Slashdot Mirror


Fox Starts TV Production For Cell Phones

prostoalex writes "Broadcasting television to the cell phones, which few people were actually interested in, is becoming a reality pretty fast, as Fox started making mopisodes (one-minute episodes targeted specifically for the mobile phone screen) to be broadcast on Vodafone and Verizon networks. The Fox announcement timed perfectly with Vodafone launching a broad variety of 3G services in Europe."

232 comments

  1. Will they come with blipverts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Max Headroom wants to know.

  2. FOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    can we really trust a biased source like this to give us shitty 1 minute episodes? president bush strikes again.

    1. Re:FOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the parent 'flamebait'?

      Fox IS POLITICAL.

      FOx IS BIASED.

      Fox IS RIGHT-WING.

      Fox does LIE TO THE HILT.

      Fox IS UNTRUSTWORTHY.

      Fox DOES SUCK THE BIG ONE>

      FVCK FOX, and every NIMROD idiot that watches it.

  3. CNN Coverage by calibanDNS · · Score: 4, Informative

    CNN's coverage can be found here.

    1. Re:CNN Coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded informative? It's the exact same Associated Press article.

      USA Today: The Twentieth Century Fox studio, a veteran of the big screen and the TV screen, is about to break into an entirely new realm: the really little screen, the kind that comes on a cell phone.

      CNN: The Twentieth Century Fox studio, a veteran of the big screen and the TV screen, is about to break into an entirely new realm: the really little screen, the kind that comes on a cell phone.

    2. Re:CNN Coverage by SbooX · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well then I guess this link to Google News is pretty useless too, eh?

  4. Oh boy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Star Wars Narrow Screen Edition.

    1. Re:Oh boy! by whiteranger99x · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow! That Death Star sure blew up that dust speck Alderaan really bad! :P

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    2. Re:Oh boy! by JurgenThor · · Score: 1, Funny

      And you will barely be able to tell who shoots first!

      --
      GENERAL PUBLIC SIGNATURE (GPS) Any replies (derivatives) of this post must also use the GPS
    3. Re:Oh boy! by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Actually, isn't Clone Wars almost this? Though those were more like 5 minutes, IIRC. And those Animatrix cartoons. Back in the silent days, one of the first movie serials, The Perils of Pauline (remembered for the protagoist being tied to railway tracks by the villain) was 20 episodes of 10 or so minutes. One minute though, is a bit too Max Headroom to contemplate. Jack can certainly kill a few people in that time though.

  5. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    What an insanely stupid idea. One minute TV episodes for the cell phone. Can someone please point me to the place where they give jobs like this out, to come up with incredibly stupid ideas like this?

    Instead of spending the money on this, FOX might as well have just spent the money on sexual harassment training.

    1. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      it's incredible, isn't it?

      but the phone companies are desperate to find a use for all their gadgetry other than talking to someone a long way away, without having to shout.

      got any better ideas?

    2. Re:WTF by tuxter · · Score: 2

      And it's FOX, it's debateable if any of their full length programming is of any virtue either...

    3. Re:WTF by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People are nuts. They want the tiniest cell phone possible, and then they want full motion/realtime video on it as well as a huge amount of memory for an MP3 player, add some circuitry for GPS, and whatever else. Do people really want to watch tv on their phone? Maybe this trend has more to do with people never being home because they have to or choose to work insane hours and also run kids back and forth and try to do other things as well. We are a Type A society I suppose. If it's gotten so bad that watching tv on a cell phone seems like a good idea, well, then, it's gotten pretty bad.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    4. Re:WTF by erick99 · · Score: 0

      While that's a popular and reflexive opinion on SlashDot, I find that Fox has some good original programming and some very good sports coverage. I don't watch Fox for political coverage nor for the "talking head" shows so I don't have that particularly axe to grind.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    5. Re:WTF by Mikey-San · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd wager that the budget for these one-minute cell phone episodes actually came out of the FOX News ethics training budget.

      --
      Mikey-San
      Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
    6. Re:WTF by PickyH3D · · Score: 1

      > Can someone please point me to the place where they give jobs like this out, to come up with incredibly stupid ideas like this? Look into "marketing" . The really sad thing is that people will probably like this... just like the whole ad campaign idea where you NEVER see the product being advertised.

    7. Re:WTF by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Can someone please point me to the place where they give jobs like this out, to come up with incredibly stupid ideas like this?

      Sadly, stupid ideas like this are commonplace in Fortune 500 companies.

      I swear, they pay people good money to waste the companies money on poorly planned projects.

      My dotcom company was aquired by a big Fortune 500 company. They want to replace our product with their own product. Fair enough.

      Huge chunks of this technical project were planned, and the entire budget was allocated, without input from a single technical person! Their initial plan? We can do this in 2 months for $2 million dollars.

      That was 5 months ago. Today, they are millions of dollars into the project, millions over budget, and the deadline is now a year away. They payed $1.5 million to IBM for the DB2, Websphere and some special 'portal software'.

      One of the executives behind this decision is sitting there grinning like a baffoon... the other one is sitting on a beach after he cashed out his $3 Million in stock.

      But don't blame me, we warned them that their idea was going to fail... but haha, they can't get rid of the legacy sites until they replace 'em with the new sites so I still have a job for the time being.

    8. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've confused Fox with CBS.

    9. Re:WTF by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Live in a country where your daily commute is an hour-and-a-half train ride one way, and perhaps you'll begin to see the justification.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    10. Re:WTF by meme_police · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would I do that? I walk to work in 15 minutes. I'd rather live close to work in a 100 sq ft apartment shared with 12 other people than take 1 1/2 hour train ride.

      --

      The meme police, They live inside of my head

    11. Re:WTF by corian · · Score: 2, Funny

      Live in a country where your daily commute is an hour-and-a-half train ride one way, and perhaps you'll begin to see the justification.

      A one-minute TV program isn't going to take that much of a bite out of your one-and-a-half hour comute, though...

    12. Re:WTF by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can someone please point me to the place where they give jobs like this out, to come up with incredibly stupid ideas like this?

      The idea was pretty obvious after looking at the attention span of most cellphone users.

    13. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may not be the place to brag but... I have the Moto V710 with 128 mB Transflash card that plays 3g2 files. So I got to thinking instead of just 1 minute clips what if I want to watch my favorite Simpsons on my cell phone. So with a little cropping in After Effects, and converting with Quicktime Pro I can now watch my favorite Simpson episode on my cell phone, with full 44 khz sound. Now with my adapter from Radio Shack I can watch movies in during accounting lectures.

    14. Re:WTF by sabNetwork · · Score: 2, Funny

      WELCOME TO FOX NEWS BRIEFS
      America's Most Trusted Name in Cell Phone News

      It's time for our 60-second summary!
      beep beep budeep beep beep

      This just in-- Bush approval ratings are up!
      Shares of Halliburton may rise in the near future!
      Terrorists want to kill you-- stay home today!
      Baby-killing doctors arrested in San Francisco!
      Michael Moore needs to shut up!
      John Kerry is French!

      For more information on these breaking news stories, visit www.foxnews.com.

      --

    15. Re:WTF by tho+1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Generations have been working in jobs they hate, just so they can buy what they don't really need"

      -fight club

    16. Re:WTF by jetmarc · · Score: 1

      > A one-minute TV program isn't going to take that much of a bite out of your
      > one-and-a-half hour comute, though... ...which certainly wont keep them from charging 99 cents per "episode".

    17. Re:WTF by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Do people really want to watch tv on their phone?"

      I'd laugh if it came to light that you had a Game Boy.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    18. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you !

    19. Re:WTF by sprocks · · Score: 1

      This is headed for some interesting space. Gadget full phone combined with heads up infinity focus color display in glasses, in-ear high fidelity audio. The experience is likely to best anything.

    20. Re:WTF by Tarwn · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is, Sprint already offers several mini TV apps that include news from sources such as:
      AP and Reuters, Fox, ABC News, NPR, CBS, etc. So I guess there's a bunch of jobs out there already doing this :)

      There's also a mini-app to let you watch local TV straight on your phone, not sure if it is pre-processed by sprint or if the hardware was alrady built in to receive TV signals.

      The apps look like they range from $3.95 - $9.99 per month, and I assume that part of that money gets kicked back to the originator.

      Now I haven't actualy bought acces to any of these apps, so I don't know if they're drastically differant, but it seems to be fairly similar from reading the descriptions.

      --
      Whee signature.
    21. Re:WTF by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Insanely stupid? Perhaps. But is does feed the attention deficit of people who are prone to buy into such things. We should worry more about assjerks who will be actually watching TV while they're driving or operating heavy machinery. I may be exaggerating, since small TVs have been available for some time, and I've never heard about a driver getting an accident due to one of them. However, with all the problems with CWD (Cellphoning While Driving), I can freely speculate that adding TV to these already-troublesome devices could well be a further problem.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    22. Re:WTF by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      They can have all that, and good battery life, if they improve the network to accomodate streaming.

      The added benefit being people with bluetooth on their phones and laptops will be able to use them from anywhere.

      Of course, I'd settle just for coverage at my house right now...

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    23. Re:WTF by Lally+Singh · · Score: 1

      Rupert's trying to push his media into new media. Yeah it's coerced beyond all belief, but it's how old media survives. And plenty will watch, just to know the soft feel of a warm tube once more.

      Besides, 15 minute spots are probably the sweet-spot, and that's just waiting on technology to catch up to make it feasible.

      --
      Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
    24. Re:WTF by The+Conductor · · Score: 1
      Why would you do that? To have children. To live close to family (who can help with watching the children). To live in a better school district (for your children).

      Parents like TV, too!

    25. Re:WTF by meme_police · · Score: 1

      So basically you're a coward. Afraid to do what's right for the environment, afraid to try and improve the neighborhoods that are close to your employer, and afraid to make the school districts better. Selfish, selfish, selfish.

      --

      The meme police, They live inside of my head

    26. Re:WTF by The+Conductor · · Score: 1

      Promoting a clean environment and working for better schools is all well & good, but to do so at the expense of your own chilren's welfare seems a bit extreme.

  6. 1minute episodes ? commericals by sPaKr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought the correct term for a one minute episode was commercial. I cant belive people are going to pay for that.

    1. Re: 1minute episodes ? commericals by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1
      Yes, and it's getting even better: just wait until spammers find a cheap (to them) way of broadcasting such 1-minute 'infomercials'...

