I don't know how likely this is, but if I were spilling company secrets I would intentionally make it seem as though the leek were coming from someone else. In that case he's lied once, why should you believe anything else he says? That would depend on why he's lying. In this case, he's lying to protect himself from reprisal. That's not so black-and-white to me.
Mm hmm. So are you saying he did this interview anonymously, then?
From the article: This past week I met and interviewed an individual who has worked on the Xbox 360 project for many years and they had some things that they wanted to get out into the public. I have the fullest confidence in the integrity of this confidential source.
Now... How the interview was performed I don't know, since the article doesn't mention it. But nevertheless, there are ways to be anonymous on the internet, as long as you don't divulge any information that can be tracked to you in particular. If you read the thread from the beginning again, you yourself bring up the point about being anonymous on the internet. And you are wrong, there are lots of ways. He wants to be anon, and the blogger apparently respects that. The interviewee might not be anonymous to the blogger, but he's definitely anonymous (in the sense of "missing a name" without further investigation) to the rest of us.
Look, if you take my statement out of context, it's overly broad. I think we agree on that. I would apologize for that, except the snippy tone of the dude I was replying to didn't really entice me to go into full-diplomatic mode to make every statement air-tight. My point isn't that people cannot post anonymously, my point is that he wouldn't be able to do that here. Now, I will apologize for one thing: Too many times I've posted on this site and instead of taking my point head-on, people try to snipe at details of it as if that refutes anything that was actually said. I replied to you without really thinking about what I was saying and I failed to clarify. I made the mistake, I'm sorry.
Anyway, slipping back into the context of this discussion, you hit the nail right on the head. He may not be anonymous to the blogger. Only I'd take that a step further and suggest that he isn't anonymous to the blogger. This is, of course, assuming that this guy is telling the unvarnished truth. Somehow he convinced this guy that he's an employee of Microsoft and that he's leaking information. Now, either he is completely anonymous to the blogger, which makes his story questionable or the blogger knows who he is and believes he's telling the truth. An investigation could reveal that. Either way, my point stands. It is worth questioning the source of this information. He's either not who he says he is, or he is taking a big risk by talking about it.
And since I'm drawing heat for this topic, I'm going to say one more thing: I'm not defending Microsoft, here. I've followed gaming news since the Super NES was announced. There was a good noisy bunch of BS floating around with every system that has been announced since. (Blast Processing comes to mind... or the rumor that the 'Ultra 64' had a processor that was too expensive so they scrapped it in favor of a CD-based 32-bit system, or even the out-of-context quote that made it sound like Nintendo was anti-on-line.) I wouldn't have called that tame until 2006 came around. It started with the launch of the 360. Lots of people had abrasive opinions on that. Then.. wow... Nintendo comes along, and despite the success of the DS, lots of silliness orbited that machine. And then... *BOOOOOM* Sony comes along and does a P.R. song and dance that put the image in my head of Laurel and Hardy competing on the Apprentice. We hit 2007, and the internet is alive with all kinds of noise, mostly aimed at Sony. Towards the latter half, the Sony side starts to pick up, and lots of BS comes spewing from them, too. Basically what I'm saying is that we're getting bombarded with an unprecedented amount of sensationalist bullshit. In all these years of following video game news, I've NEVER seen so much noise. It's crazy.
I've gotten to a point where I can't read a negative story about any of the systems and treat them without anything but skepticism. There is so much controversy fly
It is just as relevant as the braindead post I replied to, which happens to be yours. You're plain wrong, and it's easy to be anonymous on the intarwebs if you want to... Which is relevant since this is a topic on a "corporate leak"... Mm hmm. So are you saying he did this interview anonymously, then?
- No, it doesn't - You've heard of anonymous networks, TOR, public access points and such? There are heaps of ways to be anon online. Okay. This is relevent to this topic... how?
That doesn't mean he's safe from fear of being discovered. No, it doesn't.
There's no such thing as 'anonymous' on the internet. Blinks.....What?!
Should it become a priority to find who made a post, it could be done. No. Wrong.
And, considering Microsoft's vast army of lawyers... Welp, I know I wouldn't take that risk. Because you're a self-serving douche.
That doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't, but it is still a valid question to ask. No, it isn't a valid question to ask, because you're not basing it on any information about this specific situation. It happens all the time. So unless you think it's valid (which might, in a perfect world, imply some sort of usefulness) to challenge the entire incorporeal idea of investigative journalism, this is not a valid question to ask. - Yes, actually it does. - You've heard of logs, right? - Not wrong. Ask anybody defending themselves against the RIAA. - Get yourself a family and a life you don't want to risk for something silly like that, then you can be my self-serving-douche-apprentice. - Considering the blantant fanboyism and bullshit orbiting all three major players, yes it is a good question to ask. You're an idiot if you think everything that is posted should instantly be taken at face value when there's so much controversy surrounding it. When people go as far as to vandalize Wikipedia entries to express their biases, that's a darned good time to stop and ask about the source of the sensationalist news you're getting.
The informant has chosen not to reveal his identity. Did you even read the article? Bad form. That doesn't mean he's safe from fear of being discovered. There's no such thing as 'anonymous' on the internet. Should it become a priority to find who made a post, it could be done. And, considering Microsoft's vast army of lawyers... Welp, I know I wouldn't take that risk. That doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't, but it is still a valid question to ask.
This is a fantastic point. On top of that, what part of bluetooth technology would be able to pin down 3D positioning? Given BT's short range, couldn't variances in the signal do it?
There are ignorant Christians who like to argue, and ignorant atheists who like to argue as well. They're both equally infuriating to reasonable people. This would be a good time to point out that it's not very helpful to assume that a few noisy people represent a huge group of like-minded peeps. The relatively few extremists are the ones that'll demand the most attention. To use a neutral example: There are a few Star Wars fans that think George Lucas is an inerrorable god. That doesn't mean that everybody who likes Star Wars would go to such an extreme.
>Even an external USB battery expander would defeat the purpose of an ultraportable- it'd be a little awkward to have a brick sticking out of the side of your sleek sexy ultra thin Air.
in that case, surely having a swapable battery would also defeat the point as you'd be carrying another battery with you everywhere. There's a big difference between carrying a battery that you can swap and put back in your bag and having a battery tethered via cable to the machine. Though I respect your point about not wanting to carry another battery around, it's not a total defeat of his point.
How does a girl who survives getting impaled (already sketchy) manage to survive a helicopter crash? I've seen lots of movies like that, but usually with poor lighting and an insane credit card charge.
The most interesting development came when the machine suddenly stopped killing ghosts and simply displayed the message: "The only way to win is not to play!"
if I were criticizing Apple, no matter how legitimate the complaint is, I'd post anonymously too
wow, you criticized apple fanboys with a side swipe at apple. And didn't click the no Karma, or Anonymous check box? a.) I didn't side-swipe Apple. I'm not sure why you're seeing that. The "He's telling the truth" bit is a reference to his ownership of an iPod, not to his critcism.
b.) This is basically a throw-away account. I've been lurking on Slashdot for far longer than my ID implies. One day there was a story about another company complaining about iTune's monopoly. Everybody poo-poo'd that complaint, so I mentioned that he had a point and why I thought so. (As opposed to saying something like "APPLE SUX!! EVERYBODY WHO LIKES APPLE SUCKS!") My comment was initially modded insightful. Unfortunately, that invited criticism. Instead of taking my point head-on, lots of people took jabs at my post. One guy shot up to a +5 for cooking up a hypothetical (and, if anybody spent more than 3 seconds pondering it, non-sensical) scenario about my motivations for making the comment. Silly stuff, but not really out of the norm for Slashdot. The silliness shot to an extreme when all of my recent posts started dropping. Before long, some 30 negative moderations had been made, actually causing me to get banned from Slashdot for a couple of months. (It was specific to an IP range, I could still post from home.) A couple of months later, I started posting again, and those new posts were automatically modded as troll.
So I created this account to avoid that BS attached by my old nick. Frankly, if this one gets toasted by ridiculously organized Apple fanboys too, I really don't care. I can create a new account. BFD. I'm not giving Steve Jobs verbal fellatio just to be cool with a group of people. I'm also not giving Apple any more credit than I'd give Microsoft. They're motivated by profit just like BillyG, so I'm not defending them just because I like my iPod.
