I wouldn't worry that much about the extra expense, at least not from Samsung. They managed to drive CRT HDTV prices down very quickly once they got into the market with some aggressive pricing, and I would expect them to do the same with Blu-Ray/HD-DVD. That said, all of the HD-format players are going to be expensive for at least the next year - probably too expensive for either format to gain significant marketshare given the relatively low (but growing) penetration of HDTVs.
IF either format has any hope of "winning" the first year, though, I think it's HD-DVD. Considering that the flagship players of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have MSRPs of US$500 and $1,000 respectively, it's going to be an uphill battle getting anyone but die-hard PS3 fans to buy BR...
There are a couple of differences between the two situations. The first is that both formats had rights to the DVD name. The second is that things were awful when people were stuck in an either/or situation. Fortunately, it wasn't too long until dual-format writers came out, allowing people to use whichever format they preferred and still knock out a disc with the other format if there was a compabitility problem (some companies still have a tendency to make their standalone DVD players compatible with only one of the recordable formats).
Personally, I'll be waiting for the Samsung (or other - Samsung was just the first to announce and I've gained appreciation for their electronics) combo HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players to be reasonably priced so that I can skip the whole issue. It won't be that long of a wait, and it won't be at all painful since the HD movies are going to be coming out at a trickle for at least the next year or so.
Then encourage the BluRay player builders to add a $5 DVD pickup laser and a $2 MPEG2 decoder chip so the BluRay players can also play back old fashioned DVD too.
This is already going to be automatic. Nobody is going to release a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player that doesn't play back DVDs. As for a "$2 MPEG2 decoder chip," you really don't need anything extra in that area since both formats support MPEG-2 encoded data by default (FYI, broadcast HD is already MPEG-2).
As for the marketing, that's not bad but they would be in for a serious fight with the HD-DVD folks if they tried it.:)
People buy spin, and marketing crap. They don't buy technology, or purchase on any rational basis.
Oh, most definitely. That's why I think Laserdisc made such huge waves, all but replacing VHS for precorded movies. I mean, damn, discs were high-tech and lasers have always been awesome.
Listen, if you want to know what the general public will buy, I'll tell you: They'll buy the HD format that a) has the most movies, b) gets the best demos over the next year while they're wandering around Circuit City/Best Buy/etc., c) is supported by their friends and family (my parents, for example, would go for whatever format I recommended to them), and most importantly d) is the cheapest.
Of course, it's all moot if combo players reach decent prices. At that point, nobody but the A/V geeks will care about the differences...
Decent engine performance makes all the difference to how immersive the experience is for me, it's a shame they didn't manage to get the engine right with Morrowind or Oblivion, which are otherwise the most immersive games I've ever played.
This is where patient PC gamers can really win out in the end. Folks who are willing to shift their gaming timetables by a year or two will much more easily be able to play Oblivion at its maximum settings with good resolution. They will also have the advantage of getting all of the "bonus" content and bug fixes before they even load up the game.
Don't get me wrong. For some games, I'm not in the above group. I bought an Xbox to play Morrowind (didn't want to deal with PC upgrading) and I might just buy a 360 to play Oblivion (my PC is dead). Someday, I'll learn to follow my own advice but for now waiting a year or more probably isn't in the cards.:)
My very angry reaction is that i'm sick and tired of people equating feminism to man hating - because it's not.
I agree. I still think that you need to take a few deep breaths and relax because you're reacting way out of proportion to whatever offense was given, intended or not.
At this point, I think I have a greater respect for the OP for the simple fact that if he intended his post as a troll, you and others have fed him a very nice meal...and I'm not helping to clear the table myself.:)
The second sentence above is an example of pure laziness in previewing. This might be slightly better: It could be that he finds as much weird or objectionable about being a "medievalist" as a misogynist would find about someone being a "feminist."
Still not great, but a little closer to making some small amount of sense...for the Internet...
It's possible you're being a little harsh on GP. It could be that he finds as much weird or objectionable about being a "medievalist" as a misogynist might be regarding a "feminist." He could even have just been trying to be silly.
I wonder, though, what compelled you (and others) to respond so vigorously to what amounted to a "throwaway" post that really didn't say anything. My speculation would be that you're one of those "extremists," at least in the sense that your post seems like an overreaction...or overcompensation?
