I never argued that the accelerators were not malfunctioning. Simply that when people say that they hit the brakes during unintended acceleration and nothing happened, might not be entirely truthful, or didn't realize they were hitting the wrong pedal (not lying, because they believe what they are saying to be the truth.
What you are saying, is that the engine revved unexpectedly without driver input, yet applying the brakes prevented the car from moving forward, thus avoiding an accident. Unless that's not what you are saying, I think we are in agreement. Applying the brakes will effectively counter unexpected acceleration. Many of the other posters are trying to say that a software defect also affected the functioning of the brakes and the brake lights. Both the article I linked to and your father in-law's experience are contrary to those claims.
I am not surprised with this outcome. I read an article from Car & Driver a while back where the specifically tested the scenario of trying to stop your car with the throttle wide open. Here's the link. br>
Key facts:
1) In a Toyota, shifting into neutral while the throttle is wide open, will disengage the engine from the transmission and slow the car down. So all of the people claiming that these cars are all computers and not mechanical so it still wouldn't work, are full of crap.
2) They brought a standard Toyota Camry up to highway speed (including a 100 MPH test) and hit the brakes while still holding down the accelerator. The result? The brakes were able to overpower the engine and slow down the car. The faster your initial speed, the longer it took, but the distances, even at 100 MPH, were reasonably safe.
C/D's conclusion without actually analyzing the specific reported incidents, was that the most likely cause of these accidents was driver error, specifically people hitting the gas instead of the brake. The natural instinct for any driver if a car starts accelerating uncontrollably is to hit the brakes, which C/D has shown is sufficient to slow the car on its own. If that wasn't sufficient, then the thing to do is to shift into neutral. This real data from the incidents seems to support the gas instead of brake theory, and the statistics showing a sharp spike (and subsequent sharp drop-off) in "unintended acceleration" incidents after Toyota instated the recall for sticky accelerators and at a time when the US auto industry has one foot in the grave, Toyota is looking more and more in the clear on this one.
They're not competing with cable, they're competing with Netflix, and if this is the best they can do they aren't going to win.
I disagree. I regularly stream both Hulu and Netflix on my living room TV. Hulu and Netflix offer very different products. With Netflix, I can have any movie or TV series that is currently available on DVD mailed to my house, and I can stream a limited number of those movies/TV series. Hulu allows me to stream current TV series and some movies. The two complement each other very nicely. If I have been watching The Office since season 1, and I want to watch an episode from the current season (for example, the episode that may have aired the previous night), then Hulu is where I go. On the contrary, if I have never seen a single episode of The Office and want to start watching it from the beginning, I go to Netflix and either stream it (if available) or get a DVD copy in the mail. If the season has not finished, then it is not available on Netflix. Yes there is some overlap, particularly with the movies (which I will rarely watch on Hulu), but for the most part, each serves its purpose. Hulu is competing with the DVR and the free On Demand from cable/sat/fios. The DVR is really just a hack for providing what On Demand and Hulu now offer and will soon be obsolete, or only used for niche purposes. Which means Hulu is really competing with On Demand. While On Demand has the picture quality edge, I find with FIOS at least that they are not nearly as current as Hulu and the interface really sucks (Only usable if you know what you're looking for.
$120 a year for the privilege of watching ads during the viewing is insulting.
Really? Some people are paying that on a monthly basis for cable and there are plenty of more ads. Right now my "TV" portion of my bill, including set top boxes is at least $45. I would happily cancel and rely on Netflix ($8.99) and Hulu ($9.99) for all of my entertainment. Hell, I'd even upgrade my Netflix to the 2 at a time plan and still come out a winner. This is a great value, even with the ads.
That explains my frustration. The only 3D movie I've seen was Alice in Wonderland, and based on that movie I decided to swear off 3D and was glad my friend talked me out of seeing Avatar in 3D "cause I don't want to wear the stupid glasses." While I didn't have a headache, it certainly made my eyes hurt. I could definitely tell that the movie was not shot with 3D in mind. The perspective was all off. In 2D, a film maker will focus and blur objects in the foreground/background in order to give perspective (thus creating a 3D in 2D effect), but if you are using the RealD, then you don't need to blur to give perspective. Frequently, I had very blurring objects popping out at me in the foreground with focused objects recessed in the background. Made me feel like I needed glasses and totally washed out any competency the cinematographer may have had.
However, given that this was just a 3D hack job, I'll give it one more chance. Maybe go to an animated movie as suggested in another comment. The preview for an animated movie about Owls didn't look half bad in 3D. But even still, is this really all that necessary? Does it add anything more to the movie? I found Avatar to look pretty fucking good in just 2D, so where is the real need for 3D?
The summary and the page the summary links to are VERY misleading and most of the rants posted above are all based on incorrect assumptions. If you want the real picture, read the actual interview. I'll try to clarify some of these issues as objectively as possible. Not arguing one way or another here, but some of the ranters need to chill out.
1. Verizon is "hunting down" heavy users of it's 3G broadband (i.e. Verizon Wireless) NOT it's FIOS or DSL. It is also important to note that Verizon Wireless does NOT offer unlimited data usage in its data plans (I'm a subscriber). The unlimited Verizon plans refer specifically to voice and text. So anyone screaming bloody murder about punishing users for using what they paid for can STFU. You aren't paying for unlimited, so you won't get unlimited.
2. The iPad. The summary and the linked article really spin this one into something it's not. According to the actual interview, Verizon (as a company) had several people stand in line for iPads because Verizon is interested in the device (as they should be) and want some to play/experiment/develop/whatever with. The CEO did not dispatch a personal assistant to stand in line so he could have his own iPad without the need to stand in line with those filthy "commoners". The summary and linked article puts its own spin in order to imply the latter, but nothing in the actual interview suggests this at all.
3. US #1 in broadband? This guy defines being #1 in broadband a little differently than the FCC and most people. While the FCC is looking at broadband speed, he looks more at broadband penetration and utilization. Now I don't know the exact numbers, and no sources were really cited in the actual interview, so this is still pretty debatable. However, I think he brings up a good point in how we rank broadband. If a country has the highest speeds available in the world, but only a select few can actually get access to it, then are they really #1 in broadband? I would argue that being the best would be a combination of speed, availability, reliability, and even cost. Again, though, some fact-checking needs to be done on this one.
In summary, Slashdot has once again gone for sensationalism, and the linked article is probably worse. I wouldn't mind it so much if it didn't spark all of these threads making arguments about things that were never said or even implied by the person in question. This is supposed to be a site for intellectuals, yet we can't seem to have an intellectual debate over the issues, because the real issues have been so clouded. I urge everyone to read the actual interview, even though it is quite lengthy. There is a lot of good stuff in there and it gives some good insights into how one of the largest companies in the country feels about issues from net neutrality to health-care. The real answers are not quite as evil as you might think.
