I have found it valuable, in the world of MP3 at least, to pick and choose your bit rates according to the content you're encoding. For example, a majestic piece of classical music on CD released within the last five years should be encoded with the highest bit rate you can manage, for the simple fact that you are going to be able to hear technological deficiencies more easily. For less "well-defined" music (i.e. techno mixes, heavy guitar rock and the like), 128 or 160 is going to suffice because you are going to have more difficulty picking up on the "bad parts."
As a personal example, I tested various bitrates from 56 to 320 on a [digitally remastered] Miles Davis CD and the higher the bit rate the better it sounded. However, the same experiment on Metallica Master of Puppets resulted in little to no improvement (audible to me anyway) over 160 kbps.
It is always going to come down to HOW you listen to which kinds of music. When I'm "banging my head," I'm less likely to hear a tiny millisecond pop. When I'm floating along with something more subtle (jazz and classical in particular), if I lose definition in the higher range I'm going to be distracted.
I find the same to be true when I'm watching television on the ole dish. I hardly notice MPEG artifacting when I'm engrossed in a "high-octane thriller" [ouch], but if I'm watching a long dramatic dialogue I will see every digital flaw.
There is no right answer when you're attempting to compress and digitize entertainment. Your mileage will always vary.
Aaron
P.S.- It should be noted that most consumer-grade speakers top out at 22 kHz in terms of their high-range frequency capability, so you're already losing out on detail in your music, particularly in the high-end formats like HDCD, DVD and SACD.
Actually, you're wrong about people being SOL when their C64 discs died. Most software companies at the time offered inexpensive (usually the cost of shipping/handling, and sometimes adding a nominal fee for reproduction) backup copies to anyone who sent in proof of purchase. In particular, I recall paying about $5.00 to replace my burnt-out discs of Red Storm Rising, and Microprose sent the replacement out VERY quickly.
As an even further off-topic note, Microprose would also, in those days, send out update discs free of charge. Man, they used to be a good company.
The Diablo problem is pretty mild because anyone can start a game and randomly get any "rare" item they want, though it may take a lot of time and effort.
However, extending your "just a game" concept to other games like Everquest, where there is a very limited opportunity to get some items (the really good stuff only drops off one creature in one place) is a joke. The time it takes to get a character to a high-level in a MMORPG means that most players will only have one place on one server/shard to get that item. If someone is "farming" that place/creature to sell items for cash, then others don't have a chance to enjoy the "available" content.
Worse than both the Amiga's and Pharaohs' curses is the curse of executives who don't know their markets. Gateway is getting killed now because they took a successful mail order business and tried to open [bad] retail stores.
Ah, but they don't have to leave the country to do that. In fact, I'm sure an X-Files screenwriter is sitting right now, pen in hand, ready to put the finishing touches on the big X-Files stem-cell episode.
I'd rather they keep flogging the horse (or maybe the dolphin?) than put on 'Reality TV Show X-834'. While the quality of the show HAS declined over the past few years, it's likely still more entertaining than whatever they would replace it with.
This is particularly true since they didn't end the show when and how they should have: When Duchovny was leaving and with another big event, perhaps leaving a nice big hole (yes, the arcs are full of holes already) where another feature film could have jumped off from.
Guess what? A great many people STILL watch broadcast TV over cable. Whether YOU watch it or not seems irrelevant when discussing the merits; it's what a significant portion of the population is watching that is critical [to profitability].
Yes, a few sets ARE shipping with built-in HD tuners/decoders. Here's one to start you off with.
Finally, wow! Has someone already transmitted a signal that a particular (functioning) HDTV decoder can't decode? No? Could it be because there IS a standard established for HDTV broadcasts (if you don't want the technical data, here is a FAQ from the FCC about DTV)?
Well, considering people have been watching NTSC television (PAL in Europe), which is interlaced, for years and years without complaining, I would say that the increased resolution is indeed a big deal. It should also be noticed that part of the reason interlacing sucks on a computer screen isn't a problem with most television programming: Displaying screens of static information. It is difficult indeed to tell interlaced from progressive (assuming the same *total* resolution) except by sort of a "feel" of it (try it at your local high-end television store with a big display).
This is a good point. It should also be noted that they might have kept under the radar longer had they not purposely named the program "Aimster," which connotes a similarity of function and purpose to Napster.
Of course, I guess that means that my handle is going to be investigated too. I hope someone has some old 1541 discs showing that I've been using the name for over 15 years...
