This is shareware in a different medium, that's all.
Give a short clip on YouTube that covers a particularly funny or satirical moment in the show. People can then browse at their leisure the "best of" a particular show. This drives viewers to the designated distribution channels to get the full content.
Stop thinking like a selfish content producer. Give the people what they want and they will come.
And stop thinking that any piracy is all bad. Piracy is unavoidable. Some people will either be too poor or too stingy to buy your content. If making it easy for a thousand people to find your show results in a hundred people pirating content, guess what - those thousand people are going to make you richer even though you "lost money to the pirates", because had you put resitrictions in place to prevent those hundred pirates from stealing your content^W^W^Winfringing on your copyright, those thousand people wouldn't be making you richer.
What kind of an idiot would design a computer such that it lets a random codec someone downloads run as an executable and have access to read their e-mail addresses, capture keystrokes, etc., especially in this day of malware.
Are you for real?
Have you ever heard of a buffer overflow? That's pure data - hex bytes, etc. A buffer gets properly crafted with malicious data that can point the Program Counter of the microprocessor into data memory, which is entirely possible with these Von-Neumann architectures that we use. And where does the PC end up pointing? To some machine-code, which does something like launch a shell.
So, because John Von Neumann designed a memory architecture that allows data to be executed as code, do you think he's an idiot too?
And even forgetting for a moment that data will always represent a possible attack vector (unless we change the way RET works, or we switch to Harvard architectures), a codec is essentially a program that uses instructions to operate upon data, changing it from one format to another. The codec author can make these instructions be anything at all, as long as it interfaces properly to DirectShow or whatever the Unix equivalent is.
Besides. You still have to run an installer to put the codec into your system and register it with the appropriate software components.
I think you'd best watch what you say on slashdot. Some engineer might hear you utter those words, and then horrible things could happen. One time I heard a story about a guy who said something about centrifugal force while he was having dinner in a restaurant; an engineer happened to hear him and he killed the whole town in a fit of rage!
It needs to have enough supporting evidence that someone can blog it as fact. When blogged, it will inevitably get taken out of context and dumbed down to the level that the average Joe will understand, with the substance behind TFA's link.
Give this a few days to make it around the Internet. I can see this becoming a big stink.
Notice the wording here. I'm not talking about people who have, rightful, complaints about faulty/poorly-implemented DRM enforcement.
Like the DRM known as Region Encoding which prevents me from playing legally-purchased DVDs from another country in a legally-purchased DVD player, forcing me to circumvent the DRM in order to watch media that I paid for.
I forget which but either ATI and Nvidia (possibly both) have said the reason why they haven't open sourced their drivers is because they contain valuable intellectual property that could be to the advantage of a competitor (i.e. each other - I assume)
Should ATI and nVidia figure out each other's tricks, wouldn't everyone benefit from the technology developed? (or at least the Linux crowd...) On top of this, the manufacturers would be forced to continue innovating to maintain their presence in the market.
Although I do appreciate the link, I believe the issue isn't as black or white as my snide remark would have you believe. I am, however, of the opinion that the Iraq war is illegitimate, even though it's legal; hence the motivation for the COMPLETELY off-topic remark.
You set up a straw man, assuming that I meant Bush's invasion of Iraq spawned the existence of the first suicide bombers.
I never implied that. I merely implied that the invasion of a foreign country for its oil reserves has driven some militant lunatics to blow themselves up in retaliation. Do you deny this is the truth, or at least the truth that the suicide bombers believe?
Because it's cheaper for a manufacturer to make only one line of keypads that have Braille, and the ATM manufacturers know it's cheaper to use those mass-produced Braille-capable keypads than to have a company manufacture Braille-less ones.
Okay, I dunno if they're half drunk, but they are two mock-slutty girls singing a Britney song.
What do you expect? I just did a youtube search for britney lip sync. You'd be surprised how many guys lip sync to Britney Spears; I had to scroll down pretty far.
I'm assuming the 120dB that you speak of is in reference to kids^Wpeople who drive with subwoofers that play extremely loud and announce their rap^Wmusic to the whole world.
There's one problem. GP was talking about the highest frequencies that can be heard, which uses a variety of hairs that vibrate in response to specific frequencies; whichever section of hair vibrates is harmonic with the sound coming in (think demodulator).
