"When you fast-forward, the content isn't all that interesting anyhow." That's the assumption. Where's the support?
Yes, I use TiVo to skip over commercials. I also use FF for shows I can watch without sound and faster than real time. Will the service know if I'm FF over a commercial or for some other purpose?
For example I can watch a 3-hour football match in about half the time. I don't need the analyst's inane chatter, and I can always go back to regular speed to catch a big play.
In addition, this 'feature' contradicts TiVo's own marketing. There's no sound while a show is in FF, but one of TiVo's tips is to turn on the closed captions and read the dialogue while watching the show faster.
If the banner ad is anywhere on the screen where I can see it, then it is intrusive.
"Listen, TiVo needs to make money. They're a company selling a product. Everyone seems to forget that and whine when they don't give you everything for free. I applaud them for coming up with a way to sell ad space without interfering with normal use of the product."
That's just wrong. TiVo gives NOTHING for free. I've already paid for the hardware and paid for the service, and I didn't whine about it. This is TiVo unilaterally changing the terms of the deal after they have my money. Would you applaud nVidia if they decided to display banner ads on every computer with their graphics cards? Listen, nVidia needs to make money, right?
"What would you rather have, no fast-forward, forcing you to watch commercials, or a fast-forward with a small screen overlay that you only have to look at for as long as you are fast-forwarding?"
I'd rather have the service I paid for. But you're missing the real question, would you rather have FF with a small screen overlay, or a boat anchor that's useless if TiVo goes out of business and no other company picks up the service?
1. McHenry's moral obligations are to himself. End of story.
2. As far as what could or should be done to correct a single entry, please read any of the several posts pointing out that this guy DID contribute to Wikipedia.
What a bunch of griefers. This guy is lending his experience, his mind, and his effort to addressing systemic issues with Wikipedia. You may not agree with his conclusions, but his points are valid and should be considered.
It is sad to read a bunch of jerks call McHenry a luser because he didn't make edits to one article, while he is addressing issues that need to be resolved to improve all the articles.
Forget missing the forest for the trees, some people can't see beyond their own leaf.
My only qualification in this regard is that I have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong. I use that sense to judge the morality of others' actions. In this case i have judged the action, where McHenry allowed incorrect information to be spread despite his ability to correct the information, to be immoral.
McHenry uses a particular subject as an example, but his point is not that Wikipedia is a poor reference on Alexander Hamilton. Updating that entry does not address his concerns.
His point is there are fundamental flaws in the Wikipedia methodology. One of those flaws is that people are, on average, well...average. Edits may improve a poor entry but are likely to weaken a great one. Articles are eventually "edited into mediocrity." McHenry takes issue with the concept of a general knowledge source such as an encyclopedia edited and maintained by committee that takes all comers.
So the "action" by which McHenry is allowing incorrect information to spread is to allow Wikipedia to exist. Is it therefor his moral obligation to destroy Wikipedia?
Secondly, if he find errors in wikipedia he has a moral obligation to provide the correct information. You may not agree.
By what standard?
How does anyone have a 'moral obligation' to a web site? Or does your concept of slavery only apply one-time Editors in Chief of Encyclopædia Britannica?
I do not doubt McHenry could make an enlightening addition to the entry on Alexander Hamilton, but by what standard are you skarmor qualified to pronounce his obligation?
You are right. The outcome of the election will never be changed. It will never be allowed to.
You are right. The outcome of the election will never be changed. Of course, the votes haven't been counted yet...not the votes that count.
The electors vote on Dec. 13, with votes due in by Dec. 22. The votes are counted on Jan 6, and then we know who will take the oath of office on Jan. 20.
Any speculation on the outcome until then is presumption. Well founded presumption, but presumption none the less.
The real problem is the greed that dominates the entertainment industries and their attempts to jew every last dollar out of the hands of ordinary people.
How can a mod of 'troll' on that comment be meta-modded 'unfair'?
Maybe I should pay Ralph JH Nader a visit and 'jew' him around a bit with my uzi.
for most cases where you'd have access and desire to use a firearm that was not yours, you most likely would nothave had the chance to prepare a jello mold of the owner's fingerprint in advance.
Couldn't you just hold down the 'shift' key while you fire the gun?