Why did you feel the need to qualify your ownership of an iPod, when you posted as an anonymous coward anyway? Maybe because he's just telling the truth. Frankly, if I were criticizing Apple, no matter how legitimate the complaint is, I'd post anonymously too. Case in point: The guy says Apple doesn't abide by standards, your reply is an unrelated nitpick about his post.
although admits that it hasn't been tested in the PlayStation 3
Well, yeah, that's understandable seeing as it's still so hard to get a hold of a PS3. I wouldn't take out a second job just to get a PS3 and put a floppy DVD in it.
You want to tether two USB devices and I'm out of line for suggesting a hub? Yes. You're ignoring all the reasons I'd buy a laptop like this in the first place.
To be fair, this is all unverified, so choose to believe at your own risk. Ironically, this disclaimer about Slashdot's Microsoft stories came 10 years too late!
Admittedly I have not. I'm an artist, though, and I've always got Photoshop open for one reason or another. (Especially after downloading photos.) I'm also an Opera user and am quite fond of the mouse gestures. I can imagine the Mac trackpad being friendlier than those I've used, but I'm also having difficulty picturing myself wanting to use it exclusively enough to warrant it. Maybe I'm just being stubborn, I admit that. However, I don't think there's that much harm in avoiding a purchase if I know it's wrong for me.
If, on the other hand, you do need more of the IO stuff whilst on the move, buy a straight MacBook or MacBook Pro. This isn't about wanting the ultra thin model to have everything the other models have, this is about one little design choice that draws a needlessly thick line between the two lines of products. The reality is that I frequently use two USB ports on my laptop while travelling. Not four. Not firewire. Not even ethernet. Two regular plain old USB ports. One is for my mouse, since I don't like wireless mice. (This is more for ergonomic reasons than anything else. Tho it is worth pointing out that I can't stand trackpads and bt mice are frowned on while in flight.) The other I use for transferring data via USB stick, syncing my iPod, and transferring pics from my camera. These are all normal laptop usage patterns, not some case where I'm trying to replace my desktop with it. It may sound silly to you, but it actually is a deal-breaker for me. It's a pity because in every other respect it's ideal. Oh well, there's still life in my current laptop.
Not with only one USB port they don't. Heard o' hub, bub? Yes, you're absolutely right. You can solve this problem by sacrificing some of the mobility you were trying to gain by purchasing this machine. Thank you for that enlightening bit of wisdom.
If you understand the concept of 3d modeling already, a good UI should take no time to learn.. none. If you don't understand the concepts, sure, there may be some period of learning required, but the UI of your modeling app should aid that learning process.
3d modeling tools are seen as technical products for a technical audience.. as such the UI is given no serious consideration. Your first statement is partly true, but not entirely. First, each app has a different philosophy behind its work flow. In that sense, no, understanding 3d modelling doesn't guarantee a '0 time to learn' by any stretch of the imagination. For example: Lightwave has a modeler app. You build your model in that app, then load it in Layout and animate it. The benefit is that the tools are designed around direct vertex manipulation. It's very easy to get a nice clean model with no extra invisible points etc. The added bonus is since LW's scene has to load the object in, then modify it, you can easily modify an object later and it won't rock the boat of what's going on in layout. (In other words, you can easily update a character's model after it has been animated. Though not impossible in other apps, it's typically less elegant.) Maya, however, has a different approach. Its idea of modeling involves piling on a series of modifiers/nodes onto some geometry. If you want to slice along the polys of a cube, for example, a 'split node' is attached to the object that modifies the geometry for that result. You can then go back and modify it.
On the surface, you end up with a similar toolset. Both Maya and Lightwave have the split/slice polygon tools. However, the philosophies behind them really make that common toolset problematic. For example, Lightwave doesn't have a modifier based operation. It's like Photoshop in that respect. You mess with the vertices, blammo, you're done. This gives you tools like "Dragnet". That tool allows you to grab an area of verticies and pull, just like working with clay. Maya, however, can't do any operations on geometry without creating a modifier. So if you want to do a tool like I described, you have to create a 'dragnet' node, place its start point, then move it to the destination. That's a good deal slower than how Lightwave handles it.
This is an over-simplification of what's involved, but it more or less illustrates the problem with your statement. I'd liken it to watercolors vs. oil paints. They both require paint and a paint brush, but the techniques involved are nearly inverses of each other. With Lightwave, you model by cutting a lot of pieces away. With Maya, you model bending pieces into shape since its work flow lends itself to doing lots of deformations. To put it another over-simplified way: Lightwave would be better suited to modeling something vehicular with rigid pieces. Maya, however, would totally kick Lightwave's ass when modelling something with a lot of hoses and other bendable things, like the Sentinels from the Matrix. The difference is in the workflow philosophies of these apps, not their toolsets. It's a lot harder to cross-train modelers between apps than you'd expect.
