With that attitude you can be sure you won't get better than that. Nobody said fighting the good fight wouldn't be work.
You: "You have cheated me, sir! I demand retribution!"
Them: "Go suck an egg, loser! You can't make me!"
You: "Oh well, I'm taking my business elsewhere!".
Next unscrupulous business: "Look - here comes another rube! Let's see how much we can take him for before he bolts."
If you walk away quietly to avoid confrontation or because you think you have to take the abuse, you deserve what you get. This includes something as simple as poor service or a corked bottle of wine at a restaurant. You don't have to be an ass about it, but politely and firmly letting them know you are unhappy and are willing take measures to get what you paid for *does* get results. These days, "I'm going to write about you in my blog" is as effective a stick as "I live next door to the local restaurant critic - he'll be extremely happy to stop by" used to be. If he has a blog, even that still works. If you think like a sheep, that's exactly how you will be treated.
A-fscking-men! Thanks for the wonderful and insightful comment. When I've posted comments on forums to voice a grievance along with a promise to never buy a product from company X again, the response I've gotten from the "Company X employee" can often be paraphrased as "so what? You're not buying our product so you're not a customer. Why should we care what you think?". Voting with your dollar doesn't cause enough pain to get attention - there are enough other uninformed customers to keep the cash flowing in. Evil can't stand the light of day, so drawing public attention to demonstrably bad practices (to avoid libel lawsuits) is more likely to get their attention.
That's because other than one's own personal CD collection, there weren't any acceptable sources of purchased music available "a few years ago". And by acceptable I consider things like reasonable price, a wide selection of non-proprietary formats, enhanced features and no DRM. It's been said over and over again - make the price and features acceptable, and people *will* buy. If a legitimate market for what people actually want is not available, the black market will give them what they want. Things like Sansa's Slotmusic* encourage me that someone is beginning to get it, even if they are slow and afraid to make the wrong move.
* The price seems to be little different from conventional CDs which is disappointing considering the absence of manufacturing costs, but they are at least taking advantage of the medium to provide extra stuff like artwork, lyrics and such. And it's DRM free. I have to give them credit for trying, because considering the alternatives, I can't think of any other music source that comes closer to finding mutually acceptable terms to vendor and customer alike.
Wow - didn't take long for the apologists to come out of the woodwork. Here's what I'd like to see instead: A balanced comment
It's hard to get much more meta than, here's the type of comment I'd like to see someone post on Slashdot about the article about the patent about the capability to limit services in upcoming devices. Wow, just wow.
Now that you point it out, I'm quite proud of my uber-metaness. I see your wows and raise you a "wow - thanks, dude".
Anyway, your core point appears to confuse service providers with utilities and overall confuse a response that takes physical infrastructure into account for a defense of corporatism. It's also a rather silly point in that you seem to feel that users have some inherent right to use any feature of any device they like on cell networks.
*snip*
Your argument goes out the window since the 'crippling' of devices quite often includes features of the device that have nothing at all to do with the physical infrastructure of the network and the impact cellular devices might have on them.
GPS would be a good example. If the device is passively determining it's GPS coordinates anyway, how exactly does installing software of one's own choosing that uses that data to display locally installed maps impact the network? It doesn't - it impacts the ability of the provider to sell you their own expensive geolocation solution, whether you want it or not.
How does installing personal data such as photos or music files on the device impact the network? It doesn't - it impacts the ability of the provider to force you to use their "upload photos to your phone" service or their "music store".
Same with ringtones - recording myself playing a guitar and installing on my device doesn't impact the network - but it impacts the providers ability to sell me expensive ringtones.
What about Wi-Fi? Using my device to connect to my home wi-fi network to do messaging, data upload/download or use any number of software services in the cloud doesn't impact their network at all. It does impact the ability of the provider to limit such activities to their network for which they levy a hefty monthly charge.
Prove to me that the crippling of capabilities is limited to features that demonstrably impact the integrity of the network, and I will gladly grant you your point. The problem is, there are too many examples of capabilities which are disabled that have no such impact, so your point is diminished to the point of insignificance.
