I ran into this while abroad as well, but IIRC there was an option to skip a picture. I used that option once or twice when I was given a picture without a face.
Secondly, even if you are distrbuting binary encoders/decoders you don't pay anything until you hit about 50,000 units shipped.
This is the problem with x264. If x264 becomes the de facto standard, two guys in a garage will never be able to develop their own browser that competes with all the current market leaders, because the second it starts to gain widespread acceptance it becomes subject to royalty fees that two guys in a garage will never be able to afford. The x264 standard may be open, but you can't do anything useful with that standard without paying up.
If I want to purchase services from a provider available to me that prioritizes YouTube and Netflix over Torrent traffic, why the heck shouldn't I be able to?
The problem is that, whether or not you want to purchase services from a provider available to you that prioritizes YouTube and Netflix over Torrent traffic, your only choices are the local cable monopoly and the local phone monopoly (if you're lucky enough to have both providing high speed service to your house), so you're stuck with whatever policies they have. Now, if you or I could start up our own independent ISP with different prioritization policies to compete with the local monopolies, you might be on to something here.
People putting this off as an example of a market failure mistakenly think TV viewers are the customers in this example. No, the viewers are the *product*, advertisers are the customers. And advertisers, they love themselves some loud ads. The market has spoken.
But from this article I will just take this: I don't care which one is fastest to the few dozen milliseconds, they are probably all in the same "class" now. Everybody wins.
Isn't competition so much nicer than having a monopoly one one browser that hasn't been updated in years?
I'm a college football addict too, and I hate ESPN3.com on principle. I'd gladly pay for it, but don't force the ISPs to pay per customer. I'm worried about what happens if it succeeds, and then a whole bunch of TV channels I *don't* want to watch try to copy. Right now my ISP doesn't pay for ESPN3, and I hope they keep it that way and don't pay for any copycats either. Let me decide what internet streams are worth premium costs.
And just like the printing press, if you don't like the terms of use, build your own or shop around.
And that's the problem here. If the ISPs competed in a free market, this could work. However, since the market isn't free and we're artificially limited to a couple of local ISPs, regulation is necessary to prevent abuses that would normally be limited by competition.
"Letting the market decide" doesn't work when the market isn't free to make a decision.
Doesn't Google or anyone have any Android/Linux patents that they can use to force HTC to pay for patent licensing on WinMo7 phones? And put that money towards the license from MS? I thought all those giant patent portfolios were to prevent stuff like this from happening without fear of reprisal.
The problem with attacking religion is it's not the problem. So down the road when religion is destroyed the people will use another excuse to kill or control. The shit is never ending.
If only South Park made an episode(s) about this. Science damn you!!
You read your paper and you're enjoying your two-page comic spread. And there's The Family fucking Circus, bottom right corner, just waiting to suck. And that's the last thing you read, so it spoils everything you read before it. I hate it, yet I'm uncontrollably drawn to it.
Plus one of the demos on the Nexus One page is for a Google Voice app, and it shows someone replying to a voicemail "via Google Voice". I'm assuming this is going over VOIP, unless they somehow tie Google Voice to the cell phone voice plan.
My alma mater's sporting event internet streams recently moved to CBS All-Access, and I've been missing out on them since All-Access uses Silverlight. I've been trying the Moonlight 2.0 betas though, and they still don't work, probably because the site is using Silverlight 3.0. And I'm sure that Moonlight 3.0 will come out just after All-Access moves to 4.0.
The thing that got me excited about the Google phone were the initial rumors that the phone would would be data-plan only and would use Google Voice. I don't need a smartphone enough to want to pay for the data plan on top of the voice plan, but I would have no problem doing just the data plan. Of course, the latest rumors from this article mention the need to buy a SIM card, which makes me think it's going to be voice plan + data plan like every other smartphone I know of in this country. My excitement level has decreased significantly as the rumors have changed from a completely new way to do data plans to the Droid with Google branding but without the price partially subsidized.
As a Ubuntu user, I'd just be happy if it force a version of Silverlight for Linux that actually works (Yes, I've tried Moonlight. No, it doesn't work for any of the streaming sports broadcasts I'd like to watch). If making it pisses off Microsoft, everybody wins.
How do we reconcile this with slamming Apple for trying to maintain 100% control over the OS/hardware combo?
Easily. These are just hardware requirements, no one is trying force you to run it on an approved version of the hardware. If you can build hardware that fits the requirements, you can run it.
Personally, I can't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash.
Yeah, except for all the major sites that will continue to use Silverlight since Microsoft is paying them to annoy OS X and Linux users even more than using Flash.
Uh, that's nice wishful thinking there, but this new policy a reaction to the new TV deal they have in place with ESPN. They are receiving approximately a metric fuckton of money and are trying to make ESPN happy by eliminating any dissemination through any other sources. Not that they can stop it, but I'm sure there are a bunch of people in suits that think they can if they pay enough legal fees. But as for sucking the money out of college sports, not even close.
Go here to see all the flash cookies and delete any and all you don't want. Might not be as easy as deleting a directory, but I don't necessarily want to delete them all.
In effect, people who disregard the rules help to break up the groups that form as rule-followers clump together.
I understand that breaking the rules would clear up a clump faster than following the rules, but wouldn't this clump form at first due to someone who disregards the rules? Unless someone else can think of a more common reasons a clump might form due to rule-following instead of slow drivers in the passing lane or people slamming on the brakes to avoid someone veering through traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
tell me why censoring the Internet is the FIRST step taken by authoritarian governments when protests arise?
To try and prevent images and videos unsympathetic to the authoritarian government from spreading around the world (unsuccesfully in this case)
I ran into this while abroad as well, but IIRC there was an option to skip a picture. I used that option once or twice when I was given a picture without a face.