Hate to break it to you, but Everquest does it right now, and has been doing it for two years now. It can be run on a 266-MHz machine and uses approximately the bandwith of a 28.8 modem. Technically, at least in terms of the 3-D part of the equation, another game was out even before EQ that dealt with it. I'm sure you've heard of it? Quake?
Considering that UO2 was arguably one of the best-funded and biggest first-person massively multiplayer RPGs currently on the way, I wonder if this bodes ill for the rest of the crop. If EA/Origin didn't think they were going to make a profit off the game (come on, what other reason would they REALLY have for cancelling the game?), even with an already installed base of users (in the current Ultima Online), what hope do the smaller game companies have? Dark Age of Camelot, Anarchy Online, Horizons, etc. are all in various stages of development, but this makes me wonder who is taking the risk that they are actually going to work and whether that risk is going to continue to be viable if even the well-branded Ultima name wasn't considered enough...
I've got no problem with people using whatever terms they wish. Heck, that was my point. My further point is that if I tell Joe Blow a cracker crashed my computer, he is going to ask me if it was saltine or Ritz.
My only complaint is with the complaining. I do that a lot, which makes me a complainer too!
I was wondering how long it would be before a non-anonymous person would whine about the use of the word "hacker" as opposed to "cracker."
How long is it going to be before nerds realize that their usage of terms has no direct correlation with, or influence on, the usage of terminology by the general public? The general public uses the word "hacker" to describe someone who breaks into web sites, steals data, destroys hard drives, etc. That IS NOT going to change, and it CERTAINLY isn't going to change because of whining nerds who like to call themselves hackers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a nerd in many ways. However, I have learned enough about the English language to realize that definitions change and adapt over time to the way words are used by the majority. Get with the program and quit yer whining.
Of course, I still think that jamming someone in the side with your finger should be called something besides a "poke".
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. When they say violates any local law, they are referring to the state/county/city/etc. where you live. If you live in California, then separate New York laws are not binding upon you unless you are either in their jurisdiction or are having contact (usually commercial contact) with someone who IS under the jurisdiction of that low. Therefore, I suppose that if viewing pornographic material was illegal in New York but legal in California, then you could theoretically be in violation of New York law if the porno provider was physically based in New York. The same would likely apply to other such potentially illegal activity.
In the real world, you are not going to be prosecuted by the State of New York for sitting in your home in California and viewing New York-based pornography, so the point is moot.
It seems to me that your particular concern could be addressed by "porting" (sorry about that) over anti-stalking laws to the computer world.
In the real world, you can follow someone around with impunity until you do something threatening or harassing, such as make threats, make sexual advances or *possibly* commit a real crime such as trespassing, breaking and entering, etc. (note that these things can be *perceived* threats, as long as there is some basis for it). Obviously, if the same concepts were applied to computer security, then port-scanning would be fine (just seeing what your computer is doing) until a threat is made (just seeing what your computer is doing so an attempt can be made to damage it).
This would allow "reasonable" port-scanning (i.e. searching for FTP sites that allow anonymous access, accessing "public" resources, checking security for a friend, etc.) and would disallow port scans from people who have acrimonious relationships with the owner of the computer, are "known" crackers, etc.
Of course, to make these kinds of changes requires getting state and federal legislatures interested. Unfortunately, virtually all of the lobbying from the Internet "community" comes from free speech advocates, who are generally against virtually any restrictive legislation regarding computers at all, advocating an almost-complete hands-off policy. I'm just glad that laws against burglarly, robbery, assault and the like came before they did.
Come on folks. Why are you folks all harping on like you're at a funeral? ReplayTV did not go bankrupt (though not even that can kill most companies anyway). ReplayTV has not stopped doing business. They're changing their model. What does this mean to the general consumer population? Not that much, kids. While it's true that because of its Linux hackability, most computer geeks want TiVo, it's also true that (as stated many times by several people) the ReplayTV does have advantages. The fact that they're not going to build the hardware themselves anymore simply means that they're going to increase their profit margin, since companies like Panasonic, Mitsubishi (a company who could probably get in on ReplayTV, being one of Sony's big competitors), Toshiba, etc. already have the physical plants to put the things out on a lower cost/higher profit basis and the distribution channels in place to get them into more and more stores.
I think the real test (IMHO) of how well ReplayTV is doing (and is going to do) is how many stores are physically carrying the devices. At first, only TiVo was available locally while the ReplayTV could only be had by ordering over the Internet. Once Panasonic got the deal to produce ReplayTV devices, BOOM! They were in The Good Guys, Fry's, etc. Frankly, I waited for that to happen before I bought one (I liked the ReplayTV better from all that I had read about the two devices), simply because I'm not a fan of buying devices sight unseen.