I really want to get excited about the idea of Oblivion on a portable console. I've come to a point where I enjoy handheld gaming just as much, and sometimes more, than I do gaming on either my monitor or console. That said, it's really hard to get excited about such a big game being ported to the PSP given that the thing tends to get bogged down by disk access. If it weren't for that issue, I might own one already because, damn, the graphics on the PSP look great.:)
Is it possible that frustrated players leaving is exactly Blizzard's desired result? Given that the issues described in the article have apparently existed (albeit sporadically in more recent months) since the game went online, that would seem to imply fundamental problems with their system. I'm wondering if they've looked at the possibility of addressing these fundamental problems and decided that the expense of doing so is greater than losing, say, 20% of their player base. In that situation, I could see where letting the problems continue could seem better for them in the long run than addressing expensive design issues. And, of course, if their numbers stay consistent despite continuing problems, then they would simply continue pocketing what in their minds may be "bonus" money...
I may have crossed the line of being "too cynical," though.:)
It's not, but maybe a few of the people with potential to be sensible will take the advice and reduce those early sales numbers enough to where developers and publishers figure things out.:)
If no one buys the game because they don't know if it has any bugs in it or not, then who finds the bugs?
The answer to that is a simple one: There are always sucke...people...who are willing to run out and buy a game on day 1 of its release. The advice in question is meant for people who actually can stand to wait an extra month or two for a game. The folks who go so far as to preorder (one of the worst develops in retail game sales) a game will continue to do so because they've already decided that they don't care when they end up getting the worst possible gameplay experience. For the rest of us, we can watch these people complain, chuckle a bit and then pick up the game after we've heard that 19 out of 20 game-crashing bugs have already been fixed. In those cases where for some reason the bugs never get fixed, we can either choose not to buy at all or wait for the price point where we would feel a buggy game is acceptable.
What is all this "benefit of the doubt" crap? It's for the police, judges and juries to give "benefit of the doubt." If a police officer comes after my call regarding a domestic disturbance next door, then it's that officer's job to evaluate the situation. My responsibility, as I see it, is to report the situation if I perceive it to be dangerous.
As for settling things with fist fights, I think you're out of touch. While it's true that, in theory, two people can fight each other if they've given consent, it's not something that's condoned in much of adult society. People who get in fights are, in my experience, usually considered either stupid or crazy. According to the law, if someone doesn't want to be hit, then the person doing the hitting is breaking the law. Now, if I witness someone get punched in the mouth and the person fights back, what's my responsibility? To stand back and say, "Well, they'll feel better once it's out of their systems"? Maybe I should stand around cheering them on? In truth, if I was close (and if it was only two people), I'd break that garbage up - and I have. If I felt it was too dangerous to get involved myself, I'd call someone (like the police) who could stop it.
Hitting people isn't acceptable and, in most cases, IT'S A CRIME.
PS- It's not "unamerican" to try to help out your neighbors, whether next-door or far away. If your only goal is to get people in trouble, that's one thing. If your goal is trying to help see that people don't get hurt, that seems about as human as it gets.
You're right, which is why most police departments have non-emergency numbers.
That was indeed the point I was making, and, yes, I would certainly talk to neighbors first for those relatively minor problems - I probably should have been a bit clearer.:)
In the instances that you mentioned, 9-1-1 would be appropriate only in the drug transaction...
Really? See, there's an example of a witnessed crime that I wouldn't consider "9-1-1 worthy." I'd probably still report it, particularly in my own neighborhood, but I wouldn't consider it that vital for the police to get there quickly.
Now, I agree that one shouldn't be using 9-1-1 for non-emergencies, but there are times when you have to get the police involved.
And I agree as well. My issue with GP is simply the definition of an emergency. If I have reason to believe that there is a situation in which violence is imminent, I consider that an emergency - it would be at least a slightly better world if police personnel could prevent as much crime as they address after the fact, but they have to know where to be in order to do so. In my example, had a police officer been walking down the street and heard what I did I think s/he would have gone right up to the door to find out what was going on.
Now, if I see a car parked up on the sidewalk or next to a fire hydrant, someone habitually throwing trash over their fence into my backyard, or even two people involved in a drug transaction...In none of those instances would I consider 9-1-1 the appropriate place to call since none of those activities are serious imminent dangers in terms of people (aside from the person who's doing drugs) or property. If, however, I think a situation could be deteriorating into violence, I feel more than justified getting the cops out rapidement. Better an officer take a little time to defuse a situation rather than show up after somebody becomes a hospital case.