Here's what really happens: Devices are designed and manufactured with features and capabilities that people find desirable. These features and capabilities are breathlessly hyped in reviews and adverts for the upcoming device. This gets people interested in the new features and capabilities the device has to offer that their current one lacks. Then, the actual device that ends up in the hands of people has those very features and capabilities disable by the provider unless you subscribe to the monthly service, even though this isn't necessary as the capabilities of said device are independent of the provider's network (or don't have an impact beyond affecting a source of revenue).
So I stand by my original point - I want to see less apologism and more balanced consideration of the issues. And a pink pony that can fly.
Millions of dollars and man-decades of investment plus the likelihood of a patent arsenal that would ensure the investment is a failure. Or to be more clear: Lack of an even playing field.
...does anyone else ever get the feeling that there is a whole cabal of businesses, government organizations, etc, out there just trying to monetize the piss out of them? Monetized content, monetized hardware, monetized media...there is too much monetization...
Wow - didn't take long for the apologists to come out of the woodwork. Here's what I'd like to see instead: A balanced comment that takes into consideration the needs of BOTH parties in a transaction/business relationship/whatever, rather than just the point of view of the party with the most power. I think we (i.e. "reasonable people") understand that one-sided relationships that favor one party over the other aren't optimal in a civilized society. But I can't quite understand the psychology behind those that rapidly spring to the defense of the powerful. Unless you're working for them and will directly benefit from maintaining or adding further imbalance to the status quo, WHY?
In your particular example, I would counter that the real reason for crippling devices has much more to do with control for the purpose of maximizing income than control for technical reasons. The fear isn't that willy-nilly allowance of device capabilities will bring down the network, it's that it will allow customers to create their own solutions rather than paying a lucrative monthly fee for the officially sanctioned service that optimizes monetization of the service rather than optimizing the ability of people to do what they need/want to do. Use of the term "crippling" isn't accidental - it's an accurate description of what is being done.
If by older cards you mean cards still available for sale currently, for example in notebooks where they can't easily be upgraded, then yeah, I guess you're right. These aren't yet legacy cards by any means. And the OS driver isn't quite ready for primetime yet, particularly when it comes to power management (somewhat important for a notebook). The situation is pretty suboptimal just about now.
Doesn't matter if he's RMS or Buddha or Jeebus. He's still being a drama queen. Yup. And we'd be disappointed if he weren't.
<quote>Past glories don't cover for current asshattery.</quote>
Indeed. Which is why Palm is being taken out to the woodshed. Oh - that's not what you meant? Sorry.:-)
<quote>Incidentally, I disagree that it's on Slashdot because of JWZ, it would probably still be on because it's a tech article that's making it's rounds.</quote>
Yeah, maybe. But I say it's on/. because it's JWZ, so it got attention first. The troubles of John Doe developer would not be as noteworthy, so we would have seen it at a later date, if at all. The depressing thing was that this story didn't yield any quotable JWZ quips, which was probably the hope. Ah Jamie, we all get old, don't we?
Don't you people get it? How else to test out a new platform than to feed a trivial app through the system to see what happens? It's called debugging. Do we have to spell it all out for you? Have some fscking insight - please!
You miss the point, not that I made it very well. Jamie's contributions to the nerd community shifted long ago from coder to source of entertainment - he's a rockstar from the early days. You haven't the proper context until you understand that. It's on Slashdot because it's Jamie - the more topical Palm Pre connection was just an excuse. And the whole acting like an a-hole thing? That's part of the game. Rockstars trash hotel rooms, jwz trashes... whatever pisses him off. Usually with more wit and insight than the average nerd can muster. Hell, his 'fortune' quotes alone are worth the price of admission. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the show.:-)
Today's quote:
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems. -- Jamie Zawinski
You must be new here. He's not "this guy", he's Jamie Zawinski - if you were sufficiently nerdy (this IS news for nerds, after all) you would understand why this is on slashdot. The fact that you're very likely reading this story using a browser other than IE is in part due to his efforts. Have a little respect for your elders. Here's a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Zawinski
Dishonest and clueless (I avoid the more inflammatory "lying" and "terminally stupid" terms) individuals are as likely a reason as any. Just like snake-oil salesmen and pseudo-scientific charlatans give medicine and science a bad name, respectively, so do the "armchair techies" give a bad name to genuinely competent IT professionals. IT personnel at both retail stores and businesses should be held to a higher standard than "I know more techno-jargon than you do, so I must be smarter". One bad apple spoils the whole bunch, and one charlatan can do damage to the field as a whole. Be willing to hold people to a higher standard rather than giving them a pass and the profession will get as much respect as any other. I respect a competent bricklayer, plumber, electrician etc. much more than someone with unproven "tech savvy", since the latter can currently bluff their way to a high position in IT with little or no specific tech knowledge.