3d modeling tools are seen as technical products for a technical audience.. as such the UI is given no serious consideration. I'm not sure how to read this statement. Either you're saying that the UI isn't developed for the mass audience (which is true, and I have no argument at all with) or you're saying that UI's are just tacked on and the artsts just deal with it, which does happen, but isn't generally true. UIs for 3D apps are developed around the philosophy of the app. If that philosophy isn't understood, then the UI makes no sense. Give a Photoshop guru a copy of Illustrator and tell him to do work in it, and he'll tell you the UI's bad. Different philosophy. A lot of work actually does go into the UI of 3D apps. The problem is you cannot take something as vast as '3D' and slim it down to a UI philosophy like you can with something like Photoshop. Yes, 3D apps aren't unituitive or psychic, but no, it isn't for lack of trying.
The difference in price between the 'middle' MacBook and it is $500. I put together a WHOLE PAGE of stuff that is on the cheaper MacBook but not on the Air. And for less money, seriously, look at the specs, it's freaking hilarious. I'm a huge Apple fan boy but I can't say I'm enthusiastic about something that is so blatantly only sold for the 'cool' factor (insert your 'isn't that all Apple products' line here). What amazes me is the gist of the comments, here:
"There's no optical drive!" "You can pay Apple more money to solve that!"
"There's only one USB port!" "You can pay Apple more money to solve that!"
"There's no user replacable battery!" "You can pay Apple to solve that!"
Flash drives, cdroms, and wireless/ethernet seem to be the standards for today, and those all work well with most all laptops, Apple's included. Not with only one USB port they don't.
So actually you were so good, they included you in the same scene 30 times! Do they increase your daily rate for the duplication? Nope. As an extra you're just paid by the day.
DRM: Check Low-def only: Check Low bitrate: Check Watch only on computer: Check No non-streaming option: Check No awareness of what 'on-line rental' means: Priceless.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
This past week I met and interviewed an individual who has worked on the Xbox 360 project for many years and they had some things that they wanted to get out into the public. I have the fullest confidence in the integrity of this confidential source.
Now... How the interview was performed I don't know, since the article doesn't mention it. But nevertheless, there are ways to be anonymous on the internet, as long as you don't divulge any information that can be tracked to you in particular.
If you read the thread from the beginning again, you yourself bring up the point about being anonymous on the internet. And you are wrong, there are lots of ways. He wants to be anon, and the blogger apparently respects that. The interviewee might not be anonymous to the blogger, but he's definitely anonymous (in the sense of "missing a name" without further investigation) to the rest of us.
Look, if you take my statement out of context, it's overly broad. I think we agree on that. I would apologize for that, except the snippy tone of the dude I was replying to didn't really entice me to go into full-diplomatic mode to make every statement air-tight. My point isn't that people cannot post anonymously, my point is that he wouldn't be able to do that here. Now, I will apologize for one thing: Too many times I've posted on this site and instead of taking my point head-on, people try to snipe at details of it as if that refutes anything that was actually said. I replied to you without really thinking about what I was saying and I failed to clarify. I made the mistake, I'm sorry.
Anyway, slipping back into the context of this discussion, you hit the nail right on the head. He may not be anonymous to the blogger. Only I'd take that a step further and suggest that he isn't anonymous to the blogger. This is, of course, assuming that this guy is telling the unvarnished truth. Somehow he convinced this guy that he's an employee of Microsoft and that he's leaking information. Now, either he is completely anonymous to the blogger, which makes his story questionable or the blogger knows who he is and believes he's telling the truth. An investigation could reveal that. Either way, my point stands. It is worth questioning the source of this information. He's either not who he says he is, or he is taking a big risk by talking about it.