      Get your phone number listed in the wrong place -> throw away your phone.

    2. Re: 1minute episodes ? commericals by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      It would cost to send the rubbish, at the moment... but you could use Bluetooth and just push the advertisement to unwilling pedestrians in the vicinity of your advertising nodes.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    3. Re:1minute episodes ? commericals by cyfer2000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      maybe fox just made a big investment in battery industry.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    4. Re:1minute episodes ? commericals by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Well, 1 minute is all the worthwile content Fox puts into it's programming anyway, and that's as long as it's on the air before they cancel it.

      Think of it this way, for a few dollars you can see an entire season of bad programming in just a few minutes. Isn't your time worth that much?

    5. Re:1minute episodes ? commericals by mordors9 · · Score: 1

      NO, it will be one minute blurbs of pr0n, just in case you can't make it home with out a little shot ;-)

    6. Re:1minute episodes ? commericals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who watches porn without beating off?

      I can see it now, a train carriage filled with people beating off to their mobile phones.

    7. Re:1minute episodes ? commericals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought a one minute was the typical slashdotter in bed with a model, or for that matter a girl

    8. Re: 1minute episodes ? commericals by Ewan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've got a 3G phone from 3 and I did get video spammed on it a few times from the provider advertising things, after the 3rd time i phoned them up and complained, not received one since. I'll be leaving them in january when my contract finishes anyway, they're shockingly bad.

      Ewan

    9. Re:1minute episodes ? commericals by kaos.geo · · Score: 1

      Here in Argentina, an HBo programme (Called Epitaphs) was advertised via this method just three months ago.
      I agree about the low quantity of users, but cell phones are and will be growing exponentially against land lines (here there are actually MORE cell phone line than land lines, the numbers tipped this fall).
      What I am worried about is.. PERSONAL BLIPVERTS?!!!???

    10. Re:1minute episodes ? commericals by mordors9 · · Score: 1

      and you have one minute to do it.

    11. Re:1minute episodes ? commericals by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      I thought the correct term for a one minute episode was commercial.

      Your mistake is understandable. What you're referring to are known as "breaks" by the industry.

      However, all of the material between the "breaks" can be classified as a "commercial" or "advertisement".

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    12. Re:1minute episodes ? commericals by sPaKr · · Score: 1

      So if tivo changes the name of their button to 'Break Skip' everyone would be happy?

  7. "Mopisode" by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Mopisode"? I thought a one-minute dramatic episode was called a "trailer".

    1. Re:"Mopisode" by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, a trailer is a preview for an upcoming movie. It is called a trailer because it used to trail the movies. Then the marketing guys came in and said, "Hey, more people will watch these movie ads if we stick them at the FRONT of the movie!"

      However, I do believe mopisode is stupid sounding and probably/hopefully won't catch on.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    2. Re:"Mopisode" by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah. Just what we need now.

      First, there was ... "SPAM".
      Then, there was ... "SPIM".
      Now, we have ...... "SPAT".

      ('Cause a one minute dramatic episode sure
      isn't a "mopisode", but is a "trailer".)

      Am I really missing something here? Is this
      something that people need from their cell
      phones? (Okay, a one minute episode of p0rn
      might be interesting, but not if it's used to
      sell automobiles or laundry soap.) FOX needs
      to pull their heads out of that dark stinky
      place, and put the kabosh on this brainfart.

      The distraction of driving while using a cell
      phone has already drawn the legal ire of a
      number of states and localities, and rightly
      so. Watching a FOX "mopisode" could be deadly.

      (I wonder if they have run this past their
      legal department, instead of just marketing.
      It sounds like a good way to lose way more
      revenue from lawsuits than they would ever
      get from advertising.)

    3. Re:"Mopisode" by skybrian · · Score: 2

      I believe the correct term is "blipvert".

  8. I for one... by balaam's+ass · · Score: 1

    ...welcome our new cell-phone-enhancing-ad-absurdam overlords.

    But the term "mopisodes" is a tragedy. I hope it doesn't stick.

  9. Mobile hazard by Lancaibheal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great.

    Now I have to watch out for morons watching TV on their mobile phones while they drive their souped-up 4WDs in rush hour traffic.

    Thanks, Fox!

    1. Re:Mobile hazard by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and wait until they have cars that have TV screens built into them with Video Games or DVD inputs....oh wait, those already exist :P

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    2. Re:Mobile hazard by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

      Oh, crap. I'm a cyclist. Or should I say soon-to-be-ex-cyclist if this hits Australia.

      The sort of people this is already a problem with are _exactly_ the sort of people who would watch sitcom update snippets. *uggh*.

    3. Re:Mobile hazard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who makes this type of comment usually can't afford the toys that provoke their shrill ire.

    4. Re:Mobile hazard by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'd be a tad more credible if you felt like putting your name to your post.

      As it happens, I agree with you. Cyclists and major roads/highways/freeways do not mix. The difference is that instead of saying "so cyclists should get off the road" I say "I'm paying for this, and can expect decent transport infrastructure too." When roads are upgraded, it's not hard to add a bike path or a cycle lane or two, nor does it take much space. In general, I strongly prefer to stick to cycleways anyway, and in Perth (Western Australia) that's usually a viable option.

      On minor roads, however - a cyclist has as much right to use the road as anybody else. It is entirely reasonable to expect not to be wiped out by morons just because they can't be bothered looking where they're going. Paying attention isn't hard. When it comes to the speed issue, at worst people have to slow down for 30s until there's a decent place to pass, and only because that bit of road is too stupidly cramped. Deal with it. Seriously.

      As for the insults and generalisations, my thoughts about giant-truck driving redneck hicks are similar - but I'm not making the assumption that you are one like you've made unreasonable assumptions about me (despite the strong temptation to do so).

      I must note, also, that I've met more than a few winy idiots myself. Some have been cyclists - and really, painfully bitchy about it. The sort of people who will tell someone who lives 30km from their work in a country that hits 40C in summer that they don't need a car. The temptation to beat them to death is strong. A similar temptation exists for intolerant morons who assume all cyclists are like that and who think they're the only ones whose needs matter.

    5. Re:Mobile hazard by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Small nit, but minor roads can be a BAD place to cycle. I used to live near one that had a long hill with a small industrail park near the bottom. It was a 40mph/60kph road and cyclist kept stupidly using it as an easy downhill and riding in the middle of lane.
      Considering it had a tiny (1'-2'/ 3/4m) sholder on one side and a rather significant drop-off on the other I'm suprised there weren't regular fatalities as semi's CAN'T slow suddenly when confronted with some idiot doing <1/2 the normal speed. There was a bridge at one point about halfway down with lots of space is the only thing I can think of.
      Bottom line is if you insist on using a bike on/near the roadways make shure your NOT on road that winds alot, lacks plenty of shoulder space (or better a bike path) to ride on, or is otherwise going to place some driver with the option of running you over or wrecking even if they're driving normally.
      Roads in many areas were never designed with the bicyclist in mind and using them as if they were is at best a risk. And those using them as designed are not very likely to expect your use anymore than a keyboard maker or owner expect the keys to be depressed with ball-peen hammer, shure it CAN be done if you must, but do so with great care.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    6. Re:Mobile hazard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm suprised there weren't regular fatalities as semi's CAN'T slow suddenly when confronted with some idiot doing

      If you can't come to a halt in the distance that you can clearly see the road ahead then you are going too fast. If you have a license to drive then this really is something that should have been mentioned to you somewhere along the way.

    7. Re:Mobile hazard by Ralph+Yarro · · Score: 1

      Considering it had a tiny (1'-2'/ 3/4m) sholder on one side and a rather significant drop-off on the other I'm suprised there weren't regular fatalities as semi's CAN'T slow suddenly when confronted with some idiot doing

      Anyone who can't stop, nevermind slow, when an obstacles appears at the limit of current visibility is not in control of their vehicle. That's true of bicycles as well as cars of course and there are idiots driving both. Plus that's small comfort when a maniac who "CAN'T slow suddenly" hits you. Nevertheless it is absurd in the scenario you descibe to call the bicyclist alone an idiot and not comment on the dangerously reckless driver.

      Roads in many areas were never designed with the bicyclist in mind and using them as if they were is at best a risk.

      True. More importantly, roads in many areas were not designed with motorists in mind but have been poorly adapted to that purpose. Using them as if they were designed for motor traffic is a risk, and one that the motorist needs to take into account just as with the other many risks in driving.

      --

      The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
    8. Re:Mobile hazard by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make some interesting points, but I can't say I entirely agree. If somebody cannot stop in time to avoid hitting something doing 1/2 the normal speed, they can't stop in time to avoid hitting a broken down car or a stupid child, either. That's called reckless driving, and it tends to land you in a small bare room for a long stay.

      As for design issues - agreed. I strongly prefer to use cycleways or cycle lanes, and where that's not possible nice wide roads. Sometimes that's not possible, and it's unavoidable to use a road poorly suited to cycling. It is a driver's responsibility to drive safely, and it is reasonable to expect that they do so, much as it's reasonable to expect cyclists to stay out of the way or off the roads where possible and to be considerate of drivers.

      As for riding in the middle of the lane - it's the right thing to do when you know there is not enough room for somebody to pass safely but suspect they might try anyway. The road rules permit it, and while it's generally impolite it's necessary on poorly designed roads. I prefer to avoid such roads instead, but if it's a choice between being wiped out by a moron or forcing the moron to (*gasp*) slow down for a minute, I'll force them to slow down.

      The other design issue is that such short-sighted design decisions were made in the first place. Here, even now they're narrowing the roads and adding blocked parking on the sides of the roads, making it a frightening gauntlet to ride between traffic and parked cars with people who may open doors without warning. These roads USED TO BE SAFE. It is beyond me why in a world of high fuel costs, pollution problems, national weight and fitness problems, etc city councils continue to design infrastructure that is actively hostile to cyclists.

    9. Re:Mobile hazard by h0mer · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that bikers want it both ways. You want to use the roads the same as cars, yet you'll split lanes at red lights and ignore other traffic signals. Either you accept your renegade status and the risks it comes with, or you follow all rules like a car.

      --


      I'm on top of my game like I'm standin' on Xbox.
    10. Re:Mobile hazard by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I've noticed that bikers want it both ways. You want to use the roads the same as cars, yet you'll split lanes at red lights and ignore other traffic signals. Either you accept your renegade status and the risks it comes with, or you follow all rules like a car.