You missed the point, since people are aware of discounting. It's the price of *new* media that is overpriced and people who might otherwise purchase are staying away in droves. Sell those $60 games at $30, and you might see a lot more purchases taking place during the initial weeks of release when excitement about a new game is high, rather than months or years later when it becomes an impulse buy. I used to be a gaming enthusiast until pricing moved me into the 'casual gamer' category. Maximizing the number of gaming enthusiasts might be a better long term strategy than milking the small pool of hardcore gamers for all you can.
Like many other products, if games don't sell at $60, the price drops. If they thought people would be willing to buy games for $50 but not $60, games would be $50.
No. When games don't sell because the price is too high (or because the game is mediocre), the game developers and publishers blame illegal copying rather than adjusting the price. So the message sent to them by the market isn't being heard - they are too busy worrying about why they aren't getting the price they feel entitled to.
I stopped buying new games when they hit $40. If I buy them at all, I wait until the price drops enough to land the game in the clearance bin, or until a pre-owned copy turns up (don't download them either, to nip that criticism in the bud. I just don't buy and don't play). I would buy a lot more games new at retail if the prices were half of what they are now (and DVDs, and books, and comics). I can't believe I'm in the minority.
Given all the people available to produce FLOSS it's frustrating that after several decades achieving "mainstream" traction has eluded the community. Perhaps something is missing which might help FLOSS jump the gap. That something else might not be yet another programming language, library, kernel version, desktop rewrite or new OS but rather something that addresses the human side of things. A great entrepeneurial hope might be just what the situation calls for. Don't dump on someone for realizing the fundamental problem and giving it the old college try.
You're wrong, I'm afraid. The $7 tub of popcorn isn't worth it because it's part of the experience. It's your only choice if you want any popcorn at all, because the theater has you over a barrel - eat nothing or pay our outrageous prices for stale, low quality popcorn. Oh, and miss the first part of the film because the teenager behind the counter is in a semi-coma and seems to be embedded in an atmosphere with a viscosity similar to molasses, preventing him/her from moving at anything other than a snails pace. Ah, and don't forget the tepid attempts at the upsell (you can have the extra large bucket of watered down soda for only 50 cents more!).
You are right - movie theaters do offer an experience. It's just not the positive experience you think it is. Many people go to the theater out of boredom, the simple inertia of old habits or better presentation of the content (digital projection, surround sound), not because of the wonderful experience it offers.
Much of what you describe (meeting up with friends, spending time with the family, having a date) can be provided by a decent home-theater setup, along with better food, better conditions and no commercials or out of focus projectors. That's why so many people invest in costly home theater systems - to avoid the "experience" offered by theaters. Had movie theaters offered a really positive experience that was hard to surpass, there would have been no market for home theater equipment.
I'd mod you up but I'm going to restrain myself because you've just pointed out the obvious but ended up with questions rather than at least a proposal of a possible solution. The current state of affairs is easy enough to see for those who care to look, but the way out of the quagmire is less apparent, if not completely opaque. Let's try thinking about how to guide ourselves to the future we want rather than nuanced and insightful analyses of the status quo. Por favor.