It was determined that another mission to recover any remains or gather any more research would be a waste of the people's money, and the station was allowed to drift out of orbit and into space- a failure never to be mentioned again
That's what they wanted you to think. The reality is, there was one more mission, spearheaded by either Peckmann's widow or possibly sister (her relation to Peckmann was always a bit of mystery due to the use of "Ms."). Unfortunately, Ms. Peckmann suffered the same fate. Many speculate that mental illness ran in the family (thus supporting the sister theory), and the dark and confined space combined with lack of human contact triggered the mental breakdown. Some believe the breakdown was caused on purpose by the USSR as part of a laboratory experiment to see what happens when you combine human isolation with regular doses of an LSD and crack-cocaine cocktail, which was occasionally supplemented with high doses of meth-amphetamines. The LSD caused the hallucinations, while the crack's addictiveness kept the subject hungering for more. The occasional meth-amphetamines caused the subject to receive a jolt of energy and confidence that resulted in the subject chasing after the hallucinations instead of running from them. This theory was popularized by Sergei Tetris, who claimed to also be the victim of a similar experiments on obsessive compulsive disorder, but because of Tetris' strange compulsion to stack oddly shaped bricks, many dismissed the theory as the insane rantings of very troubled man.
As someone who uses both a credit union and a bank, I recently had a discussion with the credit union about switching my checking over to the credit union. My first question was ATM availability and fees. This pretty much decided it. As someone who travels constantly for work, I need ATMs available without fees in most of the country. The credit union had plenty of ATMs where I live, but none outside of that area. While they offered 8 free transactions at out-of-network ATMs, that wasn't good enough for someone who travels weekly. On top of that, the actual ATM fee was higher than what my current bank charges. I don't get reimbursed for ATM fees, so this expense adds up very quickly.
The other factor was online banking. The credit union's web site is terrible and their online bill pay tools even worse. I pay all of my bills online and even send checks to individuals via the online bill pay (saves the cost of both checks and stamps). Not having decent tools for this is a deal breaker.
Granted, the credit union is not all bad. They gave me a very competitive rate on an auto loan, but then at the same time, paying that loan is not as easy as it was when I had a loan with Volkswagen Credit.
I hear a lot of people touting the superiority of credit unions over banks, but I have yet to see any evidence of this for my own banking needs.
Technically, the radio stations rarely play a "single" from Pink Floyd (and no not because they were never released as singles). Radio stations usually play 2 or 3 subsequent tracks of an album at a time. While some single tracks can lend themselves to being played on their own, most actually use either the preceding track as a lead-in or the track immediately after to close it out properly. Examples include merging "Brain Damage" with "Eclipse" and "Speak to Me" with "Breathe" on the "Dark Side of the Moon" album and merging "Empty Spaces" with "Young Lust" on "The Wall" album.
They don't want their users watching videos while they should be working
Except part of your work may be using YouTube or other sites "non-productive" sites. More and more companies are starting realize that they need to have a presence on YouTube, Facebook, etc. In fact, many companies have their own channels on YouTube. So how about all of those people responsible for maintaining their company's YouTube channel? If the company is still standardized on IE6 and doesn't have a plan to upgrade any time soon, then this is also unlikely to speed up the upgrade. What will likely happen, and I think this is what Google secretly wants, is that people will install alternative browsers in order to use the IE6 incompatible sites. You know, like the alternative browser made by Google, or that other alternative browser that defaults the home page and search bar to Google. People are going to still use IE6 for all of the work stuff that needs it and for everything else, Firefox or Chrome.
I would imagine that they are making the problem much worse than it otherwise would have been simply because they are increasing the demand for pirated copies of the game. If there was no copy protection and no registration requirement and no other "funny business", then most people would simply buy the game and play the game. There would be a minority who simply will not pay for the game and go about looking for a pirated copy. But if the game has all kinds of funny business that gets in the way of legitimate buyers playing the game they have paid for, then not only do you have those legitimate buyers looking for pirated copies, but you have ex-legitimate buyers. This is the guy that bought your last game and was so frustrated with the funny business that they won't waste their time or money on your latest game and will jump directly to pirating. All of a sudden, the demand for pirated copies has immensly increased. The market is demanding better copies and it wants them much quicker (such as on or before release day). Those who have monetized pirating games, are now more profitable. The "profession" is now much more enticing and you have people who otherwise would not have cared about your game, are trying to crack it as quickly as possible. You have gone from a small minority of cheapskates who will eventually find a cracked copy if they look hard enough, to what is becoming a majority of overall users who have incredibly easy access to many pirated copies on the same day or before the legitimate buyers have the privelege to purchase.
If there are no ads at all, and no intent on introducing ads in the future, then yes, Nielson should not count them because the whole point of the Nielsen ratings is to set advertising prices for a given slot. But Hulu does show ads, even though it is not as many as regular broadcast. So how do we set the price for those ad slots? Should the Hulu ad be cheaper or more expensive than the broadcast TV ad? This is an important question that needs to be answered. If more people are watching the online version where only a handful of commercials appear, then those slots should have a greater value.
When I see that this new format will be updating itself with new content, I'm wondering where exactly is this file looking for this new content? Is this a closed protocol run by either the format's creators or some other corporation bestowed witht he responsibility? Or is it an open protocol where there may exist multiple sources for this information that the application I use to play/manage these files can specify where to find the data, much like with CDDB? If it's closed, then my concerns are the same as with DRMed music files. If the company stops providing the service, do I know lose the functionality? Do I stop getting updates? If I paid a premium for a file format that promised regularly updated premium content, then I'd be pretty mad if the premium content stopped coming. But if it is open, then anyone can potentially host information. Maybe I'm interested in a specific niche that one source may cater to.
Honestly, though, I still buy CD's (bought one a few days ago in fact). Why? Because CDs do not have DRM and the ambiguity over what is considered Fair Use is has not yet been settled. If I buy a CD, I can rip it to my hard drive in the format of my choosing. I can share it across my network. I can put it on a portable device. There is no limit to the number of copies I can make. I have the collection backed up, but at the end of the day, I still have that physical copy and is indisputably legal. Yes I get artwork and lyrics, which is good for the first day I crack open the jewel case and start listening, but then it goes in the CD drawer for the remainder of its life. Now I know that these days legally downloadable music can come without the DRM, like from Amazon. But now I have to go to extra pains to protect my purchase from loss in the ways of ensuring that all is backed up properly. Yes I can burn CDs with the same amount of effort it takes to rip them, but those are now on generic blank discs with no "authenticity" to them.
I'm not that old, so I can't necessarily say if this is a case of "Get off my lawn!" Maybe its because I had been an avid CD buyer up until college (that's when I got my first high speed internet and I began downloading like mad) and I have recently began buying CDs again. I have amassed this great collection, physical artifacts of my money spent, that would like to continue to hold on to and grow. Maybe it's because I'm such a fan of a good Album. When I listen to my collection on a computer or mp3 player, its so easy just to keep it all on shuffle and hit play (and I do this a lot), but when you pop in a CD (or even cassette or vinyl) you are making a commitment to the album. I listen to the whole thing all the way through. The album sets and sustains a mood. If the mood changes, you are carefully transitioned. The track ordering on an album is deliberate. Some albums you would never realize have an overall "concept" if you just listened to the popular singles. A good example is the latest album by Muse. I'd heard some singles, liked what I heard. When you listen to the whole thing all together, you realize that each track continues a story. The singles on the radio are like movie trailers. You get some of the great highlights, but if you never see the movie, you miss out on a lot of great stuff. Of course, the trailer might have the only parts worth watching, but we call that a bad movie, and as well, we should call them bad albums.