      Car drivers take advantage of the fact that if they hit a bike the cyclist will probably be killed, so they can intimidate cyclists from asserting their rights to use public roads. The situations you mention annoy drivers who feel chagrined when a bicycle takes advantage of their smaller size and greater agility to get ahead of traffic or sneak through an intersection. I do it, and only watch out for cops. Not just to save time, but because it's safer for me to get away from the accelerating and jockeying for position that drivers do when starting from a red light. They'll pass me in a few minutes, in a place where the traffic is calmer, so what's your problem? If I make an error of judgement when breaking the letter of the law, it's my life that's lost. When a car driver breaks the rules, it's the cyclist whose body is crushed.

    11. Re:Mobile hazard by scribblej · · Score: 1

      I love the points you make. The answer to the implied question at the end of your post is simple.

      Auto manufacturers have more and more expensive lobbyists.

    12. Re:Mobile hazard by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Perhaps in an ideal world one would always be at a safe speed for thier visibilty, but the reality is if you slow down to much below what people EXPECT you get hit by someone who can't see you. And in car vs car letting the insurance companies payoff while you have a bad day is unpleasant but acceptable, in semi vs bike it's a tragedy. |And on the one road it's simply not possible as I understand it for a semi ride on it's brakes to that degree, some break systems have a limited brake to travel ratio, plus you'll destroy the brake linings fast that way. You can argue that it's really stupid to place an industrial park in a location that requires big trucks to go down a long hill, and for the most part I'll agree, but that's what they did, I'm just the poor sap who had to worry about eigther hitting some idiot bicyclist riding next to the yellow line just past a corner, or going slow enough to avoid him should I suddenly spot him and get run over by the half awake semi driver. Not an easy choice. I AGREE that roads and other such travel areas should be safely usable by all (bicycles, cars, horses, etc.), but thats not the reality, in fact your reduction attempt at the end goes a long way towards explaining why. Take a small road originally intended for horses, perhaps a carraige, convert to a car road without spending the huge fourtune needed to do it well enough to be as safe as it should be, and bicyclist who stupidly try to argue thier rights in the wrong place (try the courts and your local government first) wind up a tragedy. I used to at one point or another in my adult life ride bicycles and motorcycles and even horses though not as primary transportation like the first two. So in short I agree with the theory, but in pratice trying to enforce it as single individual without thinking through the realities can to easilly lead to tragedy. That is my primary point. Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    13. Re:Mobile hazard by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      While I agree to many people are idiots at a light (that is moreso idiotic than elsewhen). You theory looks like 'just getting even' and frankly I don't see ANY value in deliberately antogonizing someone in a 1ton plus metal shell when all you've got is a spiffy helmet. And just because the car driver isn't 'hurt' through running over you because you did somthing stupid at a light by NO means implies thier life isn't pretty much screwed for some time. If you think it's somthing easy to blow off killing/maiming someone even if it's thier fault then I sincerely hope you never find out. That doesn't even include the fact it can take alot of money not to go jail for a long time unless you have plenty of witnesses who can back up it was completely out of your controll and the cyclist is %100 responsible for doing somthing incredibly stupid. Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    14. Re:Mobile hazard by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      You theory looks like 'just getting even'

      No, As I said, it's getting me out of a place that's going to be dangerous when the cars lurch forward on the green light.

      in deliberately antogonizing

      No, despite what some drivers think, bicyclists as a whole don't make decisions based on what pisses off drivers. OTOH, I've had plenty of hostility and threats of violence -- being brushed past at high speed is a joke for a driver, it's terrifying for a cyclist who can lose control in the slipstream if he doesn't get creamed outright, had things thrown at me, not to mention having the horn blared at me inappropriately; usually because I was "taking up space on their road.

      As for somthing easy to blow off killing/maiming someone; of course not. And I'd rather not be killed either, even if the feelings of the driver weren't hurt. I just sometimes decide that breaking the law is the safer option, as most laws (and roads) were designed without regard for cyclists, and me trying to follow them blindly is MORE LIKELY to get me killed. The stakes are very high, any accident is likely to do serious damage to me. Thus I don't care if the machsimo of drivers is injured by seeing me evade traffic problems and "beating" them in whatever game they imagine we're playing. I'm not playing, I'm surviving.

    15. Re:Mobile hazard by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I misread your tone. I guesse I've just seen to many cyclist with the wrong attitude and jumped to a false conclusion. Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    16. Re:Mobile hazard by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Sorry if I misread your tone.

      Appreciated; when I saw your reply I was expecting a flame fest....

    17. Re:Mobile hazard by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      If I've learned ONE thing in 20+ years of online discussions (starting in 1984 with the local bbs systems) it's that text has limits over face to face and be prepared to missunderstand and be missunderstoood because of that. And be very prepared change your opinin on someone in case you do read in more/less than is meant.
      It still amazes me when someone makes a negative judgement about someone bassed on missunderstanding what the other persons intent was, and then refuse to change thier opinion of the person even when it's obvious they missunderstood the person.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  10. One minute episodes? by wrinkledshirt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, at least they're making disinformation more efficient.

    [ducks and covers]

    --

    --------
    Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...

    1. Re:One minute episodes? by Tengoo · · Score: 1

      Why do you Hate Freedom?

  11. How bout that... by SbooX · · Score: 0

    Guess I'm part of the 26% who don't give a fuck.

    1. Re:How bout that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It saddens my heart that only 26% don't give a fuck.

    2. Re:How bout that... by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      I think you're misunderestimating us.

  12. Reality? by nerd256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Broadcasting television to the cell phones, which few people were actually interested in, is becoming a reality pretty fast"

    TV Phone has two factors to become a big hit
    (1) The technology has to be available
    (2) People have to shell out the money for it

    The technology is available, which, granted, is a large step and testimony to technological projects. However, people must buy/subscribe this technology which no doubt will be very expensive. I for one would not throw a pretty penny at something I could get by turning on my public telivision. Take for example, the small tvs that are sold and the small toys which play pre-recorded clips off of cartriges. Despite their availability, I haven't yet seen their overwhelming presence in society. Besides, it is one thing to listen to a phone, or casually text-message. But to watch telivision on it is getting a bit extreme.

    In addition, the technology still has a small way do go - it has to be affordable and compliant across many platforms.

    For me, a decent RSS reader would be perfect. Slashdot is a far better resource than Fox.

    1. Re:Reality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically TV news streamed to your mobile phone is reality in Finland. The Finnish national TV provides news streams in 3GPP format (176x144 pixels, 15 fps) in Finnish, Swedish, Lappish, and English. News are free, weather forecast and sports news require a paid subscription. Point your favourite mobile phone browser to wap.yle.fi and see it yourself.

    2. Re:Reality? by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      There's one more HUGE problem with it, which is this: watching video on a cell phone is going to drain the battery very, very quickly. People are going to find out their batteries are dying fast, mutter "Huh... Whaddaya know?" and stop watching TV on their cells.

      Just like that, the technology will die. Some marketing flack will bemoan the "fact" that people just aren't ready for it yet, and there will be some hand-wringing.

      Then everyone will forget about it.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  13. 1 minute episodes based on 24? by arbi · · Score: 2, Funny

    They could call it 1440

    1. Re:1 minute episodes based on 24? by Spunk · · Score: 1

      First funny comment this article.

      Mod up, people.

    2. Re:1 minute episodes based on 24? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but the thing is, it will be 59 seconds of obligatory recap and 1 second of actual footage. Thus, 24 will remain accurate.

  14. moBisodes? by Collision891 · · Score: 1

    as Fox started making mopisodes (one-minute episodes targeted specifically for the mobile phone screen)

    not that it really matters but the article calls them mobisodes (from mobile i guess) either way its weird name, and weird to make have a show that's season takes place over the course of only one day, but now have episodes that are only minute

  15. 2 into 1? by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

    Well, that brings a new meaning to the term "idiot box" ;)

    --
    Join the TWIT army now!
  16. What New Hell is This? by rueger · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh great now I can enjoy idiots on cel phones "sharing" fine Fox programming while I'm trying to enjoy my dinner in a restaurant.

    As if their pointless yattering conversations weren't enough....

  17. Why is it Different in the US? by Oyume · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder why Vodafones in the US aren't like the ones here in Japan -- The newer phones receive regular broadcast TV, no fees or special equipment required. On your Vodafone you can watch anything that's not on cable TV. Pretty nice. But I just don't get the whole "download and pay" gambit in the WEST...

    *shrug*

    1. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by BurnFEST · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's really cool. Forget radio on your phone, I want one of those handsets!

    2. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Roll-out of cellular products in the US is terribly, terribly slow. For one, uptake in the US is slow, with many people holding on to their phones until they break. For another, the US market is quite large but needs to be supported as a cohesive whole... As such if Verizon wants to try something out, they will wait until success is reasonably assured then do a full nationwide roll out. Japan is a smaller, less-risky market which has traditionally used cell phones in roles that in the west would have been filled by computers... as computer uptake was somewhat slower over there and internet access was more spotty.

      Plus the carriers out here get to say what their customers use as phones, not vice-versa. Up until recently phones had to be flashed to a specific network provider and a specific user... the idea of buying a general purpose cell phone and finding a provider later is laughable here, despite being a perfectly functional model in Europe.

      We expect the carrier to subsidise the cost of the phones, and then are shocked that we can't get any phone that has features they don't want us to have. Sigh. I'd say vote with your dollars, but we really don't have any choice here.

    3. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by Choron · · Score: 1
      It's true they are free but frankly the reception totally sucks, at least from the models I tried. If you happen to be not too far from a TV transmitter that's alright but most of the time the picture is too grainy to be watchable. I tried one in a more rural area of central Japan and of course it couldn't receive anything.

      Vodafone will certainly provide digital channels reception in the future but given the audience I wouldn't expect very interesting contents (Mini Moni anyone ?).

      --
      "Naughty, naughty, naughty, you filthy old soomka !"
    4. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by BlastM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      _Not a troll_ just an observation.

      I have never been to Japan, but from what I gather Japanese society is generally tech-profficient and consumers make educated decisions when buying electronics.

      Apart from us geeks who are skeptical of big business at the best of times and paranoid at other times, western society will consume what the television tells it to, and is short-sighted enough not to realise that micro-payments add up quickly.

      I'm an Australian, and I can see this happening right now. SMS and MMS has become a huge fad, as have mobile phones in general. Many young people now face debt problems after running up phone bills in the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars.