No. The reason it's a bad analogy is because it misses the key and only crucial point: the fundamental disconnect between "your things" and "cannot take" when the latter is arbitrarily imposed on you by a party that has no legitimate claim on the former. The landlord has no claim on "your things" unless you have breached contract somehow, like not paying rent. Otherwise taking "your things" with you when moving out is an activity not to be questioned at all. A better analogy might be that the mere act of moving in resulted in the landlord claiming "your things" were now "his things" without any justification supported by law or common cultural practice. The Google Data Liberation Group is (belatedly, IMHO) expending energy to rectify a situation that should never have existed in the first place. A laudable effort, to be sure, but one that should not have been necessary.
Yup. I've got a problem right now with Firefox on a clean Linux install (openSUSE) after having done nothing more than import my bookmarks file using SyncPlaces. A click on the bookmarks sidebar and *BAM* - Firefox is gone. I'll grant you - this is rare, and I've been a Mozilla user since the very first source code drop when it was open-sourced, but Firefox can indeed crash. (To preempt any armchair debugging, the same bookmarks file works fine on at least 6 other Firefox instances - 4 Linux and 2 Windows, same FF version, all running SyncPlaces - so it isn't 'corrupt' or malformed in some way.. I suspect this might have something to do with buggyness in the sidebar, which doesn't seem to handle bookmark updates very well.)
I'd be happy if they could produce a GPU + drive that would adequately drive ONE display on Linux.
And another thought: Multiple displays with DX11? so what? Windows as available to the general public is as quintissentially single-user as it gets, both due to technological limitations and the oh-so-very-important license restrictions. What on earth would six simultaneous displays on Windows be useful for in the real world? Contrast that with Linux, which is multi-user by design and isn't limited by license restrictions. A multi-headed setup running Linux that supported accelerated graphics on all displays would be awesome, particularly in budget restrained environments such as libraries or elementary school computer labs. Heck, even university computer labs.
Seems to me they are barking up the wrong tree.
Yep. And won't miss it a bit. "Service" is the totality of the terms of exchange, not just "give me stuff for money". If the terms of the exchange are not mutually agreeable, there is no exchange.
Did you have some sort of point to make?
Slashdot Mirror
You: "You have cheated me, sir! I demand retribution!"
Them: "Go suck an egg, loser! You can't make me!"
You: "Oh well, I'm taking my business elsewhere!".
Next unscrupulous business: "Look - here comes another rube! Let's see how much we can take him for before he bolts." If you walk away quietly to avoid confrontation or because you think you have to take the abuse, you deserve what you get. This includes something as simple as poor service or a corked bottle of wine at a restaurant. You don't have to be an ass about it, but politely and firmly letting them know you are unhappy and are willing take measures to get what you paid for *does* get results. These days, "I'm going to write about you in my blog" is as effective a stick as "I live next door to the local restaurant critic - he'll be extremely happy to stop by" used to be. If he has a blog, even that still works. If you think like a sheep, that's exactly how you will be treated.
A-fscking-men! Thanks for the wonderful and insightful comment. When I've posted comments on forums to voice a grievance along with a promise to never buy a product from company X again, the response I've gotten from the "Company X employee" can often be paraphrased as "so what? You're not buying our product so you're not a customer. Why should we care what you think?". Voting with your dollar doesn't cause enough pain to get attention - there are enough other uninformed customers to keep the cash flowing in. Evil can't stand the light of day, so drawing public attention to demonstrably bad practices (to avoid libel lawsuits) is more likely to get their attention.
That's because other than one's own personal CD collection, there weren't any acceptable sources of purchased music available "a few years ago". And by acceptable I consider things like reasonable price, a wide selection of non-proprietary formats, enhanced features and no DRM. It's been said over and over again - make the price and features acceptable, and people *will* buy. If a legitimate market for what people actually want is not available, the black market will give them what they want. Things like Sansa's Slotmusic* encourage me that someone is beginning to get it, even if they are slow and afraid to make the wrong move. * The price seems to be little different from conventional CDs which is disappointing considering the absence of manufacturing costs, but they are at least taking advantage of the medium to provide extra stuff like artwork, lyrics and such. And it's DRM free. I have to give them credit for trying, because considering the alternatives, I can't think of any other music source that comes closer to finding mutually acceptable terms to vendor and customer alike.
