 10 feet. I may not be able to make full use of that detail as I can't resolve it perfectly, but that doesn't mean I can't tell the detail is there. Granted that may be partly due to other artifacts produced from the lower data rate in the 720 feed rather than raw resolution too. (I also have better than average vision, so I guess that could be part of it.)
Not saying your point is necessarily wrong in most people's cases, but it doesn't seem to gel with my personal experience (which includes blind tests.) Just saying that for some (such as an experienced A/V tech with excellent vision), this might not hold true.
I'm not talking about commuter rail in the sense you generally think of commuter rail (like subways and such). I'm talking about commuter rail in the same sense as commuter flights (we have those too). I cross over the rail line every day on my way to work. One such route is the $40 ticket from Albany to NYC or vice versa. There are actually people who commute to and from the city to upstate. The rail to DC from NY operates similarly.
Our airport here (Albany, NY's capital) also has service that goes to White Plains and DC as a commuter flight route that is really cheap and specifically designed for the Albany/NYC/DC traffic. It's the cheapest flight out of the airport.
Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say
on
Amtrak Upgrades Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 1
Or it's just coincidence that the lines in other parts of the country that are less utilized have to be used by both freight and passenger traffic and are thus slower.
In the north east, Amtrack has many dedicated "commuter" targeted services that bring people in and out of New York and DC. I've never seen freight cars on those trains or even those rails, but it wouldn't surprise me that the rest of the country lacks higher speed rail due to the presence of freight on the lines, where as there is enough commuter traffic in the North East to justify dedicated passenger rail lines and higher speed trains.
A Youtube viewer also has uses other than downloading from the site. I can see that it could be a problem that they are specifically branding it as a Youtube viewer, but if it was a generic viewer that was able to work with Youtube (since Youtube seems to use standards compliant streaming video), then it should probably be ok. I was more highlighting that it's a tricky thing to draw a line on.
That's a nice theory, but I make my living off of MS products. I love MS as a company. I loved UAC. I think they were off their nut completely when they designed Metro. Sure it's great for Tablets and Touch interfaces, but Touch isn't what I want when I want to use my desktop for desktop things, like word processing and writing code and doing graphics design or a/v work.
I suppose I can see the argument since it is specifically branded as a Youtube viewer, but does Youtube use some special video streaming format or is it a standard streaming format. If re-branded as a Youtube compatible video streaming client that happened to offer features that you weren't allowed to use with Youtube (but could use with other streaming services), then I would be significantly more concerned since Youtube shouldn't be able to specify what is or isn't allowed in a generic third party streaming client.
Perhaps the branding is a decent line, but my concern (regardless of whether it is currently legal or not) is that it is very hard to determine what point it is legal and what point it isn't.
You are missing that ms is not using the YouTube service. They aren't responsible for if someone uses the software to break the terms of service.
It's a slippery slope if we start going down that route. If I set up an ftp site and declare in my terms of use that you may not download anything, can I now go after every ftp client vendor out there?
There might be an argument since it is specifically targeted at YouTube, but where is that line?
But why would MS lose. Why does MS have any legal obligation to do anything about Youtube? If they are just providing a client, they aren't accessing Google's service and shouldn't be bound by the terms of service should they? Youtube could go after the people that use the client if they want or try to disable it from accessing their service, but a TOS isn't a law, it's the terms you have to agree to to USE the service and MS isn't using the service unless I'm really missing something here.
I laugh at your suggestion that GIMP is at all on par with Photoshop. I've used both and as much as I hate Adobe after this news. GIMP is not even close to Illustrator in functionality and nothing else provides the level of integration across products that Adobe does to make workflows work. For the average home user, yes, current FOSS offerings are sufficient now that Adobe has decided to screw them over, but for the professional, there really is no alternative to many of the products. I suspect that will start changing now though unless Adobe realizes the error of their ways.
Better than having Adobe decide they need more money some day, raising the price on you and suddenly your profits disappear. No feature is worth giving another company control over your ability to succeed and use your own work.
Bose doesn't make the best stuff, but they make the easiest to use stuff. For the price, you can always do (much) better than Bose if you know how to position and setup a system properly, but you can take a Bose system, put it in a room with basically no thought and it will produce decent sound from a small and attractive package. That's what consumers pay for with most Bose gear. It's also why I have no Bose gear, but did consider a Bose sound system for my car when it was an option (other features of the package that drove the cost up made it not worth it).
I'm pretty sure they were just making a joke. The title of his post states that it's a waste because it isn't porn, making reference to the joke that the Internet is made for porn and that sadly porn often ends up pushing media technology to be adopted by consumers.
