Amazing indeed. A place where a company is legally prosecuted for antitrust, for not allowing to uninstall their browser. Yet other companies attack their customers for trying to uninstall or modify any other part of their system.
Ah... how nice is being on the side that makes the rules.
While the 24/7 Netflix example it's quite exaggerated. I must say... I think I'm old. Not too long ago, ISPs competed to provide with higher speed at better prices. What I see here, is pure greed, they made a profit out of caps, forcing people to pay more for their different data plans.
This year, they figured that 200MB people can pay $5 more, so instead of $15 per 200MB they will charge $20 per $300. You see if you were to spread your data evenly across the month (No bursty usage): (200MB *8 bitperByte)/(30days*24h*60m*60s) =
200MB * 8/2592000 = 617bps (at $15/mo)
Very likely, the 200MB data plan, will disappear, the 200MB users will keep within the 200MB range, but they very likely will be switched to the 300MB plan and asked to pay more when they don't need it.
On top of that.. who charges ATT for their BW anyways?
This its great, so now slashdot won't have sensationalist headlines saying they hacked a browser in X seconds! They will have headlines saying a browser was hacked N times! There will be no sensationalism for sure!
Is the 21 the one that talks about wealthy not expected to be convicted and the government should bail them out? Excuse my ignorance, I'm not from the US.
I agree with you there is value. But two me, there are two ways for an inventor to keep its leading edge: patents and trade secrets. Do you sincerely prefer patents and litigation or the freedom to reverse engineering the product? I hadn't seen anyone asking for the ingredients of coca cola because they "consume" their product, they're perfectly free of not doing so.
But, but... You don't get it, the next sony movie player our game console will have this type of DDRM (as in DNA analysis capable DRM) so they can force you to watch their annoying ads at the beginning of any movie/game you buy or rent! It's an awesome idea!
Replacing the BW of a Dual-link video port (DVI) for one video + audio (HDMI) only seems like the product of someone technologically impaired and/or looking for more royalty income.
I guess they want criminals to have the tools to determine if their victims are going to be able to defend from their attacks. Because, you know, eventually, just like radars, and any other device, it's going to reach the hands of the regular citizens.
And what makes me wonder is that companies capable of identifying and taking down audio and video tracks (censoring on copyright basis), claim they cannot block posts? (not that I agree with any, but I really wonder why. I'm guessing you're spot on with subjectivity)
May be. So far I rather get a simple TV than an ultra-full-featured, because I know there will be some features that will cause me inconvenience. As I said, I'm fully supporting the Smart TV because I think it's convenient in this epoch. As you said, they already have a computer on board, yet we're still requiring a separate box for the DVR, a separate for Cable, a separate for the WiDi (or what ever cable management system), another for audio receiver (although audio seems to be harder to include already due to the size of power amps, yet I need to wire all the speakers around the house).
My Google TV has an Atom processor inside, Ethernet, WiFi, 4G of internal memory and USB ports. I can stream movies from my NAS right into it, I can browse the Internet (when jerks like the networks and hulu don't block the content), and it has flash support so I can watch video from many websites.
So I'm wondering, why do I need more boxes and cables (other than perhaps power amps or game consoles at this moment). I'm just saying I'm not going to pay for more boxes when many of these capabilities are, to me, software based.
You see, the issue is that Sports is a big avenue for profit in the US (well, in general in many countries, but the US has taken very good advantage of it). So while in other countries, they attract you to the cable plans with the "You can watch all the games". In the US, you have the "you can always pay-per-view the games". So they don't want you to have that.
Note that in the US, cable companies charge you for delivering freely broadcasted channels as well. Go figure why networks don't broadcast their real-time content online for free (after all they also pay for spectrum and broadcasting equipment).
I see your point of the "upgrading" cycle. But if they really don't offer something "worth" the upgrade and their features go to waste (as I said in a previous post, like the Picture-in-picture that vanished thanks to the cable boxes), then why do I need anything more than a plain monitor (with perhaps a single tuner if so)?
I'm going to tell you the first one that went to waste on my Sony XBR in the 90s: Picture-in-Picture. It was great to have the chance of checking other stuff while not missing the main one. It was (to me) particularly useful for the news. Then my cable company came to bring the set top box, and bye-bye feature.