This sort of overreaction from the public (yes, you people are included in the public) is typical. I suppose it's caused by the news media who treat every press release as if it is a big deal and/or crisis. Get with the program. ReplayTV isn't dead yet.
Wow. Everyone talks and talks about how great AMD is because their chips have (at least) equivalent performance and much better prices. Then we get a thread asking AMD to advertise more????
Anyone who believes that AMD should start spending the kind of money on marketing that Intel does needs to have a note pinned to their jacket and take a ride on the short bus.
One of the big reasons that AMD can charge less for their processors is lower overhead. One of the biggest pits that money can fall into is advertising. You get the talk every year about how much it costs to buy commercial time during the Super Bowl. What is never discussed is how much it costs to put three or four commercials per NIGHT into prime-time network television every year. Start adding in cable/satellite stations (you don't want to miss any market segment in the viewing population) and the costs go through the roof.
I've found it hard to watch television on just about any station without seeing Intel advertisements, and this tells me that Intel is spending a LOT of money on advertising. I, for one, don't want AMD to go down that road if they can keep making inroads on price. After all, with companies like Compaq and Gateway selling Athlon-based PCs, it's not just the computer "geek" community buying the things. More and more, companies are going to be using AMD processors because of the price/MHz advantage, which is what most customers are looking for.
In closing: "Keep the advertising to the lowest roar you can manage, AMD. That way I don't have to win a lottery to buy a 'top-of-the-line' computer."
I keep hoping that consumers will wake up and realize that MS's actions are not in their best interest, but that's probably asking too much.
Why is it that the dependence of the majority of consumers on Windows is considered apathy by the majority of non-Windows users? Guess what, Linux evangelists: Windows works fine for MOST people! Does it work perfectly? No way. Does Linux work perfectly? No way. BeOS? MacOS? Nuh uh. However, they all work for the purposes that people are putting them to. Fine, Linux is more stable. Fine, Linux handles networking better. But this idea that Windows is crushing productivity all over the country/world is ridiculous. People who install Windows and then install Office or Word Perfect and then use those programs (a plurality [sp] of consumers) are doing just fine.
In addition, do any of you know the costs associated with converting over to a new operating system in a medium- to large-sized business? While I don't have the figures (not an economist), the training alone would drain many valuable hours from employees who are already productive under their current systems.
Hell, I've seen people still using Windows 3.11 because it continues to serve their particular needs.
What does this mean for innovation? I don't know. I do know that, despite the paranoia rampant among the Linux community, nobody but Microsoft has an interest in their perpetual hegemony over the operating system market.
Most people, and most business, deal in percentages when dealing with the idea of this kind of sweeping change (changing operating systems). By what percentage is the productivity of my employees who are currently using Windows going to increase by moving over to Linux? By what percentage are my profits going to increase by adopting Linux? Unless the answers to those questions are significant, people are going to stick with what they now.
Look how long the NTSC and PAL standards for television transmission have lasted, despite the fact that capabilities could have been added, particularly over the last 20 years? Know why? Because they have worked well enough. Sure, we haven't had as detailed a television picture as we could have, but the picture was fine. Of course there was some static, but you just needed to get an antenna, cable or satellite dish. Hardware geeks lamented the fact that their televisions and monitors (particularly in the last 10 years) could handle more resolution and agitated for changes and HDTV is still coming slowly.
I think that Linux has the potential to gain a more significant share of the operating system market (particularly as compatibility and usability issues decrease in number), but you need to be patient. The PC world has been a Microsoft world for a long time, and that kind of inertia doesn't go away overnight.
If you can't be patient, then at least lose some of the condescending attitude toward the rest of the population, who feel that their work and play are getting done just fine.
I hate to break it to you, but a felony is simply what the law says, and by extension what the people say through their legislatures. If people decide that cracking into a computer system is a crime deserving of being labelled a felony and having penalties commensurate with that title, then it *is* a felony.
It seems that because of the "underground" nature of computers, computer programming and the Internet before the last 10 years or so, there are a lot of long-time computer people who believe that we should go easy on people who break through security and do malicious (often petty) mischief to computers on the Internet. They want to blame software companies because their software isn't perfectly secure. They want to blame system administrators because they missed a spot on the security checklist. They want to blame everyone except the person who did the crime.