However, the subwoofers play near the lowest frequencies that can be heard. These frequencies cause other hairs to vibrate, and the amount of vibration is transmitted as the neural signal (think ADC).
IIRC, the reason for the split is that the bandwidth of a neuron can handle pulsing like the frequency it is responding to up until around 1 khz or so, and then it would need to fire faster than the brain can process it. This was resolved with the evolution of new hairs that responded to specific frequencies, and send a lower-bandwidth signal to the brain.
Judging from your statement (...not an AOL chatroom.) it appears that you understand the nature of the word.
I also believe there is sufficient context clues in the summary to derive a definition.
As mentioned elsewhere, it is a typo for owned. It is a significant piece of the Internet dialect of English known as leet-speak. It is pronounced like owned, but with a p in front of it; "powned" or "pohned".
I don't get why people are so upset by the evolution of a language over a textual medium.
Then again, I also don't understand why people feel the need to maintain the status quo. Men can't have long hair! Don't be gay! Digital downloads of music and movies are bad!
Shining light in an attempt to drive machine sensors into saturation == torpedo in a shipping channel where ships are manned and destruction of property will occur?
Right.
So back when there was that article which mentioned using infrared light to zap cameras in movie theaters as an anti-piracy measure - those infrared beams are also similar to shooting torpedos, yes?
Slashdot Mirror
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHgaaaaaaspHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA
Well executed.
This is shareware in a different medium, that's all.
Give a short clip on YouTube that covers a particularly funny or satirical moment in the show. People can then browse at their leisure the "best of" a particular show. This drives viewers to the designated distribution channels to get the full content.
Stop thinking like a selfish content producer. Give the people what they want and they will come.
And stop thinking that any piracy is all bad. Piracy is unavoidable. Some people will either be too poor or too stingy to buy your content. If making it easy for a thousand people to find your show results in a hundred people pirating content, guess what - those thousand people are going to make you richer even though you "lost money to the pirates", because had you put resitrictions in place to prevent those hundred pirates from stealing your content^W^W^Winfringing on your copyright, those thousand people wouldn't be making you richer.
My Nintendo DS Lite has a better touchscreen than that.
Maybe Nintendo should get into the voting machine biz.
What kind of an idiot would design a computer such that it lets a random codec someone downloads run as an executable and have access to read their e-mail addresses, capture keystrokes, etc., especially in this day of malware.
Are you for real?
Have you ever heard of a buffer overflow? That's pure data - hex bytes, etc. A buffer gets properly crafted with malicious data that can point the Program Counter of the microprocessor into data memory, which is entirely possible with these Von-Neumann architectures that we use. And where does the PC end up pointing? To some machine-code, which does something like launch a shell.
So, because John Von Neumann designed a memory architecture that allows data to be executed as code, do you think he's an idiot too?
And even forgetting for a moment that data will always represent a possible attack vector (unless we change the way RET works, or we switch to Harvard architectures), a codec is essentially a program that uses instructions to operate upon data, changing it from one format to another. The codec author can make these instructions be anything at all, as long as it interfaces properly to DirectShow or whatever the Unix equivalent is.
Besides. You still have to run an installer to put the codec into your system and register it with the appropriate software components.
Heh, did you notice that the linked web comic refutes the "there is no centrifugal force" thing? It's all about frame of reference.
Anyway, I mainly did it because it was a chance to be only slightly offtopic when talking about engineers killing people.
There is no such thing as centrifugal force.
I think you'd best watch what you say on slashdot. Some engineer might hear you utter those words, and then horrible things could happen. One time I heard a story about a guy who said something about centrifugal force while he was having dinner in a restaurant; an engineer happened to hear him and he killed the whole town in a fit of rage!
*hides*
That's what blogs are for.
It needs to have enough supporting evidence that someone can blog it as fact. When blogged, it will inevitably get taken out of context and dumbed down to the level that the average Joe will understand, with the substance behind TFA's link.
Give this a few days to make it around the Internet. I can see this becoming a big stink.
*holding an empty bag in his hands*
Notice the wording here. I'm not talking about people who have, rightful, complaints about faulty/poorly-implemented DRM enforcement.
Like the DRM known as Region Encoding which prevents me from playing legally-purchased DVDs from another country in a legally-purchased DVD player, forcing me to circumvent the DRM in order to watch media that I paid for.