Google would be better for most of this. For most of this, it makes more sense to get the files elsewhere. For now, BT makes the most sense for copyright infringement materials, where for the most part no-one dares to host them on typical static web pages or download sites.
AtariAmarok completely missing the point of BitTorrent and has probably never used it.
BT is crap for most copyright infringement materials. Why? Actually, for the exact reason stated--"for the most part no-one dares to host them on typical static web pages or download sites."
BT is nothing like napster or kazaa or that sort of P2P app. There is no search function in the BT client. Most BT links are on typical web pages. (Ok, they're not static--the list of torrents is probably in a database or flat file and page generated. But then again, look around the web, the typical web page these days is not static.)
As far the best source for ISOs, Gutenburg, game demos...
WHERE THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
No, not Earth, silly...this web site./.
Hello, McFly. Ever hear of the slashdot effect? Ever hear of so many people hitting a server at the same time the poor thing dies? DDoS?
So when the DNF demo comes out, and a million fanboys on DSL at home and T-1s at work all go to download it at the same time, "the source" is the ABSOLUTELY WORST PLACE ON THE INTERNET to try to grab a copy.
Now, follow me, over the rainbow.
Imagine...it's easy if you try...an internet where we harness the bandwidth of all those fanboys. A system where instead of the flow of information getting choked off, the flow actually increases as more people download the file!
AtariAmarok mentions mirrors. Well, what if--I know this is crazy, but hang with me here--what if not only did each person downloading a file share that file to others to take advantage of downstream and upstream bandwidth, so that each download becomes a mirror, but what if this could happen simultaneous to download. Each user could share whatever piece of the file available locally without waiting for the download to complete. Each download, instead of being part of the problem, is part of the solution!
If only such a wonder system of distribution existed. Oh wait, it does.
AtariAmarok does make one valid point. How do you know what you are downloading is what you think you are downloading?
You don't. But then again, someone could hack the DNS server so when you try to visit slashdot you actually end up at some goat-related web site.
So, for AtariAmarok the solution is to unplug your modem, turn off your computer, and encase your hard drive in carbonite.
For the rest of us, BT is here. Ask your doctor if BT is right for you.
Stuff like etree, sharethegrove, futhur are very important to the P2P discussion, especially in the context of volume and counting P2P as a % of net traffic.
Why?
At least in terms of music, the bad, infringing type of sharing usually occurs in single song mp3s. The good, wholesome sharing is happening in complete live performance SHN and FLAC.
One of the weapons used against P2P apps is the FUD-line, predominant use is copyright-infringement. Well, if I download 1 Grateful Dead show, that's more music, by volume, than 300 downloads of the latest from britany or christina.
Take that, RIAA!
(Of course, movie bootlegs probably outweigh music-legal and otherwise-on the torrent circuit, but's that's the MPAA's problem.)
I'll see your week and raise you "don't see it at all."
Word. What part of being a geek means you have to be a sucker? Saw the first trilogy in theatres--waited in line a couple hours for the first showing of Jedi--they were good. Saw TPM in theatre--it sucked.
So when AotC came around, I waited for it come out on cable; caught bits and pieces; Portman's a hottie. For the next, and all future SW movies, I'll do the same.
Of course, I cannot understand why people still go to Star Trek movies. If you got hit with a bucket of shit everytime to went to a particular place, how long until you stop going to that place?
Last original cast ST movie I paid to see was Search for Spock. One shit bucket is enough for me, thank you very much.
I did see Generations in the theatre, then waited for First Contact to hit HBO, and done. Haven't see any of the ST movies since then. Unless I hear some rave reviews from all sides, I'm done with new Star Trek--movies and TV.
I really have no urge to see any Sith trailers. Quite the opposite, I'm avoiding them. I admit, I still hold some nostalgia for the Star Wars universe, and even if I won't go to a theatre for it, I will see the next movie when it's out on cable.
I figure my best chance to enjoy it will be to have some surprises. Otherwise, why bother?
High prices and having to deal with sketchy dealers?
There are lots of things to dislike about them. They should really take a cue from the republicans who seem to have their corruption all figured out and well run.