Deep, final thought: If a man has just killed his wife, is it really an emergency? After all, the danger's over...
Wow. Your definition of appropriate 9-1-1 use is pretty limited. Had I called the "non-emergency" number, perhaps there would have been more than a short fight (a fight did break out last night between the time I called and the police showed up) before someone got to me and eventually sent out a cruiser.
As for husbands and wives fighting, again, what's the advantage of waiting until you hear a scream for help? Is it that perhaps the police officer who would eventaully come has a few more minutes to pull over somebody with a broken tail-light or going 45 in a 35 zone? Further, if you think that husbands and wives throwing and breaking things in their house during an argument is normal behavior, then I feel bad for your family. That sort of behavior is violent and I'd much rather have an officer arrive before someone gets a shiner (or much worse) than after. If the couple doesn't like that, then they're living in the wrong neighborhood. Perhaps moving next door to someone like you would be a good option...
Nicely put. And in the example given up-thread, we're talking about jerks who were parked in places they shouldn't have been, spots that were presumably necessary for the orderly flow of a [mostly] government agency - our government agency. We'd probably be irritated if the government spent money adding a salaried employee whose only job was to check that parking laws around post offices were being followed, but we should be happy when someone is willing to take a little unpaid time to help fix things that need fixing.
One wonders if the GP feels that neighborhood watch groups are the "scum of the earth" because they're trying to keep their houses, and those of their neighbors, safe.
Just last night, there was a party across the street that started going wrong (a lot of people - more than 20 - screaming at each other outside). It was only about 10:00 at night on a Saturday but should I have felt bad because I called 9-1-1 to inform them that something very loud and concerning was going on in my neighborhood, even though I wasn't sure that any laws were being broken? Maybe I should have also felt bad that I called the police on my next-door neighbors when they were screaming and breaking things. Personally, I don't think so. I prefer to think that I might have averted something much worse by getting Portland's Finest out to check out what was going on. Or, maybe, I'm the "scum of the earth" because I'm getting involved in someone else's business...
Actually, I don't think there is. A quick Googlin' turned up this site which informs us that uncompressed 1920x1080 video at 24 frames/second takes up space at around 400 GB/hour. So, one of these new 750GB drives maps to about one uncompressed high-definition movie, and it can't even be two hours in length (the site also tells us that this drive wouldn't even be capable of playing back such a movie - not enough bandwidth). Now, yes, we may not "need" to see uncompressed movies, but it could easily be argued that we don't "need" quality better than good old NTSC, either.
In 20 years, we'll be watching all our movies in digital form with no compression applied and/or the resolution/frame rate will be so high that we really won't be able to tell the difference between looking at the screen and looking out the window.:)
Yeah, see, I didn't say anything about keeping the place "secret" (resulting in trucks wandering about, looking for the place to load/unload). I talked about security. The words "secret" and "security" mean different things...unless you work at Microsoft, of course.
That said, I wouldn't have necessarily fired him because he was taking pictures in a place where one is not supposed to be taking pictures. The reason I would have fired the guy is because he was taking pictures of something his company was doing and sharing them, which probably wasn't in his f**king job description. And why did he do it? So that he could take pleasure in the fact that he was making a big revelation? Screw him.
Whatever I might think of Microsoft on a given day, if I was working for them I would do my job and keep my mouth shut about things I might see and do that my company wants to keep close. If someone wants to reveal company projects to the public, they can get a career in PR/marketing.
Even more than what he took pictures of, it sounds like the primary concern is the overall security of the area. Loading docks are where you find perhaps the biggest danger of theft in any business ("it fell off the truck"). Publishing pictures of a company's loading dock/area could expose security flaws...insert joke about Windows security here...and give evildoers a way to plan a theft.
How do you know his name wasn't "Bill"? Because he had an accent? India was the "property" of the British Empire for a very long time. Many of the Indians to whom I listen (I'm a medical transcriptionist) have distinctly English accents. And, yes, several with more pronounced Indian accents have names like "David" or "Thomas."
As for getting ticked at a customer service operator giving you a false name (if he did), why would you care anyway? It may even be that they encourage employees to use American/English aliases so that the customer can a) feel more comfortable (because so many people are bigots) and b) pronounce the name given.