And since I'm drawing heat for this topic, I'm going to say one more thing: I'm not defending Microsoft, here. I've followed gaming news since the Super NES was announced. There was a good noisy bunch of BS floating around with every system that has been announced since. (Blast Processing comes to mind... or the rumor that the 'Ultra 64' had a processor that was too expensive so they scrapped it in favor of a CD-based 32-bit system, or even the out-of-context quote that made it sound like Nintendo was anti-on-line.) I wouldn't have called that tame until 2006 came around. It started with the launch of the 360. Lots of people had abrasive opinions on that. Then.. wow... Nintendo comes along, and despite the success of the DS, lots of silliness orbited that machine. And then... *BOOOOOM* Sony comes along and does a P.R. song and dance that put the image in my head of Laurel and Hardy competing on the Apprentice. We hit 2007, and the internet is alive with all kinds of noise, mostly aimed at Sony. Towards the latter half, the Sony side starts to pick up, and lots of BS comes spewing from them, too. Basically what I'm saying is that we're getting bombarded with an unprecedented amount of sensationalist bullshit. In all these years of following video game news, I've NEVER seen so much noise. It's crazy.
I've gotten to a point where I can't read a negative story about any of the systems and treat them without anything but skepticism. There is so much controversy fly
It is just as relevant as the braindead post I replied to, which happens to be yours. You're plain wrong, and it's easy to be anonymous on the intarwebs if you want to... Which is relevant since this is a topic on a "corporate leak"... Mm hmm. So are you saying he did this interview anonymously, then?
- You've heard of anonymous networks, TOR, public access points and such? There are heaps of ways to be anon online. Okay. This is relevent to this topic... how?
- You've heard of logs, right?
- Not wrong. Ask anybody defending themselves against the RIAA.
- Get yourself a family and a life you don't want to risk for something silly like that, then you can be my self-serving-douche-apprentice.
- Considering the blantant fanboyism and bullshit orbiting all three major players, yes it is a good question to ask. You're an idiot if you think everything that is posted should instantly be taken at face value when there's so much controversy surrounding it. When people go as far as to vandalize Wikipedia entries to express their biases, that's a darned good time to stop and ask about the source of the sensationalist news you're getting.
in that case, surely having a swapable battery would also defeat the point as you'd be carrying another battery with you everywhere. There's a big difference between carrying a battery that you can swap and put back in your bag and having a battery tethered via cable to the machine. Though I respect your point about not wanting to carry another battery around, it's not a total defeat of his point.
How does a girl who survives getting impaled (already sketchy) manage to survive a helicopter crash? I've seen lots of movies like that, but usually with poor lighting and an insane credit card charge.
The most interesting development came when the machine suddenly stopped killing ghosts and simply displayed the message: "The only way to win is not to play!"
wow, you criticized apple fanboys with a side swipe at apple. And didn't click the no Karma, or Anonymous check box? a.) I didn't side-swipe Apple. I'm not sure why you're seeing that. The "He's telling the truth" bit is a reference to his ownership of an iPod, not to his critcism.
b.) This is basically a throw-away account. I've been lurking on Slashdot for far longer than my ID implies. One day there was a story about another company complaining about iTune's monopoly. Everybody poo-poo'd that complaint, so I mentioned that he had a point and why I thought so. (As opposed to saying something like "APPLE SUX!! EVERYBODY WHO LIKES APPLE SUCKS!") My comment was initially modded insightful. Unfortunately, that invited criticism. Instead of taking my point head-on, lots of people took jabs at my post. One guy shot up to a +5 for cooking up a hypothetical (and, if anybody spent more than 3 seconds pondering it, non-sensical) scenario about my motivations for making the comment. Silly stuff, but not really out of the norm for Slashdot. The silliness shot to an extreme when all of my recent posts started dropping. Before long, some 30 negative moderations had been made, actually causing me to get banned from Slashdot for a couple of months. (It was specific to an IP range, I could still post from home.) A couple of months later, I started posting again, and those new posts were automatically modded as troll.
So I created this account to avoid that BS attached by my old nick. Frankly, if this one gets toasted by ridiculously organized Apple fanboys too, I really don't care. I can create a new account. BFD. I'm not giving Steve Jobs verbal fellatio just to be cool with a group of people. I'm also not giving Apple any more credit than I'd give Microsoft. They're motivated by profit just like BillyG, so I'm not defending them just because I like my iPod.
I'll bet his post has a -1 by the end of the day.
Well, yeah, that's understandable seeing as it's still so hard to get a hold of a PS3. I wouldn't take out a second job just to get a PS3 and put a floppy DVD in it.