      Broadband internet service is well below basic for a developed nation, but that's mostly attributed to the reelection of the conservative federal government that has sold half of the telecommunications utility that owns all the copper phone infrastructure and DSLAMs and most of the outgoing internet pipes.

      The population just isn't tech-savvy enough to force the market to be competitive, and as a result we are all fucked over, although only the geeks (and the farmers in the outback who can barely make phone calls) can see it.

    5. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by Kintanon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I do customer service for Verizon Wireless. People in the US expect their phone provider to give them a new phone every 8 months or so for free. They expect this because they pay a monthly fee for their service. Somehow they think that the service doesn't cost Verizon anything to provide them, so their 39.99 a month is pure profit. We make about 1$ per month on each customer in profit. When customers go over their minutes we make more. But if every 8 months we give a phone to that customer that cost us 100$ to get from the manufacturer (And retails for 250) all of a sudden we've paid that customer to use our service. I just want to know why these customers feel like they are entitled to free stuff just because they paid their bill on time? Do cellphone customers in Europe and Japan do that?

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    6. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by ducktapeducktape · · Score: 1

      It's amazing what the features are on some Japanese phones. I got my hands on one of them last year. It had a camera that was able to capture both video and still pictures with good resolution, a tv tuner, an ir port with software preloaded to allow the phone to be used as a remote control, and it was Web and Java enabled.

      --
      "I want two balls of glue to be my friends..." -Gir
    7. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by cgenman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I did a stint in customer service. Tough job. It's impossible to please both the customers and the company you work for.

      That having been said, the cell phone industry in the US has a lot to answer for. The fact of the matter is that everyone has been hit with at least 1 100 dollar phone bill in their lives, if not routinely. And while getting hit with that once a year means the company makes 8 dollars more per month for that subscriber, the customer suddenly feels like they're owed.

      What other industry forces you to estimate the amount of something you are going to use, pay for services that may or may not be rendered, and make you pay through the nose if you guess low? This isn't a business relationship, this is The Price is Right. Do you think you will or will not roam? Will you be making any long distance calls? Do you think you will roam off our network in your home calling area? Planning on recieving any text messages? Are you sure you're only going to use 300 minutes with the holidays coming up? *DING!* The player guessed wrong. The phone company wins!

      I got hit with a 100 dollar bill one month because I switched to "unlimited nationwide coverage" at a 15 dollar a month premium, traveled out to California, and mysteriously dropped off of AT&T's network. If I had paid an additional additional 10 dollars that month I would have had "unlimited nationwide coverage with off-network roaming" and recieved the same service from the same people for 90% less. They charged me 10 times the amount for the same service. That's 90 bucks they owe me. My girlfriend has to ask people to call her house long distance, because while her cellular phone company's landline long distance is only about 15 cents per minute (a high total these days, I might add), cellphone long distance is 60 cents per minute no matter which way the call is going. So if I pay 15 cents to get a call to the switching station of her cell phone company, and she pays a monthly fee to get it from the switch to her cell phone, she still has to pay a stupidly high fee for the priviledge of receiving the call.

      If cell phone service were like power, you would pay X cents per minute. Maybe there would be variables like X cents per minute local, or X cents per minute off-prime, but they would be linear variables. None of this exploding-bill-for-the-same-service BS.

      I buy a gallon of milk. It costs me 2 dollars. I buy another gallon of milk. It costs me 2 more dollars. I buy 400 minutes of talk time. It costs me 40 dollars. I buy another 400 minutes of talk time. It costs me 240 more dollars. Where else would we put up with this?

      If the cellular companies didn't try to screw their users, maybe their users wouldn't try to get everything they can out of them.

      Again, I know that isn't you. But you have to realize that the system you work for is not working for its users. BTW, cry not a tear for Verizon Wireless, it's making a healthy 10% return on capital. I'm convinced wireless companies could be making a lot more than that with a simple, fair pay-as-you-go non-prepaid no expiring minutes bullshit.

    8. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh it's really quite simple the large coropations have our balls in nut crackers and if we don't give them money periodically they start squezing. Well ok to be fare they do have to cover a much larger land area in America per person than they do in Japan.

    9. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by Knetzar · · Score: 1

      Sprint has a new plan (I think they call it "Fair and Flexable") in which you get billed at the tiers (so if you use 105min, you ghet billed for 200, and if you use 250, you get billed for 500). The problem with this plan is that it costs more. I use anywhere between 100->500 minutes a month, and I calculated that it's cheaper for me to just pay for 500minutes/month ($40/month) instead of having my payments range from $35/month -> who knows how much.

      Remember that ISPs used to do this at one time also, eventually they (most of them) switched to unlimited usage. Cell phone companies offer an unlimited option for about $100 a month (I think that's what nextel's offering it at).

      Before I stop rambling, I just want to mention that one reason the cell phone companies use this structure is so that they can plan better. The more "roaming" that is occuring, the more that they need to add extra capacity, which leads to increased costs, and wasted resources...and no CEO is going to like wasted resources.

    10. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by ThJ · · Score: 1

      The phone companies over there can't have much of a clue... All major phone companies in Norway offer you a prepaid plan. You buy a unique code, dial a number, input the code, and you get either 150, 300 or 500 NOK of additional calling credit. It's a little more expensive than having a regular phone subscription, but everyone prefers it these days. Because getting a phone number isn't legally binding anymore, any teenager can ge to a kiosk or gas station and buy a starter package with a subsidized phone. You pay for what you call and nothing more.

      I can't believe such plans aren't more common abroad? I suspect cell phone usage would explode if that happened. Maybe we just have a different culture here in Scandinavia. ;)

    11. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Probably because until recently, Vodafone in Japan was J-Phone, a Japanese cell phone carrier, so they inherited most of their infrastructure. Also Verizon in the US IS NOT Vodafone, Vodafone just owns a decent chunk of the company(though that did prevent vodafone from bidding to buy AT&T wireless, though I wish NTT had been able to buy them)

    12. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the phone companies in the USA have prepaid plans too. The downsides are that if you use more than a few minutes a month, it's a lot more expensive than a monthly plan, and the selection of phones and features are extremely limited (no cameras, color screens, web, java, free in-network calls, cheap/free long distance, 3G, etc.). Plus the phones for prepaid plans usually aren't subsidized, so you've got to pay an extra $60-100 USD just to start. The average teenager here could easily spend over $100 a month on prepaid minutes, while an equivelent monthly plan would cost less than half as much and have more flashy and/or useful features.

      The cell phone market here's pretty much saturated, so unless the phone companies start giving away free phones and service the market isn't going to expand much more anyways.

    13. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      and no CEO is going to like wasted resources.

      Yeah, because then they might not be able to afford seven Philipino sex slaves and will have to settle for only six.

      Poor babies.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    14. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by gosand · · Score: 1
      I did a stint in customer service. Tough job. It's impossible to please both the customers and the company you work for.

      You would think that these would be one in the same goals.

      The fact of the matter is that everyone has been hit with at least 1 100 dollar phone bill in their lives, if not routinely.

      Not me. I don't have a cell phone. My wife has one, but it is a pre-pay. I honestly do not understand the "need" for cellphones. I am no technophobe, in fact I used to work for Motorola, and I had a flip-phone, and one of the first StarTacs. This was back in the analog days, and quite honestly the call quality is not much better these days. It boggles the minds of my coworkers that I can survive without a digital leash. I see them contstantly checking their phones, and messing around with them. Maybe these people are all more important than me, and have to be available at all times. Or maybe they just want to be.

      But I understand what you are saying about billing issues. Before we bought our house, we received bills at our apartment for the previous tenant. I had opened one by mistake the first time we got their mail, and it was a cellphone bill - $300.

      If cell phone service were like power, you would pay X cents per minute.

      Back around 1996, when I had my cell phone, I think it was $11/month and I paid for every minute. The result? I didn't make that many frivolous calls. Today, minutes are "free", so you might as well call your friend while you are wandering around the grocery store and tell them about your foot fungus problem.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    15. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      They're really common in the US, but the phones are, generally, crappy, as is the service, and the rates are significantly higher than signing your soul over to a corporation.

      Of course, with so many souls for sale, they're becoming less and less valuable.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    16. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by mzwaterski · · Score: 0

      Camera, color screen, Snood, 2-way text, 2-way speakerphone: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1091100 730712&skuId=6811159&type=product

    17. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did a stint in customer service. Tough job. It's impossible to please both the customers and the company you work for.

      You would think that these would be one in the same goals.


      That's one of the fatal shortcomings of capitalism. It's never more than an illusion when these two goals seem to be one and the same.

      Co-ops result in a more peaceful relationship with customers, but one rarely finds co-ops that gain the advantages of competition with each other.

    18. Re:Why is it Different in the US? by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is the type of competition between the cell phone companies. If a company came along that said "No Overages, No Roaming, No Long Distance", and their plan was a flat .20 per minute would most people use it? 400 minutes on that plan is 80$. Is that better or worse than paying 39.99 for your 400 minutes with the posibility of being charged .45/minute after that? The flat rate would have to be .10/min in order to equal the package rate. I honestly don't think that it would be a viable business model for a company to charge like that. Of course, that's just the low end plan. For something like a 2000 minute plan, 99.99 for the package. You would be charged 200$ at .10/min. So the price would have to go down further to .5/min to equal the higher end packages.
      I'm not sure if that's doable for the companies. I don't know precisely the per minute cost for them to carry a call, but I don't think there would be any profit in that arrangement for them.

      And frankly, I like being able to pay 69.99 for 850 peak mins (Shared between 2 lines), with unlimited offpeak and unlimited calling to other cingular customers. I would rather pay that than .5/min because this way almost all of my calls are free. So I just pay the 69.99 and even when we have 2000 mins worth of calls between us, no charges.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  18. Hooray mobisodes! by mg2 · · Score: 1, Funny

    And if they run the stream at 1800fps, you can watch an entire episode of of the OC in that one wonderful minute.

  19. Before they do that... by infernalC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By gosh, I want Verizon to get rid of those fast-busy signals around rush hour and all those dead spots on my way to work. Cell service just plain sucks for a lot of us out here.

    1. Re:Before they do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you admitting to talking on your phone while driving to work during rush hour?

      On slashdot?