Outsourcing sucks, no doubt. But, that doesn't automatically mean that the employee in such an operation is less competent than an American (in many cases, I doubt that's even possible), nor should those employees be treated badly because outsourcing is bad for America (it's not the Indian employee's fault).
Whether the fellow's name is "Bill" or "Rameschandran" shouldn't matter if you get the help/information you need...
The "may be" you want is implied in the headline. The word "going" before "out of business" tells you two things: 1) They're not out of business yet and b) that they are on the way out of business - both true. If the words "may be" were inserted into the headline, it seems like they would minimize how much trouble the company is in, and the company is in deep trouble. Considering the desperation of begging customers (and the words like "crisis" and "out of options" in the linked plea), I think the headline has gotten it right.
Oh, and I should note that fans of the company should appreciate the headline the most since it is far more likely to get people's interest than a headline made wishy-washy with additional, unnecessary qualifiers...
I don't see that, myself, at least not in terms of sharing copyrighted content. The main problem is that Microsoft (and others who might offer large amounts of online data storage) are going to be able to tell if particular "virtual hard drives" are being constantly hit for potentially infringing files by a large number of people. It will then be trivial (and probably covered in whatever user agreement they make you "sign") for them to check out the files and find out whether they're being illegally distributed. That virtual hard drive would then go away in the blink of an eye.
In other words, it's not really any different than setting up a webserver. If the company hosting the server feels like shutting you down (due, for example, to a complaint from the RIAA/MPAA/XXAA), your data disappears from the net. The fact that it interfaces in a different fashion with your OS (by perhaps appearing as a logical disk volume) doesn't protect it any more than a server accessed via http, ftp, etc.
All that being said, if you mean by "social network," a group of 10 or fewer people, then, sure, people might be able to get away with it.:)
Flagship or not, the Virtual Boy was released to a big ad campaign and was greatly anticipated...and "horribly flawed" would be something of an understatement.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't worry that much about the extra expense, at least not from Samsung. They managed to drive CRT HDTV prices down very quickly once they got into the market with some aggressive pricing, and I would expect them to do the same with Blu-Ray/HD-DVD. That said, all of the HD-format players are going to be expensive for at least the next year - probably too expensive for either format to gain significant marketshare given the relatively low (but growing) penetration of HDTVs.
IF either format has any hope of "winning" the first year, though, I think it's HD-DVD. Considering that the flagship players of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have MSRPs of US$500 and $1,000 respectively, it's going to be an uphill battle getting anyone but die-hard PS3 fans to buy BR...
There are a couple of differences between the two situations. The first is that both formats had rights to the DVD name. The second is that things were awful when people were stuck in an either/or situation. Fortunately, it wasn't too long until dual-format writers came out, allowing people to use whichever format they preferred and still knock out a disc with the other format if there was a compabitility problem (some companies still have a tendency to make their standalone DVD players compatible with only one of the recordable formats).
Personally, I'll be waiting for the Samsung (or other - Samsung was just the first to announce and I've gained appreciation for their electronics) combo HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players to be reasonably priced so that I can skip the whole issue. It won't be that long of a wait, and it won't be at all painful since the HD movies are going to be coming out at a trickle for at least the next year or so.
Then encourage the BluRay player builders to add a $5 DVD pickup laser and a $2 MPEG2 decoder chip so the BluRay players can also play back old fashioned DVD too.
:)
This is already going to be automatic. Nobody is going to release a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player that doesn't play back DVDs. As for a "$2 MPEG2 decoder chip," you really don't need anything extra in that area since both formats support MPEG-2 encoded data by default (FYI, broadcast HD is already MPEG-2).
As for the marketing, that's not bad but they would be in for a serious fight with the HD-DVD folks if they tried it.
People buy spin, and marketing crap. They don't buy technology, or purchase on any rational basis.
Oh, most definitely. That's why I think Laserdisc made such huge waves, all but replacing VHS for precorded movies. I mean, damn, discs were high-tech and lasers have always been awesome.
Listen, if you want to know what the general public will buy, I'll tell you: They'll buy the HD format that a) has the most movies, b) gets the best demos over the next year while they're wandering around Circuit City/Best Buy/etc., c) is supported by their friends and family (my parents, for example, would go for whatever format I recommended to them), and most importantly d) is the cheapest.