Wow - didn't take long for the apologists to come out of the woodwork. Here's what I'd like to see instead: A balanced comment
It's hard to get much more meta than, here's the type of comment I'd like to see someone post on Slashdot about the article about the patent about the capability to limit services in upcoming devices. Wow, just wow.
Now that you point it out, I'm quite proud of my uber-metaness. I see your wows and raise you a "wow - thanks, dude".
Anyway, your core point appears to confuse service providers with utilities and overall confuse a response that takes physical infrastructure into account for a defense of corporatism. It's also a rather silly point in that you seem to feel that users have some inherent right to use any feature of any device they like on cell networks.
*snip*
Your argument goes out the window since the 'crippling' of devices quite often includes features of the device that have nothing at all to do with the physical infrastructure of the network and the impact cellular devices might have on them.
GPS would be a good example. If the device is passively determining it's GPS coordinates anyway, how exactly does installing software of one's own choosing that uses that data to display locally installed maps impact the network? It doesn't - it impacts the ability of the provider to sell you their own expensive geolocation solution, whether you want it or not.
How does installing personal data such as photos or music files on the device impact the network? It doesn't - it impacts the ability of the provider to force you to use their "upload photos to your phone" service or their "music store".
Same with ringtones - recording myself playing a guitar and installing on my device doesn't impact the network - but it impacts the providers ability to sell me expensive ringtones.
What about Wi-Fi? Using my device to connect to my home wi-fi network to do messaging, data upload/download or use any number of software services in the cloud doesn't impact their network at all. It does impact the ability of the provider to limit such activities to their network for which they levy a hefty monthly charge.
Prove to me that the crippling of capabilities is limited to features that demonstrably impact the integrity of the network, and I will gladly grant you your point. The problem is, there are too many examples of capabilities which are disabled that have no such impact, so your point is diminished to the point of insignificance.
Here's what really happens: Devices are designed and manufactured with features and capabilities that people find desirable. These features and capabilities are breathlessly hyped in reviews and adverts for the upcoming device. This gets people interested in the new features and capabilities the device has to offer that their current one lacks. Then, the actual device that ends up in the hands of people has those very features and capabilities disable by the provider unless you subscribe to the monthly service, even though this isn't necessary as the capabilities of said device are independent of the provider's network (or don't have an impact beyond affecting a source of revenue).
So I stand by my original point - I want to see less apologism and more balanced consideration of the issues. And a pink pony that can fly.
What's holding you back?
Millions of dollars and man-decades of investment plus the likelihood of a patent arsenal that would ensure the investment is a failure. Or to be more clear: Lack of an even playing field.
...does anyone else ever get the feeling that there is a whole cabal of businesses, government organizations, etc, out there just trying to monetize the piss out of them? Monetized content, monetized hardware, monetized media...there is too much monetization...
There - fixed that for you.
Wow - didn't take long for the apologists to come out of the woodwork. Here's what I'd like to see instead: A balanced comment that takes into consideration the needs of BOTH parties in a transaction/business relationship/whatever, rather than just the point of view of the party with the most power. I think we (i.e. "reasonable people") understand that one-sided relationships that favor one party over the other aren't optimal in a civilized society. But I can't quite understand the psychology behind those that rapidly spring to the defense of the powerful. Unless you're working for them and will directly benefit from maintaining or adding further imbalance to the status quo, WHY?
In your particular example, I would counter that the real reason for crippling devices has much more to do with control for the purpose of maximizing income than control for technical reasons. The fear isn't that willy-nilly allowance of device capabilities will bring down the network, it's that it will allow customers to create their own solutions rather than paying a lucrative monthly fee for the officially sanctioned service that optimizes monetization of the service rather than optimizing the ability of people to do what they need/want to do. Use of the term "crippling" isn't accidental - it's an accurate description of what is being done.
If by older cards you mean cards still available for sale currently, for example in notebooks where they can't easily be upgraded, then yeah, I guess you're right. These aren't yet legacy cards by any means. And the OS driver isn't quite ready for primetime yet, particularly when it comes to power management (somewhat important for a notebook). The situation is pretty suboptimal just about now.