If you work in an office, there's probably a pot of liquid crack around. And I'd wager there's also a sign with something like, 'if you drink the last cup, brew the next pot,' cause you know those adicts don't like to wait for a fix.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I use TiVo to skip over commercials. I also use FF for shows I can watch without sound and faster than real time. Will the service know if I'm FF over a commercial or for some other purpose?
For example I can watch a 3-hour football match in about half the time. I don't need the analyst's inane chatter, and I can always go back to regular speed to catch a big play.
In addition, this 'feature' contradicts TiVo's own marketing. There's no sound while a show is in FF, but one of TiVo's tips is to turn on the closed captions and read the dialogue while watching the show faster.
If the banner ad is anywhere on the screen where I can see it, then it is intrusive.
"Listen, TiVo needs to make money. They're a company selling a product. Everyone seems to forget that and whine when they don't give you everything for free. I applaud them for coming up with a way to sell ad space without interfering with normal use of the product."
That's just wrong. TiVo gives NOTHING for free. I've already paid for the hardware and paid for the service, and I didn't whine about it. This is TiVo unilaterally changing the terms of the deal after they have my money. Would you applaud nVidia if they decided to display banner ads on every computer with their graphics cards? Listen, nVidia needs to make money, right?
"What would you rather have, no fast-forward, forcing you to watch commercials, or a fast-forward with a small screen overlay that you only have to look at for as long as you are fast-forwarding?"
I'd rather have the service I paid for. But you're missing the real question, would you rather have FF with a small screen overlay, or a boat anchor that's useless if TiVo goes out of business and no other company picks up the service?
lol. Everyone knows CalTech is a tiny little division of Harvey Mudd.
Point missed.
1. McHenry's moral obligations are to himself. End of story.
2. As far as what could or should be done to correct a single entry, please read any of the several posts pointing out that this guy DID contribute to Wikipedia.
What a bunch of griefers. This guy is lending his experience, his mind, and his effort to addressing systemic issues with Wikipedia. You may not agree with his conclusions, but his points are valid and should be considered.
It is sad to read a bunch of jerks call McHenry a luser because he didn't make edits to one article, while he is addressing issues that need to be resolved to improve all the articles.
Forget missing the forest for the trees, some people can't see beyond their own leaf.
Who said anything about wasting the wine?
Are you sure this is the example you are looking for?
From Wikipedia:
Orthodox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Or is it?
From the Wikipedia main page:
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." and
"Welcome to Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia"
McHenry uses a particular subject as an example, but his point is not that Wikipedia is a poor reference on Alexander Hamilton. Updating that entry does not address his concerns.
His point is there are fundamental flaws in the Wikipedia methodology. One of those flaws is that people are, on average, well...average. Edits may improve a poor entry but are likely to weaken a great one. Articles are eventually "edited into mediocrity." McHenry takes issue with the concept of a general knowledge source such as an encyclopedia edited and maintained by committee that takes all comers.
So the "action" by which McHenry is allowing incorrect information to spread is to allow Wikipedia to exist. Is it therefor his moral obligation to destroy Wikipedia?
By what standard?
How does anyone have a 'moral obligation' to a web site? Or does your concept of slavery only apply one-time Editors in Chief of Encyclopædia Britannica?
I do not doubt McHenry could make an enlightening addition to the entry on Alexander Hamilton, but by what standard are you skarmor qualified to pronounce his obligation?
Apparently, not everything is coming up Milhouse.
Maybe it wasn't a good idea to do this with that ballot-counting contract...
I keed!
This year's hot toy will be the Alf pog.
So they figured out how anthrax from US Army labs was mailed to various members of congress and media outlets, and captured those responsible?
Oh...they haven't done that, eh?
Well, at least gays can't marry.
The honeybees survived because they'd been breed to introduce a genetically altered strain of smallpox meant to help spread the alien virus.
You are right. The outcome of the election will never be changed. Of course, the votes haven't been counted yet...not the votes that count.
The electors vote on Dec. 13, with votes due in by Dec. 22. The votes are counted on Jan 6, and then we know who will take the oath of office on Jan. 20.
Any speculation on the outcome until then is presumption. Well founded presumption, but presumption none the less.
How can a mod of 'troll' on that comment be meta-modded 'unfair'?
Maybe I should pay Ralph JH Nader a visit and 'jew' him around a bit with my uzi.