Ok wow, this really turned into a ramble...I apolize folks. Just felt like getting some of my latest thoughts down. Thansk to those who hung in there.
So, SHOULD they break away from Google? Probably. CAN they break away from them (and maintain their quality)? Probably not. So, like a bad marriage of convenience, Mozilla is probably stuck with Google until the day (possibly) comes when Google themselves decide to break it off.
Seriously? Mozilla gets $66M from Google every year and you think they should break away from them? I think you let the article irrationally scare you. The issue is not that they have a deal with Google, it's that they may have all of their eggs in one basket. Google is Mozilla's cash cow, and yes, if Google were to decide to change their deal or pull the plug all together, then Mozilla is out $66M in opportunity costs. But until that day comes, Mozilla should milk that cash cow for all its worth, yet be prepared for that day by diversifying their revenue now. It's not about being partners or not being partners with Google, it's about being partners with JUST Google or having multiple partners. The response from Mozilla was that, yes, they do have other partners and other deals, so Google is not their only source of revenue. Partners listed included eBay, Amazon and Canonical. They even stated that they are currently working on more deals. But the concern is still relevent because Google still makes up a vast majority of the revenue.
The article is a little dumb because it is asking a question that has already been asked and answered by Mozilla. No company's business model should rely solely on one single partner and Mozilla already knows that. Mozilla is still dependant on Google, but they are working on changing that.
If Kodak is collecting royalties from every digital camera manufacturer and every cameraphone manufacturer (except Apple and RIM), then I would guess they are doing pretty well. There are lots of companies out there whose largest source of revenue has nothing to do with what the company is commonly known for.
It may not still be the case, but at leat at one point, Google's largest source of revenue was not from advertising, but from selling it's search technology to power other people's sites.
I have heard this as well from my Biology professor. The male sperm are very fast swimmers, but have very little protection against the harsh environment of the vagina/uterus. The female sperm, on the other hand, are very slow swimmers, but they are well protected against the harsh environment. If the environment is too acidic, the males will die before they reach the egg. They may be fast, but not fast enough in this case. But the females lumber along taking the hits and are able to withstand the beating long enough to reach the egg. To bring in a sports analogy, it's like haveing a really fast running back that can sprint past the defense into the end zone, but if caught by the defense is easily taken down; or you have Will "The Refrigerator" Perry walk into the end zone with half the defense clinging to him. The one best suited for the current environment is going to be successful.
It might be risky, but I think his assessment of the average Netflix customer is fairly accurate. At least is describes me, a Netflix customer, accurately. Typically, when you hear of a movie coming out that you want to see, you add it to the queue. It's not out yet, but once it is sitting at the top of the queue ready once it becomes available. Except that movie is in high demand, so it says "Long wait" next to it. The second movie in the queue comes instead. But you don't really care, because you still want to see that movie. It's not like I'm a seven year old that has to see THAT one NOW! It will come when it's ready. In the mean time, I have a long list of movies that I have already said I want to see that will ship in its place until it is my turn. At a certain point, you stop paying attention to what's next, and you just accept what arrives in the mail. Any movie that I really really want to see, I would have already seen in the theaters. Avatar was a good example. Wanted to see badly and also appreciated the big screen experience.
The thing that bothers me a little is how Netflix is being prioritized by the studios due to the fact that they are cheap. The article mentions the same with the RedBoxes. Both are far cheaper for the consumer than in-store rentals or on-demand from Cable/Satelite and they get the worst priority. It's as if the studios resent those customers for finding a great bargain and want to take out their anger on them. But again, if seeing that movie right away is that important, you can pay the premium to do so.
I am going to have to second this sentiment. I have actually been a long time MythTv user. For about four years, I had been recording cable from Comcast successfully and life was good. This of course, was only analog cable. Then Cartoon Network disapeared from the Analog signal, and it could only be watched on digital, so I felt it was finally time to attempt IR blasting. I tried the pvr-150 receiver/blaster, but to no avail. Then I tried a serial blaster, but again failed. I determined the issue was my multiple pvr-150s and the way lirc reacted. Something along the lines of 2 lirc instances running. I gave up as it was not that big of a deal. Then I moved and at the same time, analog cable all but dissapeared. Comcast gave me "DTA" boxes and without those boxes, all I could get were the locals. So it was time to get blasting working. I bought a CommandIR thinking this would be an out-of-the box solution as advertised. It was not. The thing won't even translate the received signal. I have banged my head against a wall with this for months to no avail. The wife is unhappy. Now I am looking at more streaming solutions. Currently, because of the state of my MythTV box, I control it with a keyboard, but there's no DVR, so most of the time, I will point a browser to Hulu or power up a VM of Windows to stream some Netflix. I am considering a PS3 simply as a media streaming server. It does Netflix, it does hulu (with workaround), it's got a BluRay player, and I can play games too. What else more do I need?
The DVR is a momentary hack for accomplishing what people really want - on demand streaming of TV. I want to cut out the cable company and just a have a big fat internet pipe down which I select what I want to watch and when I want to watch it. I will pay individual subscriptions to various content providers. Content creators get better feedback on their programming, as they will be able to tell exactly how many people streamed the content and how many paying customers the have. Easy on screen rating systems can enhance the feedback further. This is good for the content creators, but they are being held by the balls by the traditional distributers like the cable companies. We don't need the old distributers.
The crazy thing her is that, as far as I know, Roku runs Linux, PopBox runs Linux, Tivo runs Linux. All of these appliances running Linux have Netflix streaming support. Yet we keep hearing the same line about regular old desktop Linux users not being supported because of Silverlight. These embedded Linuxes can all do it seemingly without the need for Silverlight. In the initial buzz here on Slashdot when Roku hit the scene and was revealed to run Linux, many hackers investigated the box for the same purpose you speak of. Turns out, that the part that does the Netflix magic is a binary blob. Maybe Microsoft secretely ported Silverlight (with the necessary DRM) to Linux and won't tell anyone. Maybe Netflix simply created a whole new application. My bet is on the whole new application. Other things I hear out there are that if you stream Netflix to one of the applicances (including PS3 and Xbox360) you get to stream in HD, where on the computer, you are stuck with the lesser quality. It seems like Netflix's real goal hear is service licensing revenue. I am sure Tivo, PopBox and Roku all pay for the priveledge to stream Netflix right to your TV, which is handed to the consumer, who then in turn pays even more money for monthly subscription. Sounds like Netflix has positioned themselves quite well, but is it good for the consumer?
The way I interpreted this was that Google is opening themselves up to more alliances within the industry. The VP liked certain individuals not just because they were really talented, but because they were like-minded. They are in line with Google's philosophies and ideals. If you hire all of these people, then Google as a company is all by itself when it comes to influencing the direction of the industry. But if some of these like minded individuals work for other companies, or even the competition, then it becomes much easier for the industry as a whole to move in the direction that Google wants.