      Good luck ;)

    2. Re:Before they do that... by Kintanon · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you live in the New York Metro area then rush hour is never going to get better. We've saturated the area with cell towers, but each tower can only carry so many calls. When all of you people get on the phone at once when you get off work there just isn't enough infrastructure to carry the calls. The deadspots in the cities are usually caused by dense buildings like parking garages between you and the cell tower. Older skyscrapers will also kill the signal.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    3. Re:Before they do that... by The+Conductor · · Score: 1

      You may want to switch to Cingular or t-Mobile. Their GSM-based networks scale better to high urban traffic than Verizon's (and Sprint's) CDMA. CDMA is better in rural fringe areas though.

  20. Mospisodes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they be silent features or will the spikes be removed from Isp and Osp?

  21. Really common here in Korea by Jack+Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

    The 3G phones here can do streaming video (including cable TV) and it's really common to see my coworkers watching the latest movie trailer on their phones.

    You pay per packet, and for content for some 'premium' stuff like music videos, and it's a relatively closed system so the telco and the content providers love it.

  22. propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave me alone! Arrrgh, it's in my brain now. I think I'm losing my mind. Obey, conform, consume, don't question authority... you unpatriotic terrorist satan loving communist.

  23. Great by Ambient_Developer · · Score: 2, Funny

    So now fox can run up my cell phone bandwidth bill, excellent!

  24. I don't get it by thpr · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I MIGHT (stress might) pay for a quick snippet of the end of the World Cup, Stanley Cup final, or World Series if I happened to be out and not able to actually see the same live. However, I can't see buying anything specifically for a cell phone screen. Too small, drains my battery, I'm not out wandering or driving somewhere in order to watch TV.

    Not to mention that on a price per bit basis this will be something like 100,000x as expensive as cable television.

    Of course, I think paying for ringtones is a dumb idea, too; but that's a multi-billion dollar industry!

  25. cool east/west contrast by wintermute1000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I went to a presentation a month or so ago on how technology is used in not-America (it baffles the best of us!) and the speaker spent some time on a service in China where by one could subscribe to a serialized novella on the cell phone; I believe the installments were delivered during peak commute hours, and some huge percentage of the population of China signed up. Now, obviously, that's not as easy to do in English because we use letters, so we can't fit as much story on a tiny screen. I was wondering whether a development like this would come up so that we in the States, too, can get fictional content on our phones.

    I suppose the answer is yes, then. Cool...I'd still rather read than watch a commercial-length piece of film on a teeny screen, though.

  26. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're back to the short film featurettes of the early 20th century.

  27. Aye Carumba by FerretFrottage · · Score: 2, Funny

    3G is not toon porn
    3G is not toon porn
    3G is not toon porn

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
  28. Mobisodes - news for the angry mob by Magickcat · · Score: 1

    Fox News is aimed at the pitchfork wielding angry mob carrying torches type, so I guess it's only common sense that they have mobisodes.

    --

    Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

    1. Re:Mobisodes - news for the angry mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upscale people like you prefer CBS where the news is what you want it to be even if it has to be "changed" a wee bit first.

    2. Re:Mobisodes - news for the angry mob by Magickcat · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'l take the BBC any day of the week moron.

      --

      Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

    3. Re:Mobisodes - news for the angry mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is still a helluvalot better than "Why do you hate America?" as the default question to any non-rightwing guest on Fox News.

    4. Re:Mobisodes - news for the angry mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upscale people like you prefer CBS where the news is what you want it to be even if it has to be "changed" a wee bit first.
      Yes, I forget, Fox News, whose slogans are.
      "Fairy and Balasted"
      "We misreport, you deride"


  29. Plausible, but unneeded. by ssand · · Score: 1

    It's possible to put a cartoon, or comedy clip in 1 minute or several minute, I know the old disney cartoons are about 5 or 6 minutes. That wouldn't be too bad, but the size of the screens are so small that it is rather useless to watch anything that long. Games are one thing, since most are pretty simple, but there's alot of crap that is in a scene, unless you are doing closeups of someone's nose.

  30. Other places to watch trailers on a phone by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    The distraction of driving while using a cell phone has already drawn the legal ire of a number of states and localities, and rightly so. Watching a FOX "mopisode" could be deadly.

    Who's to say a driver would be watching such programs? Ever heard of carpooling or public transportation (bus, train, etc), the same places Nintendo expects grown-ups to touch their DS systems?

    1. Re:Other places to watch trailers on a phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of carpooling or public transportation (bus, train, etc), the same places Nintendo expects grown-ups to touch their DS systems?

      For ONE MINUTE? Let's be realistic here, the whole idea is unbelievably stupid.

  31. Enough! by jonnystiph · · Score: 1

    So what about the poor bastards (like myself) around these people on public transportation. My guess is commuters would have to the one of the larger markets. Do they include head phones with the phone? It sounds like a silly question, but really...

    --

    If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank

  32. so much greed... by terrymaster69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is just silly. (actually just greedy) Vodafone already sells phones that have TV tuners built into them - the image is adjusted to fit the resolution of the screen. You can buy them here in Japan, I presume other countries as well. To have Fox create something for this "new 3G service" just means a new revenue stream. Just build the tuner into the phone, let people pick up the TV they want. (TV sucks the world over though, just seems like a waste of precious battery time)

    1. Re:so much greed... by wed128 · · Score: 1

      i didn't RTFA, but i think this is probably a digital stream, rather than a regular TV tuner...anyone care to say i'm wrong?

  33. Sweet! by jcflyer · · Score: 1

    Will they air One Minute Porn?? :)

    1. Re:Sweet! by muntumbomoklik · · Score: 0

      Why so much? I only need 15 seconds worth.

  34. Uggh by BHearsum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I need not post my bitching for the fourth time, but I'm still so sick of these cellphones with all this crap on it. I think it's because people want everything, but only want to pay for one device. I don't know why some people don't worry about quality at all. I don't watch TV much, but I certainly don't want to watch it on a 1'' screen.

    It's a Walmart civilization these days. People are told they want the absolute cheapest thing out there, nevermind quality. What is the point in paying for something that only half-works? People buy cellphones that have horrible reception and sound quality -- makes it quite useless as a phone. I work as a computer service technician; we get people in on a daily basis demanding to know why their shit broke. HMM! I don't know. PCchips motherboard, generic ram, FORSA video card. Fujitsu hard drive...Liteon optical. I don't understand these people. They want the world, but they don't want to pay. I used to buy cheap crap. THEN IT BROKE. Then I realized that there is a bit of truth to 'you get what you pay for', at least, for tangible things. After buying a few cheap electronics I decided NO MORE. I don't buy something to have it stop working in a few months.

    And in case anyone is wondering, I finally found a phone that works so god damned well as phone. Motorola i90c. I'm using it on the Mike network (ie. iDen) and it's amazing. I get full signal everywhere I've been so far, in places where I got no signal with my Nokia piece of crap.

    1. Re:Uggh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww, c'mon, don't be too hard on Fujitsu. Their engineering was fine, Cirrus's new chip epoxy screwed them, and management sure did fsck what should have been a rapid recall.

      As to everything else, somewhat agreed, but I think a prime mover for this sort of crap is the opposite; the sense of money spent = quality gained. Does paying a crapload for a limited cellphone really improve your quality of life? Did paying for Windows? It's all a "rationalized" incarnation of bling, the idea that being subscribed to these debt-building 'services' somehow make you a happier person.

      Same goes for these blipverts -- "Ooh, check it out, *my* phone can play these videos." Might help you kill time at the airport, but wouldn't a general-purpose device (that could, say, let you waste time with Doom, at least?) serve the purpose better?

      People don't know what they want. The PCChips board probably did everything they actually wanted to do (if it wasn't one of the ones with horrible unfixed bugs) ... would having shilled for a Dell have made the same experience of e-mail checking and CNN.com viewing (the equivalent of perceiving this canned content) better?

      People, plain and simply, don't know what they want... and/or, sometimes all they really 'wanted' was the sense that the salesperson who sold them the right screwdriver for their nail cared about them in the first place. At least, that's the only way I can explain it.

    2. Re:Uggh by sockonafish · · Score: 1

      What the hell is wrong with Lite-On!?

    3. Re:Uggh by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Then I realized that there is a bit of truth to 'you get what you pay for', at least, for tangible things. After buying a few cheap electronics I decided NO MORE. I don't buy something to have it stop working in a few months.

      I used-to agree with you completely... THEN IT BROKE! Yes, if you think it's a pain when you buy a cheap piece of junk that breaks, you should try buying an insanely expensive piece of junk, and have it break anyhow.

      I don't buy crap from Lite-on or NEC, but at the same time, I certainly can't bring myself to pay 3Xs as much, when it's not very much better.

      The solution is for the STORES to go through the work of testing products, and only selling those that are half decent. In addition to having customers trust that they aren't getting crap, the stores have the added benefit of lower prices, due many sales of one product, rather than those sales divided among seperate products, further lowering the price.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Uggh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Crap from Lite-on"? What the hell? And didn't NEC build an Earth Simulator or something?

    5. Re:Uggh by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I have an HP burner and a Lite-On burner. The Lite-On supports more formats and burns faster than the HP (both same rated speed). I've never burned a coaster with it, even at max (52x). It works, it works well. As a bonus, the company updates their firmware on a regular basis (real updates for new formats, etc. as opposed to just bug fixes).

      I'll bet you're going to knock Nero next, because it costs less than EZ CD Creator. Go back to using AOL, it's expensive, so it must be good! ($23 for dial-up, how much if you already have a connection?)

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    6. Re:Uggh by Booyakka+Joe · · Score: 0

      I can depend on my i55sr, and it has taken a severe beating, but still not nearly the beatings I've seen dished out by coworkers & associates on their i55srs.

      I only wish the address book was a little more robust & synchable.

      I haven't looked lately for OSS utilities for it, but they were non-existant last time I looked.
      The win32 apps put out by motorolla are something like what I'd expect to use with Windows 3.11

      --
      This is where I keep my clever quotes "" Yup I only got a pair, so I better not waste em!
    7. Re:Uggh by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " I think it's because people want everything, but only want to pay for one device. "

      Have you ever tried carrying around an MP3 player, Game Boy, digital camera, PDA, and Sidekick all at once?

      "I don't watch TV much, but I certainly don't want to watch it on a 1'' screen."

      Good for you. Now consider other people's desires for a moment. A phone, because of it's 'phoney' nature, is something one carries around at all times. Since that phone already does the standard phone stuff, why not have it pull double duty as a entertainment device? Why not be able to get movie show times on it? Why not download a 1 minute TV ep? Why not take pictures of your 3 year old nephew being funny at a restaraunt that you so thoughtlessly forgot to bring your $500 digital camera to?