Doesn't matter if he's RMS or Buddha or Jeebus. He's still being a drama queen.
:-)
/. because it's JWZ, so it got attention first. The troubles of John Doe developer would not be as noteworthy, so we would have seen it at a later date, if at all. The depressing thing was that this story didn't yield any quotable JWZ quips, which was probably the hope. Ah Jamie, we all get old, don't we?
Yup. And we'd be disappointed if he weren't.
<quote>Past glories don't cover for current asshattery.</quote>
Indeed. Which is why Palm is being taken out to the woodshed. Oh - that's not what you meant? Sorry.
<quote>Incidentally, I disagree that it's on Slashdot because of JWZ, it would probably still be on because it's a tech article that's making it's rounds.</quote>
Yeah, maybe. But I say it's on
... since it doesn't exist. Somehow, my landline + voice only cellphone seem to be more than adequate for my needs.
:-)
Go figure.
Don't you people get it? How else to test out a new platform than to feed a trivial app through the system to see what happens? It's called debugging. Do we have to spell it all out for you? Have some fscking insight - please!
You miss the point, not that I made it very well. Jamie's contributions to the nerd community shifted long ago from coder to source of entertainment - he's a rockstar from the early days. You haven't the proper context until you understand that. It's on Slashdot because it's Jamie - the more topical Palm Pre connection was just an excuse. And the whole acting like an a-hole thing? That's part of the game. Rockstars trash hotel rooms, jwz trashes ... whatever pisses him off. Usually with more wit and insight than the average nerd can muster. Hell, his 'fortune' quotes alone are worth the price of admission. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the show. :-)
Today's quote:
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems.
-- Jamie Zawinski
Preach on, brother!
You must be new here. He's not "this guy", he's Jamie Zawinski - if you were sufficiently nerdy (this IS news for nerds, after all) you would understand why this is on slashdot. The fact that you're very likely reading this story using a browser other than IE is in part due to his efforts. Have a little respect for your elders. Here's a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Zawinski
"Bad PC sales staff exposed"
Dishonest and clueless (I avoid the more inflammatory "lying" and "terminally stupid" terms) individuals are as likely a reason as any. Just like snake-oil salesmen and pseudo-scientific charlatans give medicine and science a bad name, respectively, so do the "armchair techies" give a bad name to genuinely competent IT professionals. IT personnel at both retail stores and businesses should be held to a higher standard than "I know more techno-jargon than you do, so I must be smarter". One bad apple spoils the whole bunch, and one charlatan can do damage to the field as a whole. Be willing to hold people to a higher standard rather than giving them a pass and the profession will get as much respect as any other. I respect a competent bricklayer, plumber, electrician etc. much more than someone with unproven "tech savvy", since the latter can currently bluff their way to a high position in IT with little or no specific tech knowledge.
You missed the point, since people are aware of discounting. It's the price of *new* media that is overpriced and people who might otherwise purchase are staying away in droves. Sell those $60 games at $30, and you might see a lot more purchases taking place during the initial weeks of release when excitement about a new game is high, rather than months or years later when it becomes an impulse buy. I used to be a gaming enthusiast until pricing moved me into the 'casual gamer' category. Maximizing the number of gaming enthusiasts might be a better long term strategy than milking the small pool of hardcore gamers for all you can.
Like many other products, if games don't sell at $60, the price drops. If they thought people would be willing to buy games for $50 but not $60, games would be $50.
No. When games don't sell because the price is too high (or because the game is mediocre), the game developers and publishers blame illegal copying rather than adjusting the price. So the message sent to them by the market isn't being heard - they are too busy worrying about why they aren't getting the price they feel entitled to.
I stopped buying new games when they hit $40. If I buy them at all, I wait until the price drops enough to land the game in the clearance bin, or until a pre-owned copy turns up (don't download them either, to nip that criticism in the bud. I just don't buy and don't play). I would buy a lot more games new at retail if the prices were half of what they are now (and DVDs, and books, and comics). I can't believe I'm in the minority.