Pick a controversial tech topic, for example DRM. Now let's just pretend, for the purpose of this example, that Google is very anti-DRM. Unfortunately, all of their competition and potential partners have all taken a firm stance in favor of DRM. If Google hired all of the anti-DRM talent out there, then nothing changes with the rest of the industry. The same old pro-DRM philosophy continues to prevail within those other companies. Companies that Google may want to do business with, but only if it's without DRM, will be reluctant and possibly refuse to work with Google because of it. At the very least, Google may have to make concessions that end up hampering the true potential of whatever it is they are trying to do. However, if Google does not hire every DRM hater in existence, then those DRM haters go work for or remain working for those other companies. When Google approaches a traditionally pro-DRM company about a business relationship that strictly forbids DRM, they are more likely to be conviced since there will be like-minded individuals within that company that can influence the final decision. The relationship is established with minimal concessions and Google's plan is able to happen in a way that is inline with the original vision.
It's not just IE8 either. I find Bing popping up on me when I least expect it. I often find IE6 defaulting to Bing instead of a 404. A couple weeks ago, Bing showed up magically on every Blackberry on the Verizon network. I know it's been asked already but it's worth repeating. What is Bing's marketshare of searches directly initiated by the user? As in, "I'm a user and I want to search for something so I have decided I want to use Bing."
I've got nothing against Bing, really. I mean I hate Microsoft and all, just like any good Slashdotter, but I'm sure it's got a lot of great features that are just as good, if not, better than Google's. But for me, the most important feature of a search engine is how relevant the search results are. So far, I have not seen any evidence to show that Bing will return results more relevant than Google's and usually returns less results. I guess their commercials are right. Bing's solution for information overload is to not give you any.
If they want to make a million dollar music video, they get a loan from a financial institution.
Interesting thought, but you just come right back to a record company model. Let's say you're a financial institution in the business of giving out loans. An artist comes to you saying that they want to shoot a music video to promote their debut album. You are likely not going to give this artist any money unless you can be convinced that this artist will be profitable and be able to repay the loan. So what determines whether or not an artist will be profitable? Ideally whether their music is any good, or in line with public tastes. So now the financial institution of scouting artists. This is exactly what a record company does. They scout artists and provide financial backing, but offer zero liability to the artist. With a loan, the artist is on the hook to pay it back. Which would you choose?
I've noticed this here myself and after thinking about it, it makes perfect sense. You see, there is a perception amongst the general population that nerds/geeks are early adopters of technology because nerds love technology so obviously we're going to be the first to adopt. However, nerds also tend to be very practical and we generally would know more about what the new technology does, and what is already out there (that others may not yet know of). So our practicality tells us that before we adopt new technology, that technology needs to be proven to us (exception being for those developing the new technology). We are smart enough to know what happens when you adopt a technology before its proven. You spend a lot of money on something that under delivers and maybe even disapears or is replaced soon by something better. Or maybe it was just never a good idea to begin with. Mini-discs come to mind as a technology that briefly filled a gap until CD-Rs and mp3 players were ready and accessible to the consumer. And that segways perfectly to my other point, that nerds are more aware of what else is on the horizon. For me, I'm hesitant to make my MythTV DVR ready for HD, when I feel the better solution is an internet streaming tv model like what Boxee is trying to do. We didn't buy the mini-disc because we knew that CD-R was out there, it just needed time for the costs to come down, so why spend money on mini-disc, when a more lasting technology is almost ready.
Or maybe we're all just cheap at heart and know that with a little extra ingenuity, we can get the same benefit that this new technology offers without spending any money.
But maybe the real reason is that we are all too smart for our own good. We're too skeptical. Maybe we're the only ones learning from Man's mistakes. Everything is too good to be true, so we have to think and analyze and try to poke as many holes in the technology until it is proven that its impenetrable.
Or is it that new technology, in this 21st centuraly society, is now trendy, and when have nerds and geeks ever been trendy. I guess it is our curse. As soon as our own interests become trendy, we're no longer interested in them. Just wait, everyone will be using Linux, Anime will be on primetime TV, and all the popular girls want to date the president of the chess club. But where will all the nerds be, well, we will have moved on to evangalizing the next great OS that only works if you're a real techy, downloading Danish animation that makes Japanese tentacle porn look childish, and forming a professional Quidditch league complete with nuclear powered brooms.
They say that DVRs have increased ratings for shows as if it's surprising. Isn't this the whole point of a DVR though? You record it because you would not have otherwise been able to watch the show in its regularly scheduled time slot. So instead of just plain missing the show, you record it and watch it later. Instead of having to pick between two shows where one will get watched and the other will get missed, you record them both, and they both get watched. In the latter, the DVR has increased your potential audience. I'm a little surprised about the commerical watching though. As a MythTV user, I skip commercials altogether without the need for any user interaction. However, in cases where the commercials are not skipped (like if I start watching a show fifteen minutes into the broadcast), it's about a 60/40 split as to whether I'll bother fast forwarding. Someimes I'm really that lazy where lifting my arm to pick up the remote seems like too much effort. Other times it's the perfect bathroom break. Even though MythTV skips my commercials and could potentially pause for a break whenever I want, I tend to do it when there is a commercial simply because the flow of the show dictates a pause for commercial. It's kind of weird to pause in the middle of a conversation and come back a few minutes later. It totally messes with the flow.
Anyone in this thread ever actually fight a ticket? Because if you had, you know that you are dead wrong on that one. If you are in the US ALWAYS fight the ticket. Everyone I know who has ever fought a ticket (myself included) has gotten some sort of reduction. Usually you negotiate a higher fine instead of getting points on your license. Points on the license means next time you get a ticket, you could lose your license and it always means higher insurance premiums. In some cases, the officer doesn't show up to court and the charge is dropped to a non-moving violation. You pay a nominal fine and court fees and receive no points. For lesser violations (like speeding) you can get away with not hiring a lawyer and you pay no legal fees, just court fees. For larger offenses (like wreckless driving) I recommend a lawyer. You will pay somewhere around $500 and you are likely to have the violation reduced. The main objective with any of these is to avoid points on your license. As an example, I was pulled over for passing a school bus. This is considered one of the worst violations after DUI. I was looking at a $300 fine a 60 day suspension and 5 points. I paid $450 for a lawyer. Cop didn't show up for court. Judge knocked it down to a non-moving violation. I paid $100 total for court fees and the meager fine and I got no points on my license. The money was well worth it. Granted, since the cop didn't show up, my lawyer didn't really do anything, however, the lawyer did attempt to contact the officer multiple times so maybe that had something to do with it (maybe some back-scratching), but regardless, I paid a total of $550 as opposed to $300 fine + 60 days of public transportation and bumming rides off friends + 5 points (likely worth $200 or more per year in insurance premiums until they go away (at least 5 years depending on state)
In many counties in New Jersey, you show up in court (no lawyer necessary), enter your plea with the county prosecuter (say "Not Guilty"), prosecuter comes to you with a deal. If you like the deal, say "guilty". If you don't like the deal, say "Not Guilty". Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
I have never heard of anyone who fought a ticket get a worse punishment than what they started with. Unless you are a repeat offender, 90% of the time, you will get your penalty reduced, and that usually means no or reduced points. ALWAYS FIGHT THE TICKET!