      I don't think the problem is that the rest of the world is defective, I think you're just not making the most of your phone. Don't want extras? Fine. Go be happy. However, consider that the rest of us aren't just stupid sheep. I used to have a phone that went a week without charging. Whoopy, I made a few calls on it and .. uh.. I didn't have to plug it into the wall as often. Ok. Now I've got a phone, it's smaller which is easier on the pocket, and yeah it lasts only 3 days on a charge. Did I trade down? Uh, no. I have some classic photos of my nephew I wouldn't normally have gotten. Heck, I've even got a hilarious video of my dog harassing my cat. During waits in line I keep up on the news. I've got a few silly games that keep me entertained on the john. (yeah yeah, giggle giggle, snort snort.) I have occasional text message chats with a friend who's bored at work. I'd keep going, but hopefully my point is starting to come into focus: Yeah, my phone isn't bullet proof, but it's a lot more useful to me now than the 'better' phone I had a few years ago. I don't care about Quality? Perhaps not. I care about value. Oh, did I mention that this phone was half the cost of the 'better' phone that lasted a week on a single charge?

      Before I finish my post here, part of my rant here wasn't directed at you. If you take personal offense, I apologize. I'm just sick of "nerds" here suddenly going all minimalist when cool things are developed. I thought we were supposed to embrace technology here. I have.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:Uggh by BHearsum · · Score: 1

      We have a 20% failure rate on Lite-on drives at our store. That's whats wrong with them.

    9. Re:Uggh by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      1) Putting all your eggs in one basket just ensures those eggs can get broken all at once. Wouldn't it suck for your digital camera AND MP3 player AND Game Boy AND PDA to be out of commission just because one device broke?

      2) The quality of features in an electronic device or software is inversely proportional to the number of features in the device or software. Phone? Works fine. Phone and camera? Well, battery life is lower, and the camera sucks. Phone, Camera, and MP3 player? Less room for pictures and MP3s, less than stellar sound quality, even more driver distraction, and even worse reception and battery life.

      3) After using Unix for a while, my criteria for software has changed. Rather than have something that does all kinds of different things *cough*emacs*cough*, give me several pieces of software that can do one thing and do it well, and let me connect them in different ways to make tools. I expect nothing less from my hardware. Give me easy and effective ways to connect them together and then let me decide how they are used.

      4) Yes, I carry around an iPod, a cell phone, a pretty big digital camera and a Powerbook, so I know what it's like. I use this thing called a bag. It's a legacy technology that's finding new uses in interfacing with newer tech. Or I decide what I want and need to have and leave the rest at home.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    10. Re:Uggh by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Wouldn't it suck for your digital camera AND MP3 player AND Game Boy AND PDA to be out of commission just because one device broke?"

      I never said anything about replacing all those items. I have all those other items you mentioned (except the Mp3 player, never was big on those). But I don't carry them around all the time like my phone. So, in effect, they're out of commission most of the time anyway.

      "2) The quality of features in an electronic device or software is inversely proportional to the number of features in the device or software. Phone? Works fine. Phone and camera? Well, battery life is lower, and the camera sucks. Phone, Camera, and MP3 player? Less room for pictures and MP3s, less than stellar sound quality, even more driver distraction, and even worse reception and battery life."

      Again, never said anything about replacement. The flip side is:

      a.) Memory only gets bigger.
      b.) CCDs etc only get better.
      c.) Reception is fine.
      d.) The sound quality is infinitely better than not having my MP3 player around at all because I don't want to wear an Inspector Gadget trenchcoat.
      "Give me easy and effective ways to connect them together and then let me decide how they are used."

      This doesn't help your argument much. You want your phone to do less to expand your toolbox?

      "Or I decide what I want and need to have and leave the rest at home."

      Exactly my point. You leave your bag at home, you have NOTHING except the ability to make a call. You don't even have a basic ability to take a picture. 640 by 480 > 0.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    11. Re:Uggh by evilviper · · Score: 1
      "Crap from Lite-on"? What the hell?

      Yes. Lite-on's CD Burners have always only half-implimented the features a CD-Burner is supposed to have.

      For instance, I discovered that Lite-On drives will not allow you to set the speed you want to burn at... UNLESS you have the software eject the CD, and close the tray just before starting... Then it will record at the speed you specified.

      Many models of Lite-on don't properly record in DAO (Session-at-once) mode, so you actually need to use RAW mode, which adds about 15% overhead, and slows the process down by that much.

      The only reason Lite-on drives have a decent reputation, is because they blame all their problems on the OTHER drives that can't read what their crappy as hell CD-Burner wrote, and this leads to newer CD/DVD-ROMs and standalone CD-players all building Lite-on CD-R workarounds, lest they get angry customers, who swallow the Lite-On spin.

      And didn't NEC build an Earth Simulator or something?

      Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? IBM built the world's fastest supercomputer, but that doesn't mean their Deathstar hard drives didn't die left and right.

      If you've ever owned an NEC CD/DVD Burner, Monitor (LCD or CRT), or just about any other NEC products, you'll know about the utter lack of quality they put into their retail products.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  35. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like a 21st century flip book.

    http://www.rossonhousemuseum.org/body_optical_to ys _-_flip_books.html

  36. ALDERAAN SHOOTS FIRST! by Spunk · · Score: 1

    (no message)

  37. Now Bill Orielly can harass you on your cell! by syslog · · Score: 1
    Just what we needed. They will probably use these "mopisodes" to push more right wing crap down our throats.

    *What* an amazingly stupid idea...

    naeem

    1. Re:Now Bill Orielly can harass you on your cell! by Tobril · · Score: 0

      Actually FOX will show Fear Factor bloopers, like where the people get eaten while swimming with sharks.

    2. Re:Now Bill Orielly can harass you on your cell! by Joey7F · · Score: 1
      Just what we needed. They will probably use these "mopisodes" to push more right wing crap down our throats.


      I know right! God, everytime I put on Faux news I get revolted. It is so biased, so right wing, it just drives me nuts.

      I watch it everyday and it gets me to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. If only, oh dead god please, there was just another way to get information other than watching fox.

      Until them I will continue to be sick.

      --Joey
    3. Re:Now Bill Orielly can harass you on your cell! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would pay to see an O'Rielly Factor blooper where O'Rielly gets eaten by a shark. Or Tony Robbins.

    4. Re:Now Bill Orielly can harass you on your cell! by Tobril · · Score: 0

      Because there's only one way to test a shark suit...

    5. Re:Now Bill Orielly can harass you on your cell! by Neko-kun · · Score: 1

      If you think you have it tough with having one network harrass you and try to push their ideals upon you, think about us right-wingers having to put up with the left-wing crap being shoved down our throats from all around. In case you wonder who would be the Left-Wing equivalent of Fox News these guys would be it.

      For the record, I don't fall under the stereotypical demographics of a Republican, nor do I completely agree with Bush or Faux News, and yes, I am aware this can be modded flaimbait but willing to risk karma in order to prove that no, you are not special. We are surrounded by ideals just waiting to be shoved down our throats.

      Oh, and there are other ways to get your news. The internet is a wonderful resource and in my opinion, there's nothing like getting news fresh off the wire before it gets distorted by the mainstream.

    6. Re:Now Bill Orielly can harass you on your cell! by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      I think you may want to reread my post. I'll give you a hint there is a bit of sarcasm involved.

      --Joey

  38. technology that nobody asked for by rtphokie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    this one tops the list. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it needs to be done.

  39. One minute equals... by DoktorSeven · · Score: 3, Funny

    45 seconds of commercials, 5 seconds of the FOX logo ("You're watching FOX Fone!"), and 10 seconds of actual content.

    I'll pass, thanks.

    --
    This is a sig. Deal with it.
  40. Better hang on with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TWO hands, 'cause the fair-and-balanced-ness might tip you off two feet.

  41. So now... by Phidoux · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... I can talk and watch at the same time. I always knew that having an eye in my ear would come in handy one day.

  42. First Mover Advantage by Che+Guevarra · · Score: 1

    This one is a quick market. Anyone who knows anything about market strategy will tell you that the first one in gets to set the price, product name, and features of the product category. It's valuable to the maker to be in there before the competitors.

    1. Re:First Mover Advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, but that assumes the market will exist. I don't think there's anyone who will buy it.

  43. Don't forget the all-important vibrator function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nnnnn

  44. Wow by Yaa+101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Neocon propaganda in cellphone format, isn't the world wonderfull?

  45. Re:I love Apple, but Fuck the South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen.

  46. WTF? by affliction · · Score: 1

    Why the fuck would you want to watch TV on your god damned cell phone? That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

    I see absolutely no redeeming feature here.

  47. Re:I love Apple, but Fuck the South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Looks like the whole country is red... not just the "south"

  48. Rupert is The King. by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1, Informative

    I, for one, will call this a success. Rupert Murdoch is running this operation. Any Australians who know the history of Rupert and his Media Empire know that he makes the correct decision more often than not. With the full listing of News Corp on the NYSE and the re-incorporation of the company to the US only just having taken place it is to be expected that some very positive news will start to flow about the fox group and its related companies. Expect a barrage of good news after the company is listed in the S&P-500. You Americans would do well to watch his moves carefully... Rupert is the king.

    --
    Does it go on forever?
    1. Re:Rupert is The King. by themaidtricks · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Rupert can make anything work. But that doesn't mean it was meant to work.

    2. Re:Rupert is The King. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, as an America I've watched him ruin our democracy and replace it with a corporate lead oligarchy, for no reason other than greed... greed for power and greed for money. You are right in calling him a king, but I really rather a president. He has put 100 millions if not billions into helping elect a Republican "President", House of Representatives and Senate. And they will give him in return what he wants control of 50 % + of the media out lets in the good old US of A. You might say don't worry he has no political aspirations, but he will always want more... more control and money and the control. And what better way to get control of something than using the media as a giant hammer to scare the living shit out any politician who says no to him. Yes Mr. Murdoch is soon to make Bill Gates look scrawny and even cuddly in comparison. He already has control of the media in England. Tony Blair says in private says he can't word to again Mr. Murdoch if he wants any chance of being re-elected. So yes I watch him like a watch a hungry alligator that just crawled on to my boat.