At the rate things are going, the main reason people still watch TV on cable is sports and the lack of content being broadcast directly on the Internet. NetFlix and Amazon Instant Video are changing the landscape. With two different content providers now producing their own shows, it's only a matter of time before other studios will either have to open up to online distribution or be left behind. When that happens, cable/satellite TV will only have sports left.
Slashdot Mirror
That's ok though because they can scan all the video and tell the lock screen not to work if it matches.
Even better, if you don't specifically say you have no desire to be represented for a kazoo (even if you don't know about it until after) you still give up your right to legal recourse, even if you never claim your kazoo.
I was not factoring in the cost of the printer for the prints. The way I did my cost calculations was material costs per print and then calculated capital payoff based on the price difference between equivalent prolab quality. I went into more details of my analysis on it in my response to h4rr4r. I own a PIXMA Pro-1 which is a gallery quality 13x19 printer. It uses Lucia 12 pigments and I'm printing on Chromalife 100+ papers. That gives it 150 to 200 year album life combined with the pigment ink and over 60 years light fastness under glass in sunlight. It is also effectively waterproof (I soaked a picture for 8 hours with no degradation in quality compared to a fresh print.) The paper is in fact a significant part of the cost (around 25 to 35% depending on size and paper stock). Ink is relatively cheap since it uses large cartridges (less than $1 per ml.)
Photography outlets generally use actual photographic paper and laser or led expose it and develop it using a normal development process. This produces a smaller gamut and typically inferior life to archival papers and pigment inks. Fuji Crystal Archive which is one of the better ones only has a life of about 40 years (compared to 60 for my cheaper paper or 70 for the more expensive.) For a long time I thought the same thing as you until someone convinced me to take a serious look at how far pigment based ink jets have come. They now produce superior quality and longevity at a cheaper price than wet processes can achieve.
If you are a pro photographer or an avid consumer, you can end up with similar quantities of prints. I happen to be a little of both. I've actually got a Pixma Pro-1 which is a professional printer. The costs don't get significantly cheaper as you move up scale from that point since it's already using large ink cartridges with cheap per ml costs. You do need a certain amount of base printing though since you need to go through a set of fairly large cartridges every year or two do to shelf life (if you are printing less than a few 8x10s, 20 or so 4x6s or one 13x19 a month, then you simply aren't going to go through the ink fast enough to have it not go bad on you, but if you are, the payback time for the printer is pretty fast (like 50 or so 13x19s)).
Personally, I do the occasional event professionally, so I hit the break even point really fast, but I also know people in the photographic community that are consumers that print far more than that for friends, family and the occasional random person that wants to buy a copy of one of their photos. You need to be an avid photographer, but it can still be a savings for a non-professional if you need gallery quality. I completely agree that anything below gallery quality prints can be done cheaper in a store though (and if you don't understand printing, then most likely gallery quality prints will be better in a store as well.)
If you have very small quantities this may be true, but I picked up a color laser jet that costs me less than a cent per page from home and I have a professional photo printer that costs me less than 50 cents for a 4 by 6 or $6 for a 13 by 19 and the quality far exceeds anything that Rite Aid could do. It's more on par with what would cost $5 to $50 from a pro lab. Now granted, for smaller, cheaper consumer photo printers, the quality isn't as good and the ink is more expensive so Rite Aid or Costco might still be a better option, but good photo printers or laser jets for frequent users of either device are still a substantial savings.
Because of the benefit to tax payers from it. If mass media requests information, they generally intend to relay it to lots of people if they find anything interesting or noteworthy. This is very different from Joe Blow Conspiracy Nut making hundreds of FOIA requests that cost lots of money to process to get the information that isn't useful to anyone, including the person who is asking for it. I agree there need to be reasonable limits on costs, but you still need some mechanism to prevent wasteful abuse by a few over eager individuals who would become a drain on the system overall.
Fosters! Australian for Piss.
I'm not completely convinced of this. I can reliably distinguish the difference in detail on my 55 inch screen from more than 10 feet. I may not be able to make full use of that detail as I can't resolve it perfectly, but that doesn't mean I can't tell the detail is there. Granted that may be partly due to other artifacts produced from the lower data rate in the 720 feed rather than raw resolution too. (I also have better than average vision, so I guess that could be part of it.)
Not saying your point is necessarily wrong in most people's cases, but it doesn't seem to gel with my personal experience (which includes blind tests.) Just saying that for some (such as an experienced A/V tech with excellent vision), this might not hold true.