Given all the people available to produce FLOSS it's frustrating that after several decades achieving "mainstream" traction has eluded the community. Perhaps something is missing which might help FLOSS jump the gap. That something else might not be yet another programming language, library, kernel version, desktop rewrite or new OS but rather something that addresses the human side of things. A great entrepeneurial hope might be just what the situation calls for. Don't dump on someone for realizing the fundamental problem and giving it the old college try.
Thirded.
You're wrong, I'm afraid. The $7 tub of popcorn isn't worth it because it's part of the experience. It's your only choice if you want any popcorn at all, because the theater has you over a barrel - eat nothing or pay our outrageous prices for stale, low quality popcorn. Oh, and miss the first part of the film because the teenager behind the counter is in a semi-coma and seems to be embedded in an atmosphere with a viscosity similar to molasses, preventing him/her from moving at anything other than a snails pace. Ah, and don't forget the tepid attempts at the upsell (you can have the extra large bucket of watered down soda for only 50 cents more!).
You are right - movie theaters do offer an experience. It's just not the positive experience you think it is. Many people go to the theater out of boredom, the simple inertia of old habits or better presentation of the content (digital projection, surround sound), not because of the wonderful experience it offers.
Much of what you describe (meeting up with friends, spending time with the family, having a date) can be provided by a decent home-theater setup, along with better food, better conditions and no commercials or out of focus projectors. That's why so many people invest in costly home theater systems - to avoid the "experience" offered by theaters. Had movie theaters offered a really positive experience that was hard to surpass, there would have been no market for home theater equipment.
I'd mod you up but I'm going to restrain myself because you've just pointed out the obvious but ended up with questions rather than at least a proposal of a possible solution. The current state of affairs is easy enough to see for those who care to look, but the way out of the quagmire is less apparent, if not completely opaque. Let's try thinking about how to guide ourselves to the future we want rather than nuanced and insightful analyses of the status quo. Por favor.
No. The reason it's a bad analogy is because it misses the key and only crucial point: the fundamental disconnect between "your things" and "cannot take" when the latter is arbitrarily imposed on you by a party that has no legitimate claim on the former. The landlord has no claim on "your things" unless you have breached contract somehow, like not paying rent. Otherwise taking "your things" with you when moving out is an activity not to be questioned at all. A better analogy might be that the mere act of moving in resulted in the landlord claiming "your things" were now "his things" without any justification supported by law or common cultural practice. The Google Data Liberation Group is (belatedly, IMHO) expending energy to rectify a situation that should never have existed in the first place. A laudable effort, to be sure, but one that should not have been necessary.
Firefox crashes? This is news to me.
Yup. I've got a problem right now with Firefox on a clean Linux install (openSUSE) after having done nothing more than import my bookmarks file using SyncPlaces. A click on the bookmarks sidebar and *BAM* - Firefox is gone. I'll grant you - this is rare, and I've been a Mozilla user since the very first source code drop when it was open-sourced, but Firefox can indeed crash. (To preempt any armchair debugging, the same bookmarks file works fine on at least 6 other Firefox instances - 4 Linux and 2 Windows, same FF version, all running SyncPlaces - so it isn't 'corrupt' or malformed in some way.. I suspect this might have something to do with buggyness in the sidebar, which doesn't seem to handle bookmark updates very well.)
I'd be happy if they could produce a GPU + drive that would adequately drive ONE display on Linux. And another thought: Multiple displays with DX11? so what? Windows as available to the general public is as quintissentially single-user as it gets, both due to technological limitations and the oh-so-very-important license restrictions. What on earth would six simultaneous displays on Windows be useful for in the real world? Contrast that with Linux, which is multi-user by design and isn't limited by license restrictions. A multi-headed setup running Linux that supported accelerated graphics on all displays would be awesome, particularly in budget restrained environments such as libraries or elementary school computer labs. Heck, even university computer labs. Seems to me they are barking up the wrong tree.
Yep. And won't miss it a bit. "Service" is the totality of the terms of exchange, not just "give me stuff for money". If the terms of the exchange are not mutually agreeable, there is no exchange. Did you have some sort of point to make?