In addition to it, some boxes for some reason whatsoever don't control the TV volume but the local box volume, so you have to use their remote to control the volume (or any other stupid stuff), so you'll have to have both remotes always at reach.
So yes, I find TVs coming with awesome features, and I sincerely just got one Google TV and the rest.. is monitors with computers plugged to them and wireless keyboards, because I refuse to pay for features that I'm not going to use, and I refuse to pay for many multiple boxes, for a single task each. It's just ridiculous.
Why none of the freaking TV manufacturers has come with a USB dongle that enables channel decoding for cable companies instead of using a bunch of extra boxes (and cards) is something that it's out of my head. (If it's security, it's not like people don't crack satellite box firmware already).
No. It's annoying! It's annoying having a tv with plenty of features that go to waste because you end up plugging in one our two our more boxes to input ports. And each one requires anything else to remote control it properly (i.e. Some features are only available through their particular remote). I loved the idea of a smart tv, because it's like having my computer connected to the tv, without the extra boxes and cables.
I think you're missing one important point. If you get to build clusters with windows server, you don't want every single node in the server to run GUIs. You want your head node (perhaps) or something to run the VMs. But the rest of them, well you're suppose to set them up and "forget" about them.
You're right. And I realized how smooth my Samsung was, when I was on a plane and noticed all the iPhone crowd "typing" with two thumbs, while I was "swypping" my words.
That experience on my phone after the iPhone 3G (which came after my HTC Wizard with fill keyboard) is considerable better.
I'm sincerely not sure. While I liked the "netbook" edition when I tried and I haven't installed more recent versions. I have to say that the one important thing that keeps me from installing Linux on my mobile systems is the poor power management and how fast they tend to drain your battery (it's like Windows with antivirus).
I'm in for Linux tablets, as long as their battery life matches the competition.
If the remote has only one button (or one big one for voice commands), I hope it's easier to find than the tiny little ones the put nowadays in the overwhelming remotes in new systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazing indeed. A place where a company is legally prosecuted for antitrust, for not allowing to uninstall their browser. Yet other companies attack their customers for trying to uninstall or modify any other part of their system.
Ah... how nice is being on the side that makes the rules.
What about calling it "Performance improvement by bloatware removal"? :)
Did they get a release form from Earth to make it public? Oh, this will come back at us!
Which reminds me of this article
Well, duh! Because without the video we wouldn't have that awesome "robotic" sound at the beginning of the article! /sarcasm
Also, making 46b revenue in the last quarter with 16b. profit, I guess 0.1b is just pocket change.
While the 24/7 Netflix example it's quite exaggerated. I must say... I think I'm old. Not too long ago, ISPs competed to provide with higher speed at better prices. What I see here, is pure greed, they made a profit out of caps, forcing people to pay more for their different data plans.
This year, they figured that 200MB people can pay $5 more, so instead of $15 per 200MB they will charge $20 per $300. You see if you were to spread your data evenly across the month (No bursty usage): (200MB *8 bitperByte)/(30days*24h*60m*60s) =
200MB * 8/2592000 = 617bps (at $15/mo)
Very likely, the 200MB data plan, will disappear, the 200MB users will keep within the 200MB range, but they very likely will be switched to the 300MB plan and asked to pay more when they don't need it.
On top of that.. who charges ATT for their BW anyways?
This its great, so now slashdot won't have sensationalist headlines saying they hacked a browser in X seconds! They will have headlines saying a browser was hacked N times! There will be no sensationalism for sure!
Is the 21 the one that talks about wealthy not expected to be convicted and the government should bail them out? Excuse my ignorance, I'm not from the US.
Perhaps you can explain us all, if it its something that needs to be taught, how religion exists?
I agree with you there is value. But two me, there are two ways for an inventor to keep its leading edge: patents and trade secrets. Do you sincerely prefer patents and litigation or the freedom to reverse engineering the product? I hadn't seen anyone asking for the ingredients of coca cola because they "consume" their product, they're perfectly free of not doing so.
But, but... You don't get it, the next sony movie player our game console will have this type of DDRM (as in DNA analysis capable DRM) so they can force you to watch their annoying ads at the beginning of any movie/game you buy or rent! It's an awesome idea!
Replacing the BW of a Dual-link video port (DVI) for one video + audio (HDMI) only seems like the product of someone technologically impaired and/or looking for more royalty income.