I forget which but either ATI and Nvidia (possibly both) have said the reason why they haven't open sourced their drivers is because they contain valuable intellectual property that could be to the advantage of a competitor (i.e. each other - I assume)
Should ATI and nVidia figure out each other's tricks, wouldn't everyone benefit from the technology developed? (or at least the Linux crowd...) On top of this, the manufacturers would be forced to continue innovating to maintain their presence in the market.
Yeah, but if SGI patented using floating-point numbers in the framebuffer, and you have something like
// loads the frame buffer with floating point data
int loadFrameBuffer(float* data);
in a header file lying around somewhere, then it doesn't matter what your underlying implementation is. You're violating the patent.
Actually, that was conjecture, not a straw man.
Although I do appreciate the link, I believe the issue isn't as black or white as my snide remark would have you believe. I am, however, of the opinion that the Iraq war is illegitimate, even though it's legal; hence the motivation for the COMPLETELY off-topic remark.
Yes.
You set up a straw man, assuming that I meant Bush's invasion of Iraq spawned the existence of the first suicide bombers.
I never implied that. I merely implied that the invasion of a foreign country for its oil reserves has driven some militant lunatics to blow themselves up in retaliation. Do you deny this is the truth, or at least the truth that the suicide bombers believe?
Oh, wait, that's why you needed the straw man...
Yeah, I fell for the initial troll. Shame on me.
Yeah, I was going to post AC, but my karma's good enough that I'm willing to take a possible hit.
Besides, Bush-bashing is about as obligatory as, say, "I, for one, welcome our new sunlight-free bacterial overlords" or something silly like that.
s/it's/its
Yeah. You get suicide bombers by invading a foreign country in order to gain control over it's oil supply.
What did he say about the GameFAQs community?
"Why do drive-thru ATMs have Braille keypads?"
Because it's cheaper for a manufacturer to make only one line of keypads that have Braille, and the ATM manufacturers know it's cheaper to use those mass-produced Braille-capable keypads than to have a company manufacture Braille-less ones.
Fruits have seeds in them.
Mock-slutty half-drunk teen girls singing Britney Spear's Do Somethin'
Okay, I dunno if they're half drunk, but they are two mock-slutty girls singing a Britney song.
What do you expect? I just did a youtube search for britney lip sync. You'd be surprised how many guys lip sync to Britney Spears; I had to scroll down pretty far.
I'm assuming the 120dB that you speak of is in reference to kids^Wpeople who drive with subwoofers that play extremely loud and announce their rap^Wmusic to the whole world.
There's one problem. GP was talking about the highest frequencies that can be heard, which uses a variety of hairs that vibrate in response to specific frequencies; whichever section of hair vibrates is harmonic with the sound coming in (think demodulator).
However, the subwoofers play near the lowest frequencies that can be heard. These frequencies cause other hairs to vibrate, and the amount of vibration is transmitted as the neural signal (think ADC).
IIRC, the reason for the split is that the bandwidth of a neuron can handle pulsing like the frequency it is responding to up until around 1 khz or so, and then it would need to fire faster than the brain can process it. This was resolved with the evolution of new hairs that responded to specific frequencies, and send a lower-bandwidth signal to the brain.
Judging from your statement (...not an AOL chatroom.) it appears that you understand the nature of the word.
I also believe there is sufficient context clues in the summary to derive a definition.
As mentioned elsewhere, it is a typo for owned. It is a significant piece of the Internet dialect of English known as leet-speak. It is pronounced like owned, but with a p in front of it; "powned" or "pohned".
I don't get why people are so upset by the evolution of a language over a textual medium.
Then again, I also don't understand why people feel the need to maintain the status quo. Men can't have long hair! Don't be gay! Digital downloads of music and movies are bad!
Are you sure that's the word you're looking for?
Shining light in an attempt to drive machine sensors into saturation == torpedo in a shipping channel where ships are manned and destruction of property will occur?
Right.
So back when there was that article which mentioned using infrared light to zap cameras in movie theaters as an anti-piracy measure - those infrared beams are also similar to shooting torpedos, yes?
Until the DoJ tries to claim that your freedom of speech is a danger to national security.
Then your lawsuit (usually) disappears.