I'm not talking about commuter rail in the sense you generally think of commuter rail (like subways and such). I'm talking about commuter rail in the same sense as commuter flights (we have those too). I cross over the rail line every day on my way to work. One such route is the $40 ticket from Albany to NYC or vice versa. There are actually people who commute to and from the city to upstate. The rail to DC from NY operates similarly.
Our airport here (Albany, NY's capital) also has service that goes to White Plains and DC as a commuter flight route that is really cheap and specifically designed for the Albany/NYC/DC traffic. It's the cheapest flight out of the airport.
Or it's just coincidence that the lines in other parts of the country that are less utilized have to be used by both freight and passenger traffic and are thus slower.
In the north east, Amtrack has many dedicated "commuter" targeted services that bring people in and out of New York and DC. I've never seen freight cars on those trains or even those rails, but it wouldn't surprise me that the rest of the country lacks higher speed rail due to the presence of freight on the lines, where as there is enough commuter traffic in the North East to justify dedicated passenger rail lines and higher speed trains.
Yes, but the geriatrics don't know how to use the website so....
A Youtube viewer also has uses other than downloading from the site. I can see that it could be a problem that they are specifically branding it as a Youtube viewer, but if it was a generic viewer that was able to work with Youtube (since Youtube seems to use standards compliant streaming video), then it should probably be ok. I was more highlighting that it's a tricky thing to draw a line on.
2045 really, really will be the year of the Linux desktop... We promise!!! Also, Rice University has at least one idiot as a professor.
That's a nice theory, but I make my living off of MS products. I love MS as a company. I loved UAC. I think they were off their nut completely when they designed Metro. Sure it's great for Tablets and Touch interfaces, but Touch isn't what I want when I want to use my desktop for desktop things, like word processing and writing code and doing graphics design or a/v work.
I suppose I can see the argument since it is specifically branded as a Youtube viewer, but does Youtube use some special video streaming format or is it a standard streaming format. If re-branded as a Youtube compatible video streaming client that happened to offer features that you weren't allowed to use with Youtube (but could use with other streaming services), then I would be significantly more concerned since Youtube shouldn't be able to specify what is or isn't allowed in a generic third party streaming client.
Perhaps the branding is a decent line, but my concern (regardless of whether it is currently legal or not) is that it is very hard to determine what point it is legal and what point it isn't.
Just because you can't find it doesn't mean someone, somewhere doesn't have a copy posted.
You are missing that ms is not using the YouTube service. They aren't responsible for if someone uses the software to break the terms of service.
It's a slippery slope if we start going down that route. If I set up an ftp site and declare in my terms of use that you may not download anything, can I now go after every ftp client vendor out there?
There might be an argument since it is specifically targeted at YouTube, but where is that line?
But why would MS lose. Why does MS have any legal obligation to do anything about Youtube? If they are just providing a client, they aren't accessing Google's service and shouldn't be bound by the terms of service should they? Youtube could go after the people that use the client if they want or try to disable it from accessing their service, but a TOS isn't a law, it's the terms you have to agree to to USE the service and MS isn't using the service unless I'm really missing something here.
I laugh at your suggestion that GIMP is at all on par with Photoshop. I've used both and as much as I hate Adobe after this news. GIMP is not even close to Illustrator in functionality and nothing else provides the level of integration across products that Adobe does to make workflows work. For the average home user, yes, current FOSS offerings are sufficient now that Adobe has decided to screw them over, but for the professional, there really is no alternative to many of the products. I suspect that will start changing now though unless Adobe realizes the error of their ways.
Better than having Adobe decide they need more money some day, raising the price on you and suddenly your profits disappear. No feature is worth giving another company control over your ability to succeed and use your own work.
This is called Software Assurance by Microsoft and is something they have been doing for years if not decades.
Bose doesn't make the best stuff, but they make the easiest to use stuff. For the price, you can always do (much) better than Bose if you know how to position and setup a system properly, but you can take a Bose system, put it in a room with basically no thought and it will produce decent sound from a small and attractive package. That's what consumers pay for with most Bose gear. It's also why I have no Bose gear, but did consider a Bose sound system for my car when it was an option (other features of the package that drove the cost up made it not worth it).
I'm pretty sure they were just making a joke. The title of his post states that it's a waste because it isn't porn, making reference to the joke that the Internet is made for porn and that sadly porn often ends up pushing media technology to be adopted by consumers.
At the rate things are going, the main reason people still watch TV on cable is sports and the lack of content being broadcast directly on the Internet. NetFlix and Amazon Instant Video are changing the landscape. With two different content providers now producing their own shows, it's only a matter of time before other studios will either have to open up to online distribution or be left behind. When that happens, cable/satellite TV will only have sports left.