...at least in this business. Who makes you buy HD-DVD or online music? If you buy it, you're doing so because- despite DRM- it's worth it to you.
Now, on the other hand, if the music industry charged you more for DRM-less media, would you be happier in the long run? (Whether or not they'd need to is debatable, but that's not the question.)
I agree. I work at a small ISP and our e-mail server load is through the roof. We've seen a compounding increases every month for a several months and are now at the point where our hardware is simply inadequate. Just six months ago, our server was only using a modicum of its resources. Spam-Assassin has some CPU-intensive filtering options that we tried long ago to increase filtering accuracy (though the difference was negligible), but keeping them on isn't even an option for us anymore. Spam traffic is killing our e-mail server. This will inevitably raise the cost of providing e-mail service (though it's still so cheap per customer, I wonder if it'll actually affect most consumers).
It's interesting to chart e-mails sent and e-mails received. E-mails sent from our server are not even 1% of peak between 2am and 5am, but e-mails received are within 85% of peak during those hours. Spam never sleeps.
Actual spam hitting my inbox has not gone up nearly as much as the volume of spam hitting our mail server, thankfully. It's higher, but certainly manageable.
Actually, I'm quite curious if the pin counts of the chips are the same or even similar. The CPU looks rather large for a shrunken Gamecube processor (the original hardware rumor). Is the chip actually more closely related to the newer G5, perhaps IBM's low-power (laptop) version of the chip?
Sony thought a second X sounded better than DRM. It was originally going to be the VGDRM-XL202, for "Very Good Digital Rights Management, model XL202."
There exists a process that can turn just about anything carbon-based into oil. That article was published in 2003, but a more modern article (which I can't find online) says the cost to make this oil comes out to higher than the cost of crude oil- IIRC $80-$90 a gallon. Once crude oil prices exceed the cost of manufacturing this oil, I'm sure this technology will spread rapidly. Right now, I think this and other alternative fuels are what keeps OPEC from pricing crude oil higher.
Emission laws could actually be to BLAME for global warming. Believe it or not, the EPA itself says catalytic converts cause it. They reduce smog and other harmful pollutants, but cause nitrous oxide, the main contributor nowadays to this alleged global warming. Read for yourself (article a NY Times archive):
I doubt it'll actually render at 1080p, you're analysis is dead-on. It sounds to me as if the hardware will render at 720p and simply scale it to 1080p. With the forthcoming HD-DVD and HDMI, the X-Box will certainly have a video scaler built to convert DVD to HDTV and HD-DVD to SDTV. I believe all HD-DVD players do this. The X-Box will look at the 720p video game output as a video stream and thus convert it without any performance hit (or resolution advantage).
They're cheap, available anywhere, and any HDTV or home theater owner probably owns one or two already. And I'd guess most owners either won't or can't use HDMI anyway. For example: I won't, even though my projector supports it, because my receiver only does component video switching. Few can upconvert all signals to HDMI. Furthermore, most TV's (mine included) do not have enough HDMI jacks to support a television tuner, a movie player, and a game console. The PS3 may fullfill the latter two roles, but will it do both well enough to replace a dedicated DVD player?
So, I think only a small percentage of users would actually be able to take advantage of it, even if HDMI inputs are pretty common nowadays. The inclusion of an HDMI cable thus seems like unnecessary cost. I'd rather see the base price come down a rather petty $5. After all, printers don't come with printer cables, but everyone has printer cables nowadays anyway. I'm glad printers don't come with cables.
Slashdot Mirror
...at least in this business. Who makes you buy HD-DVD or online music? If you buy it, you're doing so because- despite DRM- it's worth it to you. Now, on the other hand, if the music industry charged you more for DRM-less media, would you be happier in the long run? (Whether or not they'd need to is debatable, but that's not the question.)
After all the promises of better CSS support in IE7, the Acid Test still looks downright embarrassing.
I agree. I work at a small ISP and our e-mail server load is through the roof. We've seen a compounding increases every month for a several months and are now at the point where our hardware is simply inadequate. Just six months ago, our server was only using a modicum of its resources. Spam-Assassin has some CPU-intensive filtering options that we tried long ago to increase filtering accuracy (though the difference was negligible), but keeping them on isn't even an option for us anymore. Spam traffic is killing our e-mail server. This will inevitably raise the cost of providing e-mail service (though it's still so cheap per customer, I wonder if it'll actually affect most consumers). It's interesting to chart e-mails sent and e-mails received. E-mails sent from our server are not even 1% of peak between 2am and 5am, but e-mails received are within 85% of peak during those hours. Spam never sleeps. Actual spam hitting my inbox has not gone up nearly as much as the volume of spam hitting our mail server, thankfully. It's higher, but certainly manageable.
Actually, I'm quite curious if the pin counts of the chips are the same or even similar. The CPU looks rather large for a shrunken Gamecube processor (the original hardware rumor). Is the chip actually more closely related to the newer G5, perhaps IBM's low-power (laptop) version of the chip?
Sony thought a second X sounded better than DRM. It was originally going to be the VGDRM-XL202, for "Very Good Digital Rights Management, model XL202."
Oops, I meant $80-$90 per barrel, not gallon.
There exists a process that can turn just about anything carbon-based into oil. That article was published in 2003, but a more modern article (which I can't find online) says the cost to make this oil comes out to higher than the cost of crude oil- IIRC $80-$90 a gallon. Once crude oil prices exceed the cost of manufacturing this oil, I'm sure this technology will spread rapidly. Right now, I think this and other alternative fuels are what keeps OPEC from pricing crude oil higher.
Emission laws could actually be to BLAME for global warming. Believe it or not, the EPA itself says catalytic converts cause it. They reduce smog and other harmful pollutants, but cause nitrous oxide, the main contributor nowadays to this alleged global warming. Read for yourself (article a NY Times archive):
r sies/catalytic.html
http://www.his.com/~sepp/Archive/controv/controve
I doubt it'll actually render at 1080p, you're analysis is dead-on. It sounds to me as if the hardware will render at 720p and simply scale it to 1080p. With the forthcoming HD-DVD and HDMI, the X-Box will certainly have a video scaler built to convert DVD to HDTV and HD-DVD to SDTV. I believe all HD-DVD players do this. The X-Box will look at the 720p video game output as a video stream and thus convert it without any performance hit (or resolution advantage).
They're cheap, available anywhere, and any HDTV or home theater owner probably owns one or two already. And I'd guess most owners either won't or can't use HDMI anyway. For example: I won't, even though my projector supports it, because my receiver only does component video switching. Few can upconvert all signals to HDMI. Furthermore, most TV's (mine included) do not have enough HDMI jacks to support a television tuner, a movie player, and a game console. The PS3 may fullfill the latter two roles, but will it do both well enough to replace a dedicated DVD player? So, I think only a small percentage of users would actually be able to take advantage of it, even if HDMI inputs are pretty common nowadays. The inclusion of an HDMI cable thus seems like unnecessary cost. I'd rather see the base price come down a rather petty $5. After all, printers don't come with printer cables, but everyone has printer cables nowadays anyway. I'm glad printers don't come with cables.