Of course, it's all moot if combo players reach decent prices. At that point, nobody but the A/V geeks will care about the differences...
Decent engine performance makes all the difference to how immersive the experience is for me, it's a shame they didn't manage to get the engine right with Morrowind or Oblivion, which are otherwise the most immersive games I've ever played.
:)
This is where patient PC gamers can really win out in the end. Folks who are willing to shift their gaming timetables by a year or two will much more easily be able to play Oblivion at its maximum settings with good resolution. They will also have the advantage of getting all of the "bonus" content and bug fixes before they even load up the game.
Don't get me wrong. For some games, I'm not in the above group. I bought an Xbox to play Morrowind (didn't want to deal with PC upgrading) and I might just buy a 360 to play Oblivion (my PC is dead). Someday, I'll learn to follow my own advice but for now waiting a year or more probably isn't in the cards.
My very angry reaction is that i'm sick and tired of people equating feminism to man hating - because it's not.
:)
I agree. I still think that you need to take a few deep breaths and relax because you're reacting way out of proportion to whatever offense was given, intended or not.
At this point, I think I have a greater respect for the OP for the simple fact that if he intended his post as a troll, you and others have fed him a very nice meal...and I'm not helping to clear the table myself.
The second sentence above is an example of pure laziness in previewing. This might be slightly better: It could be that he finds as much weird or objectionable about being a "medievalist" as a misogynist would find about someone being a "feminist."
Still not great, but a little closer to making some small amount of sense...for the Internet...
It's possible you're being a little harsh on GP. It could be that he finds as much weird or objectionable about being a "medievalist" as a misogynist might be regarding a "feminist." He could even have just been trying to be silly.
I wonder, though, what compelled you (and others) to respond so vigorously to what amounted to a "throwaway" post that really didn't say anything. My speculation would be that you're one of those "extremists," at least in the sense that your post seems like an overreaction...or overcompensation?
I really want to get excited about the idea of Oblivion on a portable console. I've come to a point where I enjoy handheld gaming just as much, and sometimes more, than I do gaming on either my monitor or console. That said, it's really hard to get excited about such a big game being ported to the PSP given that the thing tends to get bogged down by disk access. If it weren't for that issue, I might own one already because, damn, the graphics on the PSP look great. :)
Is it possible that frustrated players leaving is exactly Blizzard's desired result? Given that the issues described in the article have apparently existed (albeit sporadically in more recent months) since the game went online, that would seem to imply fundamental problems with their system. I'm wondering if they've looked at the possibility of addressing these fundamental problems and decided that the expense of doing so is greater than losing, say, 20% of their player base. In that situation, I could see where letting the problems continue could seem better for them in the long run than addressing expensive design issues. And, of course, if their numbers stay consistent despite continuing problems, then they would simply continue pocketing what in their minds may be "bonus" money...
:)
I may have crossed the line of being "too cynical," though.
It's not, but maybe a few of the people with potential to be sensible will take the advice and reduce those early sales numbers enough to where developers and publishers figure things out. :)
If no one buys the game because they don't know if it has any bugs in it or not, then who finds the bugs?
The answer to that is a simple one: There are always sucke...people...who are willing to run out and buy a game on day 1 of its release. The advice in question is meant for people who actually can stand to wait an extra month or two for a game. The folks who go so far as to preorder (one of the worst develops in retail game sales) a game will continue to do so because they've already decided that they don't care when they end up getting the worst possible gameplay experience. For the rest of us, we can watch these people complain, chuckle a bit and then pick up the game after we've heard that 19 out of 20 game-crashing bugs have already been fixed. In those cases where for some reason the bugs never get fixed, we can either choose not to buy at all or wait for the price point where we would feel a buggy game is acceptable.
Yes I know the 30" screen has 1920x1200, but we are talking laptops here.
For the sake of clarity, the 23" Apple Cinema HD display is 1920x1200. The 30" display is 2560x1600 and requires that fancy dual-link DVI connection.
What is all this "benefit of the doubt" crap? It's for the police, judges and juries to give "benefit of the doubt." If a police officer comes after my call regarding a domestic disturbance next door, then it's that officer's job to evaluate the situation. My responsibility, as I see it, is to report the situation if I perceive it to be dangerous.