Slashdot Mirror
I never argued that the accelerators were not malfunctioning. Simply that when people say that they hit the brakes during unintended acceleration and nothing happened, might not be entirely truthful, or didn't realize they were hitting the wrong pedal (not lying, because they believe what they are saying to be the truth.
What you are saying, is that the engine revved unexpectedly without driver input, yet applying the brakes prevented the car from moving forward, thus avoiding an accident. Unless that's not what you are saying, I think we are in agreement. Applying the brakes will effectively counter unexpected acceleration. Many of the other posters are trying to say that a software defect also affected the functioning of the brakes and the brake lights. Both the article I linked to and your father in-law's experience are contrary to those claims.
I am not surprised with this outcome. I read an article from Car & Driver a while back where the specifically tested the scenario of trying to stop your car with the throttle wide open. Here's the link.
br> Key facts:
1) In a Toyota, shifting into neutral while the throttle is wide open, will disengage the engine from the transmission and slow the car down. So all of the people claiming that these cars are all computers and not mechanical so it still wouldn't work, are full of crap.
2) They brought a standard Toyota Camry up to highway speed (including a 100 MPH test) and hit the brakes while still holding down the accelerator. The result? The brakes were able to overpower the engine and slow down the car. The faster your initial speed, the longer it took, but the distances, even at 100 MPH, were reasonably safe.
C/D's conclusion without actually analyzing the specific reported incidents, was that the most likely cause of these accidents was driver error, specifically people hitting the gas instead of the brake. The natural instinct for any driver if a car starts accelerating uncontrollably is to hit the brakes, which C/D has shown is sufficient to slow the car on its own. If that wasn't sufficient, then the thing to do is to shift into neutral. This real data from the incidents seems to support the gas instead of brake theory, and the statistics showing a sharp spike (and subsequent sharp drop-off) in "unintended acceleration" incidents after Toyota instated the recall for sticky accelerators and at a time when the US auto industry has one foot in the grave, Toyota is looking more and more in the clear on this one.
I disagree. I regularly stream both Hulu and Netflix on my living room TV. Hulu and Netflix offer very different products. With Netflix, I can have any movie or TV series that is currently available on DVD mailed to my house, and I can stream a limited number of those movies/TV series. Hulu allows me to stream current TV series and some movies. The two complement each other very nicely. If I have been watching The Office since season 1, and I want to watch an episode from the current season (for example, the episode that may have aired the previous night), then Hulu is where I go. On the contrary, if I have never seen a single episode of The Office and want to start watching it from the beginning, I go to Netflix and either stream it (if available) or get a DVD copy in the mail. If the season has not finished, then it is not available on Netflix. Yes there is some overlap, particularly with the movies (which I will rarely watch on Hulu), but for the most part, each serves its purpose. Hulu is competing with the DVR and the free On Demand from cable/sat/fios. The DVR is really just a hack for providing what On Demand and Hulu now offer and will soon be obsolete, or only used for niche purposes. Which means Hulu is really competing with On Demand. While On Demand has the picture quality edge, I find with FIOS at least that they are not nearly as current as Hulu and the interface really sucks (Only usable if you know what you're looking for.
Really? Some people are paying that on a monthly basis for cable and there are plenty of more ads. Right now my "TV" portion of my bill, including set top boxes is at least $45. I would happily cancel and rely on Netflix ($8.99) and Hulu ($9.99) for all of my entertainment. Hell, I'd even upgrade my Netflix to the 2 at a time plan and still come out a winner. This is a great value, even with the ads.
That explains my frustration. The only 3D movie I've seen was Alice in Wonderland, and based on that movie I decided to swear off 3D and was glad my friend talked me out of seeing Avatar in 3D "cause I don't want to wear the stupid glasses." While I didn't have a headache, it certainly made my eyes hurt. I could definitely tell that the movie was not shot with 3D in mind. The perspective was all off. In 2D, a film maker will focus and blur objects in the foreground/background in order to give perspective (thus creating a 3D in 2D effect), but if you are using the RealD, then you don't need to blur to give perspective. Frequently, I had very blurring objects popping out at me in the foreground with focused objects recessed in the background. Made me feel like I needed glasses and totally washed out any competency the cinematographer may have had.
However, given that this was just a 3D hack job, I'll give it one more chance. Maybe go to an animated movie as suggested in another comment. The preview for an animated movie about Owls didn't look half bad in 3D. But even still, is this really all that necessary? Does it add anything more to the movie? I found Avatar to look pretty fucking good in just 2D, so where is the real need for 3D?
The summary and the page the summary links to are VERY misleading and most of the rants posted above are all based on incorrect assumptions. If you want the real picture, read the actual interview. I'll try to clarify some of these issues as objectively as possible. Not arguing one way or another here, but some of the ranters need to chill out.
1. Verizon is "hunting down" heavy users of it's 3G broadband (i.e. Verizon Wireless) NOT it's FIOS or DSL. It is also important to note that Verizon Wireless does NOT offer unlimited data usage in its data plans (I'm a subscriber). The unlimited Verizon plans refer specifically to voice and text. So anyone screaming bloody murder about punishing users for using what they paid for can STFU. You aren't paying for unlimited, so you won't get unlimited.
2. The iPad. The summary and the linked article really spin this one into something it's not. According to the actual interview, Verizon (as a company) had several people stand in line for iPads because Verizon is interested in the device (as they should be) and want some to play/experiment/develop/whatever with. The CEO did not dispatch a personal assistant to stand in line so he could have his own iPad without the need to stand in line with those filthy "commoners". The summary and linked article puts its own spin in order to imply the latter, but nothing in the actual interview suggests this at all.
3. US #1 in broadband? This guy defines being #1 in broadband a little differently than the FCC and most people. While the FCC is looking at broadband speed, he looks more at broadband penetration and utilization. Now I don't know the exact numbers, and no sources were really cited in the actual interview, so this is still pretty debatable. However, I think he brings up a good point in how we rank broadband. If a country has the highest speeds available in the world, but only a select few can actually get access to it, then are they really #1 in broadband? I would argue that being the best would be a combination of speed, availability, reliability, and even cost. Again, though, some fact-checking needs to be done on this one.
In summary, Slashdot has once again gone for sensationalism, and the linked article is probably worse. I wouldn't mind it so much if it didn't spark all of these threads making arguments about things that were never said or even implied by the person in question. This is supposed to be a site for intellectuals, yet we can't seem to have an intellectual debate over the issues, because the real issues have been so clouded. I urge everyone to read the actual interview, even though it is quite lengthy. There is a lot of good stuff in there and it gives some good insights into how one of the largest companies in the country feels about issues from net neutrality to health-care. The real answers are not quite as evil as you might think.