    3. Re:Rupert is The King. by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1

      That is why I warn you all to watch his moves carefully. Why does that get moderated as a troll? If I was warning the world to watch out for Bill Gates 15 years ago then I would have been modded insightful. blahh...

      --
      Does it go on forever?
    4. Re:Rupert is The King. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this troll, because the guy seems to be hero worshiping a neo-robber baron? I'm getting old. But I'm a new kind of old. I'm not he old guy that says, son when I was your age I walk up hill 10 miles to school. No I'll the neo-old that say son when I was your age all jobs in America provided health benefits, reports had integrity and actually did research before reporting, not read some idiot's press release and parroted it. And in the old days people who graduated form high school could not only read, but the knew enough history to understand that "free" press can't really be free it's control by say one guy say Rupert Murdoch and monopolies were bad. Anyways it's time for my nap and I'm too old go through the "but the blogs/Internet etc will balance the media dominance..." argument. But I can say cheering Rupert Murdoch as he moves into a new media, even if you are an Auzzie, is troll.

    5. Re:Rupert is The King. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Rupert is the anti-Midas.

  49. Missing The Point by johnnywheeze · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a blatant plug, but a plug with a point...

    Video over mobile phone networks is actually pretty exciting, but just dumping video content onto 3G networks lacks vision and creativity.

    The idea is to make programming that takes advantage of the MOBILE part of the equation. Focusing on things you can ONLY do with a mobile video platform.

    Our first project is a mobile phone travel show. The killer idea is that the phone, knowing roughly where you are in a city, will stream a video to you on demand, about attractions near to where you actually are at that moment.

    A video guide book, carried on your phone, that both knows where you are, and what's there to see.

    Some Clips from Bangkok here: http://www.studiolanna.org/movies.htm

    It's this combination of two technologies (mobile phones and video) that makes 3G into the next big thing, if it's taken advantage of, and not used just as a really tiny screen to watch movie trailers, and commercials.

    1. Re:Missing The Point by itsthebin · · Score: 0

      I think Xvid is a better format to watch movies on the phone, using smartmovie. I watch full movies and television episodes on my n-gage. rip,compress and resize and copy it onto my MMC card via card reader and watch it when I desire.

      --
      ...I obey the laws of physics....
  50. Re:I love Apple, but Fuck the South by TRIEventHorizon · · Score: 0
    It is stated that a militia is any able bodied person able to bear arms.

    the citizens of this nation, 18 and older that can shoot a gun, is part of this militia. the milita is by the PEOPLE.

    The second amendment basically gives the rights of gun ownership to the PEOPLE, by giving it to the militia, it gives it to the PEOPLE

    The milita is not gov't sponsored, so the National Gaurd does NOT count!



    Those blue states you speak of are high population states btw. Those taxes that you are supposedly saying are coming from you to the red states is incorrect. Taxes are collected and distributed and most of it goes into those low income brackets of the cities and high population areas where you liberals like to keep people dependent on you. Your programs help people by providing, but most only keep people where they are!



    Oh, and by the way, abolition of slavery was NOT the major reason for the south to leave, it was in the disbelief in having a large federal government in control of the states. Slavery happened to be a minor issue that liberals and today's democrats bring up as major to get into office by simply dividing the people and getting free votes.



    Bush won this election by majority, the people chose not only who the better of the two candidates were, but which of the two parties were the best! Look at the democrat losses in congress, even the senate minority leader is gone!



    Any references to 'you' and 'your people' and 'your kind' are made in assumption that you are a liberal democrat. If this is not the case, then any political stance based off the those words deem them as pointed toward the liberal democrats.

    --
    "And so the Trekkies were executed in the mannor most befitting virgins - thrown into volcanoes" - Futurama
  51. Crazy like a Fox by uberdave · · Score: 1

    It is a new advertising conduit. In Toronto, several gas station pumps now have video displays built in. So, why not blast video to a cell phone, and reap the advertising dollar.

  52. Fox Ringtone by wayward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, if I got a polyphonic cell phone, do you suppose I could get a ringtone with Bill O'Reilly talking about his sexual fantasies?

  53. talking on them while driving wasn't bad enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As if talking on the phone while driving isn't bad enough. And you know poeple are going to do it. There will be morons driving and watching TV on their phones, and likely many of them will be teenagers in SUVs. great.

  54. The "Wow, Cool!" factor is dead by nysus · · Score: 2, Informative

    The market for consumer products that bank on the cool factor to sell goods and services is quickly shrinking. When every product is cool, nothing's cool anymore. I'm officially getting off the gizmo treadmill. Who wants to keep shelling out $300 every few months for some super-wham-o-dyne gadget that's going to be superseded by another super-super-wham-o-dyne gadget in two months?

    Maybe I'm just getting old. How do you younger kids feel? You bored by these things, too?

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    1. Re:The "Wow, Cool!" factor is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who wants to keep shelling out $300 every few months for some super-wham-o-dyne gadget


      who..? me of course.. HIT ME WITH YOUR NEXT SUPERDUPER TOY!

    2. Re:The "Wow, Cool!" factor is dead by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      The key method here is to wait for the Right Gadget(TM) for what you really want to do. I waited until 3rd gen iPods came out to get one... it finally had enough space and a really good interface for a reasonable (IMHO) price. I don't foresee getting a new one for quite a while cause it just does exactly what I want it to do.

      If I was a jogger I would have picked up a flash based player with similar qualities.

      I still have my Ti Powerbook 500mhz... I paid $3400 for it but it did everything I wanted it to do and it still does... again, I don't foresee getting a new laptop any time soon.

      I bought a new car a couple weeks ago... I'm getting married in March and plan to have at least one child in the next 5 years, so I got an SUV that was 2 years old with low mileage and a great price... again I don't foresee needing anything different or new any time soon.

      I'll buy an HD TV eventually but it's just not at the right level of maturity and the manufacturers are still making back their R&D money so the price is still way high.

      LCD monitors should be at the right price/feature ratio but for some reason companies are still charging way too much for a good sized screen, even though manufacturing costs are way down at this point, maybe next year.

      Maybe it's boring to make thoughtful gadget purchasing decisions but in the end you know that you got what you wanted and that it will last you several generations of new gadgets until something sufficiently interesting comes along.

      Even if you have more money than you know what to do with it's still better to buy something you'll actually be happy with and not feel like a schmuck 3 weeks later.

      Chances are that if you follow gadgets you'll still be a relatively early adopter. I was still one of the first people I knew to have an iPod, 1.5 years after it was out.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    3. Re:The "Wow, Cool!" factor is dead by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Maybe I'm just getting old. How do you younger kids feel? You bored by these things, too? "

      I don't think it's indicative of the market, really. I think it may have more to do with growing maturity in your life. When you get older, work gets harder, and more serious issues pop up in your life, the desire for simplicity starts to settle in.

      You have to remember that "wow! cool!" has been around for decades. I'm not sure how you'd find them, but there are some old commercials from the 50's and 60's of neato wee products that came out. Funny how none of that stuff (or its decendents) are in homes today.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  55. Re:I love Apple, but Fuck the South by mutterer · · Score: 1

    Do you understand the words "well-regulated?" The militia is not simply "the people."

  56. Greeeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? I can get enterprise, but not ok service, reasonable prices, or customer service or flat rates? I think the US needs to experience market failure, hell the entire god damn world does

  57. How is this a Troll??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this a TROLL???

    1. Re:How is this a Troll??? by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      I really think /. should display WHO exactly mods what posts.. and let us bomb that turd's karma to hell based on that.

  58. Restricted users by olrik666 · · Score: 1


    This service will only be available to registered Republicans. An oath to the president will be required.

  59. Re:I love Apple, but Fuck the South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the citizens of this nation, 18 and older that can shoot a gun, is part of this militia. the milita is by the PEOPLE.

    Since when do you have to be 18 to shoot a gun? You can shoot guns at age 12, or younger if hunting is allowed. You need supervision until age 16. You can buy .22 riffles at age 16, but can't own them until age 18. You get all this info when registering for a concealed weapons permit. Before you say this is wacky, the rules are virtualy identical in Israel.

  60. Lies, damn lies, and Republican lies by MMHere · · Score: 1

    Great! Now they can lie to me wherever I am.

    1. Re:Lies, damn lies, and Republican lies by Desiderata · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I really don't want to seem MORE of Fox New's thinly veiled propoganda. Especially on my mobile phone. Murdoch must be bent on world domination or something like that. It's bad enough that I get spam SMS's. Anyway, text would be so much more convenient. Nine times out of ten, the pictures/video on the news are just fluff. Hell, most news is just fluff. I'm sure you have to subscribe, though. 3G is pretty cool.

  61. With our Technologies United... by pinball10 · · Score: 1

    But, with Bluetooth enabled TV OUT, or a built-in miniprojector, small screens may not remain such an issue...

    "Is that a brick in your pocket or..."

  62. Conan O'Brien anyone? by D+H+NG · · Score: 1

    Does this remind anyone of the 24 parody "60" on Conan O'Brien?

  63. Apologies for messed up formatting by Ralph+Yarro · · Score: 1

    Post I was replying to has a less than sign embedded in it to mess up posts of anyone quoting it. Guess I should have previewed.

    --

    The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
  64. Things we need a TV-B-Gone for... by dionwr · · Score: 1

    But it isn't enough to turn their cellphones off when they're watching. I want them to explode, taking the user out with them.

    --
    Make a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  65. Europe by vinlud · · Score: 1

    Fox going to broadcast in Europe? Mmm, that will be a great succes :)

    --
    Repeat after me: We are all individuals
  66. Personal Porn Device by hmmm · · Score: 1

    I propose that all 3G devices be renamed immediately to "Personal Porn Device"/PPD. Which is the only way this one minute clip business will be successful.

  67. GREAT! by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1

    I hope they make these work on really tiny phones. Then you could shove it up your ass until it hits the roof of your mouth. That's an accurante depiction of what it's like to watch Fox News.

  68. You'll see by greenhide · · Score: 1

    You know, all of you people who think that this is a bad idea are going to feel really dumb if it turns out to be the greatest invention in the 21st century.

    I mean, you don't know. That guy, last century, he thought he had mold, but really, he had penecillin, which is used to kill bad germs and save lives And now people are saying he's really great, just because he found mold. And mold is everywhere.

    Now, this phone tv is better than mold. So just imagine how important this could be.

    Also, this could be used to make very cool, short movies. You know how you're always saying, "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a movie where x happened?" And usually x is something like "a bunch of bunnies rip a CEO to pieces"?