Couldn't you just hold down the 'shift' key while you fire the gun?
You'll download your eye out!
lol.
I hadn't thought of that.
google: "torrent anime" 239,000
google: "torrent anime tentacle" 29,000
That's the unhealthy 10%
AtariAmarok completely missing the point of BitTorrent and has probably never used it.
BT is crap for most copyright infringement materials. Why? Actually, for the exact reason stated--"for the most part no-one dares to host them on typical static web pages or download sites."
BT is nothing like napster or kazaa or that sort of P2P app. There is no search function in the BT client. Most BT links are on typical web pages. (Ok, they're not static--the list of torrents is probably in a database or flat file and page generated. But then again, look around the web, the typical web page these days is not static.)
As far the best source for ISOs, Gutenburg, game demos...
WHERE THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
No, not Earth, silly...this web site. /.
Hello, McFly. Ever hear of the slashdot effect? Ever hear of so many people hitting a server at the same time the poor thing dies? DDoS?
So when the DNF demo comes out, and a million fanboys on DSL at home and T-1s at work all go to download it at the same time, "the source" is the ABSOLUTELY WORST PLACE ON THE INTERNET to try to grab a copy.
Now, follow me, over the rainbow.
Imagine...it's easy if you try...an internet where we harness the bandwidth of all those fanboys. A system where instead of the flow of information getting choked off, the flow actually increases as more people download the file!
AtariAmarok mentions mirrors. Well, what if--I know this is crazy, but hang with me here--what if not only did each person downloading a file share that file to others to take advantage of downstream and upstream bandwidth, so that each download becomes a mirror, but what if this could happen simultaneous to download. Each user could share whatever piece of the file available locally without waiting for the download to complete. Each download, instead of being part of the problem, is part of the solution!
If only such a wonder system of distribution existed. Oh wait, it does.
AtariAmarok does make one valid point. How do you know what you are downloading is what you think you are downloading?
You don't. But then again, someone could hack the DNS server so when you try to visit slashdot you actually end up at some goat-related web site.
So, for AtariAmarok the solution is to unplug your modem, turn off your computer, and encase your hard drive in carbonite.
For the rest of us, BT is here. Ask your doctor if BT is right for you.
Stuff like etree, sharethegrove, futhur are very important to the P2P discussion, especially in the context of volume and counting P2P as a % of net traffic.
Why?
At least in terms of music, the bad, infringing type of sharing usually occurs in single song mp3s. The good, wholesome sharing is happening in complete live performance SHN and FLAC.
One of the weapons used against P2P apps is the FUD-line, predominant use is copyright-infringement. Well, if I download 1 Grateful Dead show, that's more music, by volume, than 300 downloads of the latest from britany or christina.
Take that, RIAA!
(Of course, movie bootlegs probably outweigh music-legal and otherwise-on the torrent circuit, but's that's the MPAA's problem.)
double secret bankrupt him!
Word. What part of being a geek means you have to be a sucker? Saw the first trilogy in theatres--waited in line a couple hours for the first showing of Jedi--they were good. Saw TPM in theatre--it sucked.
So when AotC came around, I waited for it come out on cable; caught bits and pieces; Portman's a hottie. For the next, and all future SW movies, I'll do the same.
Of course, I cannot understand why people still go to Star Trek movies. If you got hit with a bucket of shit everytime to went to a particular place, how long until you stop going to that place?
Last original cast ST movie I paid to see was Search for Spock. One shit bucket is enough for me, thank you very much.
I did see Generations in the theatre, then waited for First Contact to hit HBO, and done. Haven't see any of the ST movies since then. Unless I hear some rave reviews from all sides, I'm done with new Star Trek--movies and TV.
I really have no urge to see any Sith trailers. Quite the opposite, I'm avoiding them. I admit, I still hold some nostalgia for the Star Wars universe, and even if I won't go to a theatre for it, I will see the next movie when it's out on cable.
I figure my best chance to enjoy it will be to have some surprises. Otherwise, why bother?
Ok, I get the point--we don't like Monsanto.
We've pretty much already done this.
If you work in an office, there's probably a pot of liquid crack around. And I'd wager there's also a sign with something like, 'if you drink the last cup, brew the next pot,' cause you know those adicts don't like to wait for a fix.