As for settling things with fist fights, I think you're out of touch. While it's true that, in theory, two people can fight each other if they've given consent, it's not something that's condoned in much of adult society. People who get in fights are, in my experience, usually considered either stupid or crazy. According to the law, if someone doesn't want to be hit, then the person doing the hitting is breaking the law. Now, if I witness someone get punched in the mouth and the person fights back, what's my responsibility? To stand back and say, "Well, they'll feel better once it's out of their systems"? Maybe I should stand around cheering them on? In truth, if I was close (and if it was only two people), I'd break that garbage up - and I have. If I felt it was too dangerous to get involved myself, I'd call someone (like the police) who could stop it.
Hitting people isn't acceptable and, in most cases, IT'S A CRIME.
PS- It's not "unamerican" to try to help out your neighbors, whether next-door or far away. If your only goal is to get people in trouble, that's one thing. If your goal is trying to help see that people don't get hurt, that seems about as human as it gets.
You're right, which is why most police departments have non-emergency numbers.
:)
That was indeed the point I was making, and, yes, I would certainly talk to neighbors first for those relatively minor problems - I probably should have been a bit clearer.
In the instances that you mentioned, 9-1-1 would be appropriate only in the drug transaction...
Really? See, there's an example of a witnessed crime that I wouldn't consider "9-1-1 worthy." I'd probably still report it, particularly in my own neighborhood, but I wouldn't consider it that vital for the police to get there quickly.
Now, I agree that one shouldn't be using 9-1-1 for non-emergencies, but there are times when you have to get the police involved.
And I agree as well. My issue with GP is simply the definition of an emergency. If I have reason to believe that there is a situation in which violence is imminent, I consider that an emergency - it would be at least a slightly better world if police personnel could prevent as much crime as they address after the fact, but they have to know where to be in order to do so. In my example, had a police officer been walking down the street and heard what I did I think s/he would have gone right up to the door to find out what was going on.
Now, if I see a car parked up on the sidewalk or next to a fire hydrant, someone habitually throwing trash over their fence into my backyard, or even two people involved in a drug transaction...In none of those instances would I consider 9-1-1 the appropriate place to call since none of those activities are serious imminent dangers in terms of people (aside from the person who's doing drugs) or property. If, however, I think a situation could be deteriorating into violence, I feel more than justified getting the cops out rapidement. Better an officer take a little time to defuse a situation rather than show up after somebody becomes a hospital case.
Deep, final thought: If a man has just killed his wife, is it really an emergency? After all, the danger's over...
Wow. Your definition of appropriate 9-1-1 use is pretty limited. Had I called the "non-emergency" number, perhaps there would have been more than a short fight (a fight did break out last night between the time I called and the police showed up) before someone got to me and eventually sent out a cruiser.
As for husbands and wives fighting, again, what's the advantage of waiting until you hear a scream for help? Is it that perhaps the police officer who would eventaully come has a few more minutes to pull over somebody with a broken tail-light or going 45 in a 35 zone? Further, if you think that husbands and wives throwing and breaking things in their house during an argument is normal behavior, then I feel bad for your family. That sort of behavior is violent and I'd much rather have an officer arrive before someone gets a shiner (or much worse) than after. If the couple doesn't like that, then they're living in the wrong neighborhood. Perhaps moving next door to someone like you would be a good option...
Nicely put. And in the example given up-thread, we're talking about jerks who were parked in places they shouldn't have been, spots that were presumably necessary for the orderly flow of a [mostly] government agency - our government agency. We'd probably be irritated if the government spent money adding a salaried employee whose only job was to check that parking laws around post offices were being followed, but we should be happy when someone is willing to take a little unpaid time to help fix things that need fixing.
One wonders if the GP feels that neighborhood watch groups are the "scum of the earth" because they're trying to keep their houses, and those of their neighbors, safe.
Just last night, there was a party across the street that started going wrong (a lot of people - more than 20 - screaming at each other outside). It was only about 10:00 at night on a Saturday but should I have felt bad because I called 9-1-1 to inform them that something very loud and concerning was going on in my neighborhood, even though I wasn't sure that any laws were being broken? Maybe I should have also felt bad that I called the police on my next-door neighbors when they were screaming and breaking things. Personally, I don't think so. I prefer to think that I might have averted something much worse by getting Portland's Finest out to check out what was going on. Or, maybe, I'm the "scum of the earth" because I'm getting involved in someone else's business...