Secondly, even if you are distrbuting binary encoders/decoders you don't pay anything until you hit about 50,000 units shipped.
This is the problem with x264. If x264 becomes the de facto standard, two guys in a garage will never be able to develop their own browser that competes with all the current market leaders, because the second it starts to gain widespread acceptance it becomes subject to royalty fees that two guys in a garage will never be able to afford. The x264 standard may be open, but you can't do anything useful with that standard without paying up.
If I want to purchase services from a provider available to me that prioritizes YouTube and Netflix over Torrent traffic, why the heck shouldn't I be able to?
The problem is that, whether or not you want to purchase services from a provider available to you that prioritizes YouTube and Netflix over Torrent traffic, your only choices are the local cable monopoly and the local phone monopoly (if you're lucky enough to have both providing high speed service to your house), so you're stuck with whatever policies they have. Now, if you or I could start up our own independent ISP with different prioritization policies to compete with the local monopolies, you might be on to something here.
Why not just give everyone the default code of 0000 or 12345?
12345? That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.
People putting this off as an example of a market failure mistakenly think TV viewers are the customers in this example. No, the viewers are the *product*, advertisers are the customers. And advertisers, they love themselves some loud ads. The market has spoken.
But from this article I will just take this: I don't care which one is fastest to the few dozen milliseconds, they are probably all in the same "class" now. Everybody wins.
Isn't competition so much nicer than having a monopoly one one browser that hasn't been updated in years?
I'm a college football addict too, and I hate ESPN3.com on principle. I'd gladly pay for it, but don't force the ISPs to pay per customer. I'm worried about what happens if it succeeds, and then a whole bunch of TV channels I *don't* want to watch try to copy. Right now my ISP doesn't pay for ESPN3, and I hope they keep it that way and don't pay for any copycats either. Let me decide what internet streams are worth premium costs.
And just like the printing press, if you don't like the terms of use, build your own or shop around.
And that's the problem here. If the ISPs competed in a free market, this could work. However, since the market isn't free and we're artificially limited to a couple of local ISPs, regulation is necessary to prevent abuses that would normally be limited by competition.
"Letting the market decide" doesn't work when the market isn't free to make a decision.
Q: What do you call a few thousand lawyers on a remote, arctic island?
A: A good start
Doesn't Google or anyone have any Android/Linux patents that they can use to force HTC to pay for patent licensing on WinMo7 phones? And put that money towards the license from MS? I thought all those giant patent portfolios were to prevent stuff like this from happening without fear of reprisal.
The problem with attacking religion is it's not the problem. So down the road when religion is destroyed the people will use another excuse to kill or control. The shit is never ending.
If only South Park made an episode(s) about this. Science damn you!!
When enough people decide that it isn't worth it, ticket prices will either start to drop off or theaters will stop doing the 3d altogether.
Or it will be blamed on piracy. But movie studios would never do that when a much more obvious cause is available, right?
While you're at it, you should buy Mine That Bird wearing a mink snuggie
You read your paper and you're enjoying your two-page comic spread. And there's The Family fucking Circus, bottom right corner, just waiting to suck. And that's the last thing you read, so it spoils everything you read before it. I hate it, yet I'm uncontrollably drawn to it.
So does this mean the limited time availability for me to buy Mountain Dew Throwback just got even more limited?
Plus one of the demos on the Nexus One page is for a Google Voice app, and it shows someone replying to a voicemail "via Google Voice". I'm assuming this is going over VOIP, unless they somehow tie Google Voice to the cell phone voice plan.
My alma mater's sporting event internet streams recently moved to CBS All-Access, and I've been missing out on them since All-Access uses Silverlight. I've been trying the Moonlight 2.0 betas though, and they still don't work, probably because the site is using Silverlight 3.0. And I'm sure that Moonlight 3.0 will come out just after All-Access moves to 4.0.
The thing that got me excited about the Google phone were the initial rumors that the phone would would be data-plan only and would use Google Voice. I don't need a smartphone enough to want to pay for the data plan on top of the voice plan, but I would have no problem doing just the data plan. Of course, the latest rumors from this article mention the need to buy a SIM card, which makes me think it's going to be voice plan + data plan like every other smartphone I know of in this country. My excitement level has decreased significantly as the rumors have changed from a completely new way to do data plans to the Droid with Google branding but without the price partially subsidized.
As a Ubuntu user, I'd just be happy if it force a version of Silverlight for Linux that actually works (Yes, I've tried Moonlight. No, it doesn't work for any of the streaming sports broadcasts I'd like to watch). If making it pisses off Microsoft, everybody wins.
Easily. These are just hardware requirements, no one is trying force you to run it on an approved version of the hardware. If you can build hardware that fits the requirements, you can run it.
Yeah, except for all the major sites that will continue to use Silverlight since Microsoft is paying them to annoy OS X and Linux users even more than using Flash.
Uh, that's nice wishful thinking there, but this new policy a reaction to the new TV deal they have in place with ESPN. They are receiving approximately a metric fuckton of money and are trying to make ESPN happy by eliminating any dissemination through any other sources. Not that they can stop it, but I'm sure there are a bunch of people in suits that think they can if they pay enough legal fees. But as for sucking the money out of college sports, not even close.
Go here to see all the flash cookies and delete any and all you don't want. Might not be as easy as deleting a directory, but I don't necessarily want to delete them all.
In effect, people who disregard the rules help to break up the groups that form as rule-followers clump together.
I understand that breaking the rules would clear up a clump faster than following the rules, but wouldn't this clump form at first due to someone who disregards the rules? Unless someone else can think of a more common reasons a clump might form due to rule-following instead of slow drivers in the passing lane or people slamming on the brakes to avoid someone veering through traffic.