Admittedly I have not. I'm an artist, though, and I've always got Photoshop open for one reason or another. (Especially after downloading photos.) I'm also an Opera user and am quite fond of the mouse gestures. I can imagine the Mac trackpad being friendlier than those I've used, but I'm also having difficulty picturing myself wanting to use it exclusively enough to warrant it. Maybe I'm just being stubborn, I admit that. However, I don't think there's that much harm in avoiding a purchase if I know it's wrong for me.
3d modeling tools are seen as technical products for a technical audience.. as such the UI is given no serious consideration. Your first statement is partly true, but not entirely. First, each app has a different philosophy behind its work flow. In that sense, no, understanding 3d modelling doesn't guarantee a '0 time to learn' by any stretch of the imagination. For example: Lightwave has a modeler app. You build your model in that app, then load it in Layout and animate it. The benefit is that the tools are designed around direct vertex manipulation. It's very easy to get a nice clean model with no extra invisible points etc. The added bonus is since LW's scene has to load the object in, then modify it, you can easily modify an object later and it won't rock the boat of what's going on in layout. (In other words, you can easily update a character's model after it has been animated. Though not impossible in other apps, it's typically less elegant.) Maya, however, has a different approach. Its idea of modeling involves piling on a series of modifiers/nodes onto some geometry. If you want to slice along the polys of a cube, for example, a 'split node' is attached to the object that modifies the geometry for that result. You can then go back and modify it.
On the surface, you end up with a similar toolset. Both Maya and Lightwave have the split/slice polygon tools. However, the philosophies behind them really make that common toolset problematic. For example, Lightwave doesn't have a modifier based operation. It's like Photoshop in that respect. You mess with the vertices, blammo, you're done. This gives you tools like "Dragnet". That tool allows you to grab an area of verticies and pull, just like working with clay. Maya, however, can't do any operations on geometry without creating a modifier. So if you want to do a tool like I described, you have to create a 'dragnet' node, place its start point, then move it to the destination. That's a good deal slower than how Lightwave handles it.
This is an over-simplification of what's involved, but it more or less illustrates the problem with your statement. I'd liken it to watercolors vs. oil paints. They both require paint and a paint brush, but the techniques involved are nearly inverses of each other. With Lightwave, you model by cutting a lot of pieces away. With Maya, you model bending pieces into shape since its work flow lends itself to doing lots of deformations. To put it another over-simplified way: Lightwave would be better suited to modeling something vehicular with rigid pieces. Maya, however, would totally kick Lightwave's ass when modelling something with a lot of hoses and other bendable things, like the Sentinels from the Matrix. The difference is in the workflow philosophies of these apps, not their toolsets. It's a lot harder to cross-train modelers between apps than you'd expect. 3d modeling tools are seen as technical products for a technical audience.. as such the UI is given no serious consideration. I'm not sure how to read this statement. Either you're saying that the UI isn't developed for the mass audience (which is true, and I have no argument at all with) or you're saying that UI's are just tacked on and the artsts just deal with it, which does happen, but isn't generally true. UIs for 3D apps are developed around the philosophy of the app. If that philosophy isn't understood, then the UI makes no sense. Give a Photoshop guru a copy of Illustrator and tell him to do work in it, and he'll tell you the UI's bad. Different philosophy. A lot of work actually does go into the UI of 3D apps. The problem is you cannot take something as vast as '3D' and slim it down to a UI philosophy like you can with something like Photoshop. Yes, 3D apps aren't unituitive or psychic, but no, it isn't for lack of trying.
The difference in price between the 'middle' MacBook and it is $500. I put together a WHOLE PAGE of stuff that is on the cheaper MacBook but not on the Air. And for less money, seriously, look at the specs, it's freaking hilarious. I'm a huge Apple fan boy but I can't say I'm enthusiastic about something that is so blatantly only sold for the 'cool' factor (insert your 'isn't that all Apple products' line here). What amazes me is the gist of the comments, here:
"There's no optical drive!"
"You can pay Apple more money to solve that!"
"There's only one USB port!"
"You can pay Apple more money to solve that!"
"There's no user replacable battery!"
"You can pay Apple to solve that!"
I'm sorry guys, I just don't get this one.
Low-def only: Check
Low bitrate: Check
Watch only on computer: Check
No non-streaming option: Check No awareness of what 'on-line rental' means: Priceless.