That's what they wanted you to think. The reality is, there was one more mission, spearheaded by either Peckmann's widow or possibly sister (her relation to Peckmann was always a bit of mystery due to the use of "Ms."). Unfortunately, Ms. Peckmann suffered the same fate. Many speculate that mental illness ran in the family (thus supporting the sister theory), and the dark and confined space combined with lack of human contact triggered the mental breakdown. Some believe the breakdown was caused on purpose by the USSR as part of a laboratory experiment to see what happens when you combine human isolation with regular doses of an LSD and crack-cocaine cocktail, which was occasionally supplemented with high doses of meth-amphetamines. The LSD caused the hallucinations, while the crack's addictiveness kept the subject hungering for more. The occasional meth-amphetamines caused the subject to receive a jolt of energy and confidence that resulted in the subject chasing after the hallucinations instead of running from them. This theory was popularized by Sergei Tetris, who claimed to also be the victim of a similar experiments on obsessive compulsive disorder, but because of Tetris' strange compulsion to stack oddly shaped bricks, many dismissed the theory as the insane rantings of very troubled man.
As someone who uses both a credit union and a bank, I recently had a discussion with the credit union about switching my checking over to the credit union. My first question was ATM availability and fees. This pretty much decided it. As someone who travels constantly for work, I need ATMs available without fees in most of the country. The credit union had plenty of ATMs where I live, but none outside of that area. While they offered 8 free transactions at out-of-network ATMs, that wasn't good enough for someone who travels weekly. On top of that, the actual ATM fee was higher than what my current bank charges. I don't get reimbursed for ATM fees, so this expense adds up very quickly.
The other factor was online banking. The credit union's web site is terrible and their online bill pay tools even worse. I pay all of my bills online and even send checks to individuals via the online bill pay (saves the cost of both checks and stamps). Not having decent tools for this is a deal breaker. Granted, the credit union is not all bad. They gave me a very competitive rate on an auto loan, but then at the same time, paying that loan is not as easy as it was when I had a loan with Volkswagen Credit. I hear a lot of people touting the superiority of credit unions over banks, but I have yet to see any evidence of this for my own banking needs.
Technically, the radio stations rarely play a "single" from Pink Floyd (and no not because they were never released as singles). Radio stations usually play 2 or 3 subsequent tracks of an album at a time. While some single tracks can lend themselves to being played on their own, most actually use either the preceding track as a lead-in or the track immediately after to close it out properly. Examples include merging "Brain Damage" with "Eclipse" and "Speak to Me" with "Breathe" on the "Dark Side of the Moon" album and merging "Empty Spaces" with "Young Lust" on "The Wall" album.
Except part of your work may be using YouTube or other sites "non-productive" sites. More and more companies are starting realize that they need to have a presence on YouTube, Facebook, etc. In fact, many companies have their own channels on YouTube. So how about all of those people responsible for maintaining their company's YouTube channel? If the company is still standardized on IE6 and doesn't have a plan to upgrade any time soon, then this is also unlikely to speed up the upgrade. What will likely happen, and I think this is what Google secretly wants, is that people will install alternative browsers in order to use the IE6 incompatible sites. You know, like the alternative browser made by Google, or that other alternative browser that defaults the home page and search bar to Google. People are going to still use IE6 for all of the work stuff that needs it and for everything else, Firefox or Chrome.
I would imagine that they are making the problem much worse than it otherwise would have been simply because they are increasing the demand for pirated copies of the game. If there was no copy protection and no registration requirement and no other "funny business", then most people would simply buy the game and play the game. There would be a minority who simply will not pay for the game and go about looking for a pirated copy. But if the game has all kinds of funny business that gets in the way of legitimate buyers playing the game they have paid for, then not only do you have those legitimate buyers looking for pirated copies, but you have ex-legitimate buyers. This is the guy that bought your last game and was so frustrated with the funny business that they won't waste their time or money on your latest game and will jump directly to pirating. All of a sudden, the demand for pirated copies has immensly increased. The market is demanding better copies and it wants them much quicker (such as on or before release day). Those who have monetized pirating games, are now more profitable. The "profession" is now much more enticing and you have people who otherwise would not have cared about your game, are trying to crack it as quickly as possible. You have gone from a small minority of cheapskates who will eventually find a cracked copy if they look hard enough, to what is becoming a majority of overall users who have incredibly easy access to many pirated copies on the same day or before the legitimate buyers have the privelege to purchase.
If there are no ads at all, and no intent on introducing ads in the future, then yes, Nielson should not count them because the whole point of the Nielsen ratings is to set advertising prices for a given slot. But Hulu does show ads, even though it is not as many as regular broadcast. So how do we set the price for those ad slots? Should the Hulu ad be cheaper or more expensive than the broadcast TV ad? This is an important question that needs to be answered. If more people are watching the online version where only a handful of commercials appear, then those slots should have a greater value.
When I see that this new format will be updating itself with new content, I'm wondering where exactly is this file looking for this new content? Is this a closed protocol run by either the format's creators or some other corporation bestowed witht he responsibility? Or is it an open protocol where there may exist multiple sources for this information that the application I use to play/manage these files can specify where to find the data, much like with CDDB? If it's closed, then my concerns are the same as with DRMed music files. If the company stops providing the service, do I know lose the functionality? Do I stop getting updates? If I paid a premium for a file format that promised regularly updated premium content, then I'd be pretty mad if the premium content stopped coming. But if it is open, then anyone can potentially host information. Maybe I'm interested in a specific niche that one source may cater to.
Honestly, though, I still buy CD's (bought one a few days ago in fact). Why? Because CDs do not have DRM and the ambiguity over what is considered Fair Use is has not yet been settled. If I buy a CD, I can rip it to my hard drive in the format of my choosing. I can share it across my network. I can put it on a portable device. There is no limit to the number of copies I can make. I have the collection backed up, but at the end of the day, I still have that physical copy and is indisputably legal. Yes I get artwork and lyrics, which is good for the first day I crack open the jewel case and start listening, but then it goes in the CD drawer for the remainder of its life. Now I know that these days legally downloadable music can come without the DRM, like from Amazon. But now I have to go to extra pains to protect my purchase from loss in the ways of ensuring that all is backed up properly. Yes I can burn CDs with the same amount of effort it takes to rip them, but those are now on generic blank discs with no "authenticity" to them.
I'm not that old, so I can't necessarily say if this is a case of "Get off my lawn!" Maybe its because I had been an avid CD buyer up until college (that's when I got my first high speed internet and I began downloading like mad) and I have recently began buying CDs again. I have amassed this great collection, physical artifacts of my money spent, that would like to continue to hold on to and grow. Maybe it's because I'm such a fan of a good Album. When I listen to my collection on a computer or mp3 player, its so easy just to keep it all on shuffle and hit play (and I do this a lot), but when you pop in a CD (or even cassette or vinyl) you are making a commitment to the album. I listen to the whole thing all the way through. The album sets and sustains a mood. If the mood changes, you are carefully transitioned. The track ordering on an album is deliberate. Some albums you would never realize have an overall "concept" if you just listened to the popular singles. A good example is the latest album by Muse. I'd heard some singles, liked what I heard. When you listen to the whole thing all together, you realize that each track continues a story. The singles on the radio are like movie trailers. You get some of the great highlights, but if you never see the movie, you miss out on a lot of great stuff. Of course, the trailer might have the only parts worth watching, but we call that a bad movie, and as well, we should call them bad albums.
