Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:DRM worked out then.. (Score 2) 464

by doodlebumm (#41087227) Attached to: Ubisoft Claims PC Piracy Rate of 93-95%
Instead of charging $50 with DRM, charge $10 with no DRM. That would be a less expensive to produce and support. In addition, MANY more people would be willing to pay just $10. If even 50% were pirates, they make up the lost income from the lower price through additional sales, less support costs, and less development/licensing for DRM. And talk about customer satisfaction!!! They just don't get it through, do they?

Comment: Re:Lock Out (Score 1) 242

by doodlebumm (#40389031) Attached to: Locked-Down Tablets Endanger FLOSS For End Users
Apple is NOT (I repeat - NOT) afraid of being sued - even less afraid of a _threat_ of being sued. Especially the nickel and dime stuff that would be done for App Store _potential_ violations. Apple just wants to make more money off the App Store, so they reject as much good free stuff as possible, so that people will go _buy_ the non-free apps, so that they can make their (more than fair) share.

Comment: Re:Petition to ignorance (Score 1) 386

by doodlebumm (#37544678) Attached to: Australian Users Petitioning Against Windows 8 Secure Boot

You are just spreading FUD. Windows 8 competes with Windows 7 and they have to allow users to upgrade with an old PC. It would be stupid to implement an OS that requires a Secure Boot mode, because it would mean that mean that users would have to buy new hardware.

Ummm... no. If the "Windows 8" certification requires Secure Boot, it doesn't mean that Windows 8 will only work on that hardware, it means that hardware would only work with Windows 8 (unless they also supply a way to turn the secure boot requirement off). The "buy new hardware" would only affect people who are ... "buying new hardware."

Even if they did, there will be anti-trust litigation in both the US or EU. Microsoft has been in trouble in the past for bundling software, which is a far less serious offense than actually locking out the competition. Any attempt would just be negative publicity and could potentially bar them from selling in a major market.

Tell me... When has Microsoft ever let anti-trust legislation stop them from doing something monopolistic? ... Never! They do it, then fight in court until they loose. It's like they will steal from others until someone stands up to them, then they continue to steal, until they are found guilty, and then still continue to steal until someone comes along and hits them up the side of the head.

It would be a stupid business decision especially when over 95% of consumers prefer Windows over Linux anyways. There is little to gain for Microsoft and a lot to lose

Don't be so naive as to think that this is only about the desktop. The Internet is run mostly on Linux, NOT Windows. If you include all devices that run some version of Linux to all devices that run some version of Windows, Linux wins. Period. That doesn't mean that this isn't mostly about the desktop. If and when Microsoft comes out with a Windows 8 tablet version, if they put the same restriction on that hardware (again, FOR Windows 8 Certification, not that Windows 8 would run on other hardware that isn't certified), then it would be useless to try to run Android on the tablet (even though it would probably improve the tablet significantly). This is all about control. Microsoft wants to be in control. They see the market slipping away from them as the mobile market takes control of personal computing. The only way they could insure they would have some hardware penetration into the mobile phone market was to buy Nokia. Right now there are twice as many Android phones as there are iPhones in the US, and Microsoft hardly registers as an "also ran." What does their future look like, really? They have to find a way to get control back, or they will loose it all eventually.

Comment: What is all the fuss about? (Score 1) 292

by doodlebumm (#34620658) Attached to: Best Open Source Genealogy Software?
One of the things that most interests me in this type of discussion is the fear that people have of Mormon baptism for the dead. Let's look at this for a second. If the Mormons are right (God exists and accepts that baptism for entrance into "heaven"), then the baptism might be helpful (if the dead person accepts the baptism). If the Mormons are wrong, then what harm did it do the dead person? It certainly can't condemn them (since they weren't involved). So the fact is - it is either valuable, or inconsequential. There is NO other possibility. So I ask, why all the fuss? Really!!

Comment: Re:I didn't even know it was in trouble (Score 2) 762

by doodlebumm (#34593274) Attached to: Stargate Universe Cancelled
Well at least there were three of us. I quite looked forward to the new episodes each week. I think that there was more to the show than most people cared to figure out. It was definitely more gritty and more of a moral dilemma show. Not many shows would have written a story where the captain suffocates one of his men to make it so that he didn't have to die alone when he was left behind. I thought much of the stuff was very thought provoking. I'll miss it.

Comment: Re:A hard choice (Score 1) 527

by doodlebumm (#32476264) Attached to: Apple's HTML5 and Standards Gallery Not Standard

Safari for Linux? Not likely. Apple's afraid to do that...

I think it's more a case of Apple has no motivation to spend the time and money doing that since it doesn't get them anything.

Maybe they could be nice?

Why does Apple want to make you download and install Safari?

Because this is a demo of Safari's new HTML5 support. If you don't have Safari, you can't see what Safari's support is. This page is aimed at normal users or potential users of Safari.

So why not show what the other browser won't do it, but safari will - in video?

Since they are already checking your browser to see the demo, why not have an alternative video file for each demo if your current browser doesn't support the individual demo?

Because they didn't think of it or get around to it? Besides, interactive features are much cooler because you can actually play around with them.

Didn't think my ass. And get around to it? Ditto.

What is Apple afraid of?

Why didn't you make the demos yourself post them somewhere and link to them. Are you just incompetent? What are you afraid of?

So, you want me to install Windows on my computer, (and given your fanboy status, I don't think you really want me to do that), or buy a Mac (you'd like that, wouldn't you?) so that I can promote Apple products? Are they going to pay me? Please look at your first comment to my posting for more information.

Comment: Re:A hard choice (Score 1) 527

by doodlebumm (#32475736) Attached to: Apple's HTML5 and Standards Gallery Not Standard

Safari for Linux? Not likely. Apple's afraid to do that, or maybe just not competent enough to do it (which I doubt). Or maybe they are just too arrogant and self-centered.

Why does Apple want to make you download and install Safari?

Since they are already checking your browser to see the demo, why not have an alternative video file for each demo if your current browser doesn't support the individual demo? Why not try to show what their browser can do instead of making you install it in order to see what it can do. They could even put 1080 videos on Youtube (oops, that might allow someone to comment on the video).

What is Apple afraid of?

Comment: Re:Wow (Score 1) 909

by doodlebumm (#31933030) Attached to: Steve Jobs Recommends Android For Fans of Porn
That's an interesting statement coming from a guy that was quite heavily into psychedelic drugs (and who knows what else) at one point in his adult, corporate life. I'm not saying he's not right about not wanting to sell porn, but definitely sanctimonious, especially if he hasn't claimed to have cleaned up his act (I-found-Jesus sort of statement).

All great ideas are controversial, or have been at one time.

Working...