I guess they want criminals to have the tools to determine if their victims are going to be able to defend from their attacks. Because, you know, eventually, just like radars, and any other device, it's going to reach the hands of the regular citizens.
And what makes me wonder is that companies capable of identifying and taking down audio and video tracks (censoring on copyright basis), claim they cannot block posts? (not that I agree with any, but I really wonder why. I'm guessing you're spot on with subjectivity)
May be. So far I rather get a simple TV than an ultra-full-featured, because I know there will be some features that will cause me inconvenience. As I said, I'm fully supporting the Smart TV because I think it's convenient in this epoch. As you said, they already have a computer on board, yet we're still requiring a separate box for the DVR, a separate for Cable, a separate for the WiDi (or what ever cable management system), another for audio receiver (although audio seems to be harder to include already due to the size of power amps, yet I need to wire all the speakers around the house).
My Google TV has an Atom processor inside, Ethernet, WiFi, 4G of internal memory and USB ports. I can stream movies from my NAS right into it, I can browse the Internet (when jerks like the networks and hulu don't block the content), and it has flash support so I can watch video from many websites.
So I'm wondering, why do I need more boxes and cables (other than perhaps power amps or game consoles at this moment). I'm just saying I'm not going to pay for more boxes when many of these capabilities are, to me, software based.
Thanks for the info. I never thought about the business in that way. I guess it makes some sense (at least a bit more).
You see, the issue is that Sports is a big avenue for profit in the US (well, in general in many countries, but the US has taken very good advantage of it). So while in other countries, they attract you to the cable plans with the "You can watch all the games". In the US, you have the "you can always pay-per-view the games". So they don't want you to have that.
Note that in the US, cable companies charge you for delivering freely broadcasted channels as well. Go figure why networks don't broadcast their real-time content online for free (after all they also pay for spectrum and broadcasting equipment).
I see your point of the "upgrading" cycle. But if they really don't offer something "worth" the upgrade and their features go to waste (as I said in a previous post, like the Picture-in-picture that vanished thanks to the cable boxes), then why do I need anything more than a plain monitor (with perhaps a single tuner if so)?
I'm going to tell you the first one that went to waste on my Sony XBR in the 90s: Picture-in-Picture. It was great to have the chance of checking other stuff while not missing the main one. It was (to me) particularly useful for the news. Then my cable company came to bring the set top box, and bye-bye feature.
In addition to it, some boxes for some reason whatsoever don't control the TV volume but the local box volume, so you have to use their remote to control the volume (or any other stupid stuff), so you'll have to have both remotes always at reach.
So yes, I find TVs coming with awesome features, and I sincerely just got one Google TV and the rest.. is monitors with computers plugged to them and wireless keyboards, because I refuse to pay for features that I'm not going to use, and I refuse to pay for many multiple boxes, for a single task each. It's just ridiculous.
Why none of the freaking TV manufacturers has come with a USB dongle that enables channel decoding for cable companies instead of using a bunch of extra boxes (and cards) is something that it's out of my head. (If it's security, it's not like people don't crack satellite box firmware already).
No. It's annoying! It's annoying having a tv with plenty of features that go to waste because you end up plugging in one our two our more boxes to input ports. And each one requires anything else to remote control it properly (i.e. Some features are only available through their particular remote). I loved the idea of a smart tv, because it's like having my computer connected to the tv, without the extra boxes and cables.
I think you're missing one important point. If you get to build clusters with windows server, you don't want every single node in the server to run GUIs. You want your head node (perhaps) or something to run the VMs. But the rest of them, well you're suppose to set them up and "forget" about them.
Any link to a Koenigsegg torrent?
You're right. And I realized how smooth my Samsung was, when I was on a plane and noticed all the iPhone crowd "typing" with two thumbs, while I was "swypping" my words.
That experience on my phone after the iPhone 3G (which came after my HTC Wizard with fill keyboard) is considerable better.
I'm sincerely not sure. While I liked the "netbook" edition when I tried and I haven't installed more recent versions. I have to say that the one important thing that keeps me from installing Linux on my mobile systems is the poor power management and how fast they tend to drain your battery (it's like Windows with antivirus).
I'm in for Linux tablets, as long as their battery life matches the competition.
If the remote has only one button (or one big one for voice commands), I hope it's easier to find than the tiny little ones the put nowadays in the overwhelming remotes in new systems.