Ok wow, this really turned into a ramble...I apolize folks. Just felt like getting some of my latest thoughts down. Thansk to those who hung in there.
Seriously? Mozilla gets $66M from Google every year and you think they should break away from them? I think you let the article irrationally scare you. The issue is not that they have a deal with Google, it's that they may have all of their eggs in one basket. Google is Mozilla's cash cow, and yes, if Google were to decide to change their deal or pull the plug all together, then Mozilla is out $66M in opportunity costs. But until that day comes, Mozilla should milk that cash cow for all its worth, yet be prepared for that day by diversifying their revenue now. It's not about being partners or not being partners with Google, it's about being partners with JUST Google or having multiple partners. The response from Mozilla was that, yes, they do have other partners and other deals, so Google is not their only source of revenue. Partners listed included eBay, Amazon and Canonical. They even stated that they are currently working on more deals. But the concern is still relevent because Google still makes up a vast majority of the revenue.
The article is a little dumb because it is asking a question that has already been asked and answered by Mozilla. No company's business model should rely solely on one single partner and Mozilla already knows that. Mozilla is still dependant on Google, but they are working on changing that.
If Kodak is collecting royalties from every digital camera manufacturer and every cameraphone manufacturer (except Apple and RIM), then I would guess they are doing pretty well. There are lots of companies out there whose largest source of revenue has nothing to do with what the company is commonly known for.
It may not still be the case, but at leat at one point, Google's largest source of revenue was not from advertising, but from selling it's search technology to power other people's sites.
I have heard this as well from my Biology professor. The male sperm are very fast swimmers, but have very little protection against the harsh environment of the vagina/uterus. The female sperm, on the other hand, are very slow swimmers, but they are well protected against the harsh environment. If the environment is too acidic, the males will die before they reach the egg. They may be fast, but not fast enough in this case. But the females lumber along taking the hits and are able to withstand the beating long enough to reach the egg. To bring in a sports analogy, it's like haveing a really fast running back that can sprint past the defense into the end zone, but if caught by the defense is easily taken down; or you have Will "The Refrigerator" Perry walk into the end zone with half the defense clinging to him. The one best suited for the current environment is going to be successful.
How about "AssHack". It sounds like "Asshat", but it also implies that you are both an ass and a hack.
It might be risky, but I think his assessment of the average Netflix customer is fairly accurate. At least is describes me, a Netflix customer, accurately. Typically, when you hear of a movie coming out that you want to see, you add it to the queue. It's not out yet, but once it is sitting at the top of the queue ready once it becomes available. Except that movie is in high demand, so it says "Long wait" next to it. The second movie in the queue comes instead. But you don't really care, because you still want to see that movie. It's not like I'm a seven year old that has to see THAT one NOW! It will come when it's ready. In the mean time, I have a long list of movies that I have already said I want to see that will ship in its place until it is my turn. At a certain point, you stop paying attention to what's next, and you just accept what arrives in the mail. Any movie that I really really want to see, I would have already seen in the theaters. Avatar was a good example. Wanted to see badly and also appreciated the big screen experience.
The thing that bothers me a little is how Netflix is being prioritized by the studios due to the fact that they are cheap. The article mentions the same with the RedBoxes. Both are far cheaper for the consumer than in-store rentals or on-demand from Cable/Satelite and they get the worst priority. It's as if the studios resent those customers for finding a great bargain and want to take out their anger on them. But again, if seeing that movie right away is that important, you can pay the premium to do so.
I am going to have to second this sentiment. I have actually been a long time MythTv user. For about four years, I had been recording cable from Comcast successfully and life was good. This of course, was only analog cable. Then Cartoon Network disapeared from the Analog signal, and it could only be watched on digital, so I felt it was finally time to attempt IR blasting. I tried the pvr-150 receiver/blaster, but to no avail. Then I tried a serial blaster, but again failed. I determined the issue was my multiple pvr-150s and the way lirc reacted. Something along the lines of 2 lirc instances running. I gave up as it was not that big of a deal. Then I moved and at the same time, analog cable all but dissapeared. Comcast gave me "DTA" boxes and without those boxes, all I could get were the locals. So it was time to get blasting working. I bought a CommandIR thinking this would be an out-of-the box solution as advertised. It was not. The thing won't even translate the received signal. I have banged my head against a wall with this for months to no avail. The wife is unhappy. Now I am looking at more streaming solutions. Currently, because of the state of my MythTV box, I control it with a keyboard, but there's no DVR, so most of the time, I will point a browser to Hulu or power up a VM of Windows to stream some Netflix. I am considering a PS3 simply as a media streaming server. It does Netflix, it does hulu (with workaround), it's got a BluRay player, and I can play games too. What else more do I need?
The DVR is a momentary hack for accomplishing what people really want - on demand streaming of TV. I want to cut out the cable company and just a have a big fat internet pipe down which I select what I want to watch and when I want to watch it. I will pay individual subscriptions to various content providers. Content creators get better feedback on their programming, as they will be able to tell exactly how many people streamed the content and how many paying customers the have. Easy on screen rating systems can enhance the feedback further. This is good for the content creators, but they are being held by the balls by the traditional distributers like the cable companies. We don't need the old distributers.
The crazy thing her is that, as far as I know, Roku runs Linux, PopBox runs Linux, Tivo runs Linux. All of these appliances running Linux have Netflix streaming support. Yet we keep hearing the same line about regular old desktop Linux users not being supported because of Silverlight. These embedded Linuxes can all do it seemingly without the need for Silverlight. In the initial buzz here on Slashdot when Roku hit the scene and was revealed to run Linux, many hackers investigated the box for the same purpose you speak of. Turns out, that the part that does the Netflix magic is a binary blob. Maybe Microsoft secretely ported Silverlight (with the necessary DRM) to Linux and won't tell anyone. Maybe Netflix simply created a whole new application. My bet is on the whole new application. Other things I hear out there are that if you stream Netflix to one of the applicances (including PS3 and Xbox360) you get to stream in HD, where on the computer, you are stuck with the lesser quality. It seems like Netflix's real goal hear is service licensing revenue. I am sure Tivo, PopBox and Roku all pay for the priveledge to stream Netflix right to your TV, which is handed to the consumer, who then in turn pays even more money for monthly subscription. Sounds like Netflix has positioned themselves quite well, but is it good for the consumer?
The way I interpreted this was that Google is opening themselves up to more alliances within the industry. The VP liked certain individuals not just because they were really talented, but because they were like-minded. They are in line with Google's philosophies and ideals. If you hire all of these people, then Google as a company is all by itself when it comes to influencing the direction of the industry. But if some of these like minded individuals work for other companies, or even the competition, then it becomes much easier for the industry as a whole to move in the direction that Google wants.