    See, you could not make a movie like that that lasted for 90 minutes. People just wouldn't sit and watch a CEO being ripped apart by bunnies for that long. The funny thing is, though, I bet it would take those bunnies 90 minutes -- maybe more -- to rip that CEO apart with their bunny teeth.

    But the point is people wouldn't watch that long, so a minute is an ideal amount of time for a movie about bunnies ripping a CEO apart with their bunny teeth, although you'd definitely have to cut out a lot of the time in it. And you'd probably want to actually cut out the screaming sounds, because if someone else heard your phone they might think you were somehow using your mental powers to kill the person on the other end of the phone, because they wouldn't know you were watching a movie on your phone because it's so new.

    Also, I think it might be fun to take a Simpsons episode and break it down into one minute chunks, and you'd get one minute per day. That sure would heighten the excitement!

    Or you could do a miniseries. The only problem is you would have to spend, like, the first 30 seconds reminding people what had happened in the previous episodes, so you'd only have 30 seconds for new material. So, a 6 hour miniseries would take 720 days, or 2 years.

    I think if a friend has one of the phones without a TV on it, a good practical joke might be to glue a photo on the front of it and tell your friend, "Hey, I didn't know your phone had a TV feature on it" and then when they take a closer look you say, "Ha, ha -- I tricked you! Your phone doesn't have a video screen at all, cuz you suck."

    Also, this device might save hundreds of lives. Like, you could be on a plane, and this terrorist is going to hold up the plane, and then you show him a video on your cellphone, and he laughs and drops his gun, and you pick it up and point it at him and say, "Yeah, who's tough now, you jerk!"

    Oh wait, scratch that. I forgot that you can't turn on cellphones inside of airplanes.

    --
    Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    1. Re:You'll see by bestadvocate · · Score: 1

      A technology thats for people with too much money and thats void of any content? Sounds like a great medium for Fox News.

      "I don't watch the national news and I don't read the paper. I haven't done that for the last six weeks. I watch Fox News to get my information."
      -Re-elected Senator Bunning

      --
      my sig
    2. Re:You'll see by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      You know, all of you people who think that this is a bad idea are going to feel really dumb if it turns out to be the greatest invention in the 21st century.

      Many would say TV was one of the greatest inventions of the 20th Century, but I still think TV is a terrible idea. The social costs we pay for TV far outweigh the benefits. It is a useful tool (imaging, and the potential to put a theatre in any home), but like many such things it has been severely abused.

      Look at it this way: marijuana is popular, and if legalized will become even more prevalent. However, I want nothing to do with it ... I will not grow it, handle it, buy it or sell it. Similarly, if celltv becomes popular, I will have nothing to do with it. People's dumbassed addictions are morally repugnant to me.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    3. Re:You'll see by greenhide · · Score: 1

      Man, I guess I have to stop writing satire at 3AM.
      I thought it was frikken hilarious, but no one else seemed to get it.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
  69. yet another reason to by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    carry a jammer...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  70. UMTS videophones in Italy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in Italy, MPEG-4 broadcasting to UMTS cell phones is a big game companies like "3" (see http://www.tre.it/) entered in a few years ago and it seems they get money back, because people love watching news, reality tv etc. on their phones.

  71. Mopisodes sound ideal for normal TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're the right length to fit between advertising breaks on Fox or Sky TV.

  72. Just like a Humvee with CD Changer and A/C by Proud_to_be_Pinoy · · Score: 1

    you don't have to buy it if you think it's not your type, but hey, the economist in me says "no demand, no supply". or is it "supply creates it's own demand".

    maybe you're just not geeky enough not to want your gizmo to do everything it possibly can. wouldn't you want your next phone to be able to change the channels on your TV? hey, they just did a simple two upgrades, they put the TV in the phone, then they offered "pay TV" as well, surround sound ringers are already available, and there are models with pulsating/disco lights already. what's next holo-projection of MTV? (what's the patent office phone number?)

    --
    no sig = no personality(?)
  73. HOLO-PROJECTION OF MTV by james_34567 · · Score: 0

    hey, somebody mod this up! --------- (waiting for the playboy channel)

    --
    i sig thus i am
  74. Farenheit 451 by heletek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone remember the part on the subway? Why do people need to be constantly entertained? In the words of George Carlin, Dosn't anybody just sit and think anymore?

  75. stupid by chadm1967 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. I love technological advances but come on. This is a waste of time.

  76. I am sure that this has been posted already... by evil_one666 · · Score: 1
    1. Re:I am sure that this has been posted already... by The+Conductor · · Score: 1
      I saw this claim trotted out a few times during the heat of the election season (back then it was often "Bush supporters hold factually incorrect beliefs..."). Every time I try to trace back to the source (as with the link in the above post), I can get as far as "some poll says..." without ever finding a specific reference to who took the poll or what methodology was used.

      Does anyone know what the source of this claim is?

  77. Screw cellphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless they plan to produce and release Futurama for cell phones only, I couldn't be made to care if my life depended on it.

  78. You know you're right wing when by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    You look at this headline and think "Someone beat the BBC! Yesssss"

    Damnit, what's happened to me.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  79. Its new? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    As you can guess the resolution of best cell phone, 3g is not needed.

    Here in Istanbul, Turkey, Telsim and Turkcell offer live TV over gprs already via Real platform.

    Turkcell as it owns Digiturk, the broadcaster of first league soccer offers live goals via MMS or gprs too.

    I don't know if I miss something.

  80. Seems pointless now but wait for mobile projectors by mingrassia · · Score: 1

    While I agree that watching video on the tiny screen of your mobile phone is pointless, think of the future when a mobile phone could have a projector built in. Now that could be interesting

    I'm just glad that companies in the US are actually pushing mobile devices for more capabilities. Remember that not everything is going to appeal to every user. Those that want a phone that is just a phone will always be able to buy one.

    --
    OS X, Linux, Tivo, Amiga, my fascination with cult-like technologies would intrigue any psychiatrist.
  81. I want to watch The Three Stooges on my phone by chiph · · Score: 1

    Why is Fox writing new content ("mopisodes???") when all anyone needs is Moe, Larry & Curly?

    Bugs Bunny & Yosemite Sam would be good, too.

    Sometimes the classics are the best.

    Chip H.

  82. Mobisodes with a B, not Mopisodes by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 1

    As in "mobile episodes"

    (or if you prefer, "mobile episodes"

    --
    "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
  83. Fox & 1-minute = Simpsons by bjgeraci · · Score: 1

    When I read that Fox was doing 1-minute shows for cell phones, I immediately thought about how the Simpsons got started as 30-60 second clips within the Tracey Ullman show. There's a lot of potential in a small space of time.

    --

    Writing stories for computers and humans since 1979

  84. Rules by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's fair and accurate. I've noticed a lot of people cycling that way. Frankly, I've been guilty of it myself, though generally only in near-zero traffic (eg middle of the night).

    Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the giant cyclist overmind to make the decision. It's individual, much like driving like a moron or driving sensibly is. Consequently, you'll see cyclists riding like maniacs, sensible cyclists, agressive rules lawyers, and some who combine two or three of of those traits. Not much to be done about it really.

  85. can you say stupid by suezz · · Score: 1

    I am thinking of getting rid of cable at home since I dont' watch it anyway - do you think I am going to watch it on my cell phone. I am so sick of the media trying to shove crap down our throats in every corner of our lives and then charge us for it. Why don't they spend time on coming up with quality shows instead of ways trying to shove it down our throats.

  86. you are a troll by toiletmonster · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the Japanese are just way better at programming their vcrs. Its the way something evolved in their genes. Western civilization is just inferior to other cultures.

    If you made that same comment about Islamic society or Blacks or Native Americans, you would be modded a troll. But on Slashdot its ok to say Americans are too stupid to handle high technology. And you are too stupid to realize the difference in cell phone technology in different countries has to do with economics, government regulation, and standards. But lets just blame it on the media.

    1. Re:you are a troll by BlastM · · Score: 1

      Where did I say anything about Japanese being ethnically superior or Anglo-saxons inferior?

      Societies are influenced by cultures rather than biology. Modern Japan has a culture of adeptness with technology, particularly consumer electronics. One might attribute this to geographic factors, like the urbanisation of practically the whole country. Not once have I made any refference to race or biology, but if I did and I supported it with a reason (such as some technology gene which Japanese people possess), then you might accept it or reject it at its absurdity, which is a pseudo form of the scientific process, but I would not necessarily be trolling.

      First of all, you assume Australia is all-white, but it is a multicultural society.

      I agree with you that if I had have been critical of the Japanese, or the Arabs, or whoever else (America-bashing is in vogue right now) I would be modded down as a troll. That is a problem with the perception of the moderators, not me.

      So because it is unfair that I can be modded up for being critical of western society, and modded down because I'm critical of other societies, I shouldn't make my thought-out point, and thus contribute to the problem? What you are suggesting is, in a way, "reverse-reverse racism".

      I don't know about where you're from, but self-criticism is a valued ability in Australian culture, and there is nothing wrong with me being critical of my own society, especially if I can do it objectively despite participating in it.

      Get over it. Racial prejudice will never go away while people like you keep trying to even the balance. People have to stop caring who's right or wrong, and stop acting as if they are morally superior.

      I'd like to think that I was modded up because I was offering insight into Australian society to non-Australians and offering an interesting theory.

  87. Re:I love Apple, but Fuck the South by zCyl · · Score: 1

    Do you understand the words "well-regulated?" The militia is not simply "the people."

    Do YOU? Try reading about it.

  88. Re:I love Apple, but Fuck the South by zCyl · · Score: 1

    Sorry to double-post, but here's some more information you should read.

  89. US prepaid carriers by The+Conductor · · Score: 1

    Pre-paid from the major carriers is a rip. Use Tracfone (link currently down) for very light-duty use (the phone is pretty basic), or Virgin Mobile for more moderate use (better phones available, 10 to 25c a minute).

  90. Re:I love Apple, but Fuck the South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, and by the way, abolition of slavery was NOT the major reason for the south to leave, it was in the disbelief in having a large federal government in control of the states. Slavery happened to be a minor issue that liberals and today's democrats bring up as major to get into office by simply dividing the people and getting free votes.

    but...but... the South's ENTIRE FREAKING ECONOMY was based on slave labour! How quaint of you to dismiss the ownership of human beings as "a minor issue that liberals and today's democrats bring up"

    I think you need to move to a better school district, son!