Yes there's a limit to how big one movie will be.
:)
Actually, I don't think there is. A quick Googlin' turned up this site which informs us that uncompressed 1920x1080 video at 24 frames/second takes up space at around 400 GB/hour. So, one of these new 750GB drives maps to about one uncompressed high-definition movie, and it can't even be two hours in length (the site also tells us that this drive wouldn't even be capable of playing back such a movie - not enough bandwidth). Now, yes, we may not "need" to see uncompressed movies, but it could easily be argued that we don't "need" quality better than good old NTSC, either.
In 20 years, we'll be watching all our movies in digital form with no compression applied and/or the resolution/frame rate will be so high that we really won't be able to tell the difference between looking at the screen and looking out the window.
Yeah, see, I didn't say anything about keeping the place "secret" (resulting in trucks wandering about, looking for the place to load/unload). I talked about security. The words "secret" and "security" mean different things...unless you work at Microsoft, of course.
That said, I wouldn't have necessarily fired him because he was taking pictures in a place where one is not supposed to be taking pictures. The reason I would have fired the guy is because he was taking pictures of something his company was doing and sharing them, which probably wasn't in his f**king job description. And why did he do it? So that he could take pleasure in the fact that he was making a big revelation? Screw him.
Whatever I might think of Microsoft on a given day, if I was working for them I would do my job and keep my mouth shut about things I might see and do that my company wants to keep close. If someone wants to reveal company projects to the public, they can get a career in PR/marketing.
Even more than what he took pictures of, it sounds like the primary concern is the overall security of the area. Loading docks are where you find perhaps the biggest danger of theft in any business ("it fell off the truck"). Publishing pictures of a company's loading dock/area could expose security flaws...insert joke about Windows security here...and give evildoers a way to plan a theft.
How do you know his name wasn't "Bill"? Because he had an accent? India was the "property" of the British Empire for a very long time. Many of the Indians to whom I listen (I'm a medical transcriptionist) have distinctly English accents. And, yes, several with more pronounced Indian accents have names like "David" or "Thomas."
As for getting ticked at a customer service operator giving you a false name (if he did), why would you care anyway? It may even be that they encourage employees to use American/English aliases so that the customer can a) feel more comfortable (because so many people are bigots) and b) pronounce the name given.
Outsourcing sucks, no doubt. But, that doesn't automatically mean that the employee in such an operation is less competent than an American (in many cases, I doubt that's even possible), nor should those employees be treated badly because outsourcing is bad for America (it's not the Indian employee's fault).
Whether the fellow's name is "Bill" or "Rameschandran" shouldn't matter if you get the help/information you need...
Let's go a little semantical on this...
The "may be" you want is implied in the headline. The word "going" before "out of business" tells you two things: 1) They're not out of business yet and b) that they are on the way out of business - both true. If the words "may be" were inserted into the headline, it seems like they would minimize how much trouble the company is in, and the company is in deep trouble. Considering the desperation of begging customers (and the words like "crisis" and "out of options" in the linked plea), I think the headline has gotten it right.
Oh, and I should note that fans of the company should appreciate the headline the most since it is far more likely to get people's interest than a headline made wishy-washy with additional, unnecessary qualifiers...
I don't see that, myself, at least not in terms of sharing copyrighted content. The main problem is that Microsoft (and others who might offer large amounts of online data storage) are going to be able to tell if particular "virtual hard drives" are being constantly hit for potentially infringing files by a large number of people. It will then be trivial (and probably covered in whatever user agreement they make you "sign") for them to check out the files and find out whether they're being illegally distributed. That virtual hard drive would then go away in the blink of an eye.
:)
In other words, it's not really any different than setting up a webserver. If the company hosting the server feels like shutting you down (due, for example, to a complaint from the RIAA/MPAA/XXAA), your data disappears from the net. The fact that it interfaces in a different fashion with your OS (by perhaps appearing as a logical disk volume) doesn't protect it any more than a server accessed via http, ftp, etc.
All that being said, if you mean by "social network," a group of 10 or fewer people, then, sure, people might be able to get away with it.
Flagship or not, the Virtual Boy was released to a big ad campaign and was greatly anticipated...and "horribly flawed" would be something of an understatement. :)