Pick a controversial tech topic, for example DRM. Now let's just pretend, for the purpose of this example, that Google is very anti-DRM. Unfortunately, all of their competition and potential partners have all taken a firm stance in favor of DRM. If Google hired all of the anti-DRM talent out there, then nothing changes with the rest of the industry. The same old pro-DRM philosophy continues to prevail within those other companies. Companies that Google may want to do business with, but only if it's without DRM, will be reluctant and possibly refuse to work with Google because of it. At the very least, Google may have to make concessions that end up hampering the true potential of whatever it is they are trying to do. However, if Google does not hire every DRM hater in existence, then those DRM haters go work for or remain working for those other companies. When Google approaches a traditionally pro-DRM company about a business relationship that strictly forbids DRM, they are more likely to be conviced since there will be like-minded individuals within that company that can influence the final decision. The relationship is established with minimal concessions and Google's plan is able to happen in a way that is inline with the original vision.
It's not just IE8 either. I find Bing popping up on me when I least expect it. I often find IE6 defaulting to Bing instead of a 404. A couple weeks ago, Bing showed up magically on every Blackberry on the Verizon network. I know it's been asked already but it's worth repeating. What is Bing's marketshare of searches directly initiated by the user? As in, "I'm a user and I want to search for something so I have decided I want to use Bing."
I've got nothing against Bing, really. I mean I hate Microsoft and all, just like any good Slashdotter, but I'm sure it's got a lot of great features that are just as good, if not, better than Google's. But for me, the most important feature of a search engine is how relevant the search results are. So far, I have not seen any evidence to show that Bing will return results more relevant than Google's and usually returns less results. I guess their commercials are right. Bing's solution for information overload is to not give you any.
Interesting thought, but you just come right back to a record company model. Let's say you're a financial institution in the business of giving out loans. An artist comes to you saying that they want to shoot a music video to promote their debut album. You are likely not going to give this artist any money unless you can be convinced that this artist will be profitable and be able to repay the loan. So what determines whether or not an artist will be profitable? Ideally whether their music is any good, or in line with public tastes. So now the financial institution of scouting artists. This is exactly what a record company does. They scout artists and provide financial backing, but offer zero liability to the artist. With a loan, the artist is on the hook to pay it back. Which would you choose?
I've noticed this here myself and after thinking about it, it makes perfect sense. You see, there is a perception amongst the general population that nerds/geeks are early adopters of technology because nerds love technology so obviously we're going to be the first to adopt. However, nerds also tend to be very practical and we generally would know more about what the new technology does, and what is already out there (that others may not yet know of). So our practicality tells us that before we adopt new technology, that technology needs to be proven to us (exception being for those developing the new technology). We are smart enough to know what happens when you adopt a technology before its proven. You spend a lot of money on something that under delivers and maybe even disapears or is replaced soon by something better. Or maybe it was just never a good idea to begin with. Mini-discs come to mind as a technology that briefly filled a gap until CD-Rs and mp3 players were ready and accessible to the consumer. And that segways perfectly to my other point, that nerds are more aware of what else is on the horizon. For me, I'm hesitant to make my MythTV DVR ready for HD, when I feel the better solution is an internet streaming tv model like what Boxee is trying to do. We didn't buy the mini-disc because we knew that CD-R was out there, it just needed time for the costs to come down, so why spend money on mini-disc, when a more lasting technology is almost ready.
Or maybe we're all just cheap at heart and know that with a little extra ingenuity, we can get the same benefit that this new technology offers without spending any money.
But maybe the real reason is that we are all too smart for our own good. We're too skeptical. Maybe we're the only ones learning from Man's mistakes. Everything is too good to be true, so we have to think and analyze and try to poke as many holes in the technology until it is proven that its impenetrable.
Or is it that new technology, in this 21st centuraly society, is now trendy, and when have nerds and geeks ever been trendy. I guess it is our curse. As soon as our own interests become trendy, we're no longer interested in them. Just wait, everyone will be using Linux, Anime will be on primetime TV, and all the popular girls want to date the president of the chess club. But where will all the nerds be, well, we will have moved on to evangalizing the next great OS that only works if you're a real techy, downloading Danish animation that makes Japanese tentacle porn look childish, and forming a professional Quidditch league complete with nuclear powered brooms.
They say that DVRs have increased ratings for shows as if it's surprising. Isn't this the whole point of a DVR though? You record it because you would not have otherwise been able to watch the show in its regularly scheduled time slot. So instead of just plain missing the show, you record it and watch it later. Instead of having to pick between two shows where one will get watched and the other will get missed, you record them both, and they both get watched. In the latter, the DVR has increased your potential audience. I'm a little surprised about the commerical watching though. As a MythTV user, I skip commercials altogether without the need for any user interaction. However, in cases where the commercials are not skipped (like if I start watching a show fifteen minutes into the broadcast), it's about a 60/40 split as to whether I'll bother fast forwarding. Someimes I'm really that lazy where lifting my arm to pick up the remote seems like too much effort. Other times it's the perfect bathroom break. Even though MythTV skips my commercials and could potentially pause for a break whenever I want, I tend to do it when there is a commercial simply because the flow of the show dictates a pause for commercial. It's kind of weird to pause in the middle of a conversation and come back a few minutes later. It totally messes with the flow.
Anyone in this thread ever actually fight a ticket? Because if you had, you know that you are dead wrong on that one. If you are in the US ALWAYS fight the ticket. Everyone I know who has ever fought a ticket (myself included) has gotten some sort of reduction. Usually you negotiate a higher fine instead of getting points on your license. Points on the license means next time you get a ticket, you could lose your license and it always means higher insurance premiums. In some cases, the officer doesn't show up to court and the charge is dropped to a non-moving violation. You pay a nominal fine and court fees and receive no points. For lesser violations (like speeding) you can get away with not hiring a lawyer and you pay no legal fees, just court fees. For larger offenses (like wreckless driving) I recommend a lawyer. You will pay somewhere around $500 and you are likely to have the violation reduced. The main objective with any of these is to avoid points on your license. As an example, I was pulled over for passing a school bus. This is considered one of the worst violations after DUI. I was looking at a $300 fine a 60 day suspension and 5 points. I paid $450 for a lawyer. Cop didn't show up for court. Judge knocked it down to a non-moving violation. I paid $100 total for court fees and the meager fine and I got no points on my license. The money was well worth it. Granted, since the cop didn't show up, my lawyer didn't really do anything, however, the lawyer did attempt to contact the officer multiple times so maybe that had something to do with it (maybe some back-scratching), but regardless, I paid a total of $550 as opposed to $300 fine + 60 days of public transportation and bumming rides off friends + 5 points (likely worth $200 or more per year in insurance premiums until they go away (at least 5 years depending on state)
In many counties in New Jersey, you show up in court (no lawyer necessary), enter your plea with the county prosecuter (say "Not Guilty"), prosecuter comes to you with a deal. If you like the deal, say "guilty". If you don't like the deal, say "Not Guilty". Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
I have never heard of anyone who fought a ticket get a worse punishment than what they started with. Unless you are a repeat offender, 90% of the time, you will get your penalty reduced, and that usually means no or reduced points. ALWAYS FIGHT THE TICKET!