Why is it that it's a sysadmin's fault when someone breaks into their computer because of a lapse of security (which can be very tiny, difficult to detect and sometimes undocumented) on their system? Does that mean that if I have only a cheap lock on my door, it's my fault that someone picked the lock and stole my stuff? Did that person commit less of a crime because it was easier?
Punishing people who break the law is important. I don't think very many people disagree with that. It's likely, for better or worse, that the people who get jacked up for this over the next few years ARE going to be over-prosecuted. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It will hopefully send a message to those who might do the same, and make them at least a little more reluctant. Frankly, I think these people should be punished MORE than, for example, a crack addict who breaks into my house and steals stuff to pay for their habit. At least they have a "reason" to be doing it (feeding their physical addiction). These punks who crack into computers are generally doing it just for the hell of it, and that mind-set seems more dangerous to me.
Hobbyists started the PC gaming industry, but how many hobbyists would it take to produce Unreal Tournament? How many to produce Deus Ex?
The gaming industry has come a long way since CGA sprite-based graphics, tinny sound and 64K (on the high side) of RAM. Who is going to spend $50, $40 or even $20 on the latest greatest Ultima I? Who is going to spend $10 *per month* on an ASCII MUD?
I know that there are people still out there making games as a hobby, but they have little or no hope of taking those games and selling them at the same rate that a graphics-intensive FPS or RTS is going to sell at. Hell, look at the *modifications* for games like Unreal and Quake III. These programs are taking months WITH as many as 20-30 people working on them, and they don't even require building the game from scratch!
Hobbyists are not the future of PC gaming because the complexity of today's games demands more time and more people to make them look, sound and feel the way today's games do. It would be nice if one person sitting in the dark and working 18 hours a day on it for a month could do it, but I sincerely doubt it's going to happen again.
Re:"Laboratory supermarkets" do this kind of thing
on
Focusing Audio
·
· Score: 1
Forgive me, but aren't stores laid out clockwise above the equator and counter-clockwise below?
Vassily brings up a good point. If we are truly to have a "world wide web", I think we need a "world wide" body that determines rules and regulations regarding its administration. If there weren't people afraid of a "world government", we could perhaps have a body created within the United Nations that is composed of IS professionals, business people, free speech advocates, etc. around the world whose job it would be to decide these conflicts regarding WWW addresses and the like. Note that this would not be something to judge content and the charter of this organization would be specifically limiting in this regard. Rather, they would be concerned with evaluating the validity of claims on particular web addresses, security problems with the integrity of web addresses, etc. While such a group would not be able legally to impose fines/prison time and the like, they would have the power to change the assignment of domain names/web addresses when there is a conflict.
This issue is going to become more and more heated in the coming years, and no one country should have more power over the topography of the Internet than others, no matter where the companies/groups are who currently run roughshod over these issues.
Not only can the telephone company take away your phone number, but they can and do "sell" phone numbers. Often, companies want particular phone numbers that are either particularly easy to remember or spell out something with the numbers. The phone company charges a premium to those companies to get the specific number they want, though friedly telcos will not sell numbers that are already assigned.
Slashdot Mirror
I have found it valuable, in the world of MP3 at least, to pick and choose your bit rates according to the content you're encoding. For example, a majestic piece of classical music on CD released within the last five years should be encoded with the highest bit rate you can manage, for the simple fact that you are going to be able to hear technological deficiencies more easily. For less "well-defined" music (i.e. techno mixes, heavy guitar rock and the like), 128 or 160 is going to suffice because you are going to have more difficulty picking up on the "bad parts."
As a personal example, I tested various bitrates from 56 to 320 on a [digitally remastered] Miles Davis CD and the higher the bit rate the better it sounded. However, the same experiment on Metallica Master of Puppets resulted in little to no improvement (audible to me anyway) over 160 kbps.
It is always going to come down to HOW you listen to which kinds of music. When I'm "banging my head," I'm less likely to hear a tiny millisecond pop. When I'm floating along with something more subtle (jazz and classical in particular), if I lose definition in the higher range I'm going to be distracted.
I find the same to be true when I'm watching television on the ole dish. I hardly notice MPEG artifacting when I'm engrossed in a "high-octane thriller" [ouch], but if I'm watching a long dramatic dialogue I will see every digital flaw.
There is no right answer when you're attempting to compress and digitize entertainment. Your mileage will always vary.
Aaron
P.S.- It should be noted that most consumer-grade speakers top out at 22 kHz in terms of their high-range frequency capability, so you're already losing out on detail in your music, particularly in the high-end formats like HDCD, DVD and SACD.
Actually, you're wrong about people being SOL when their C64 discs died. Most software companies at the time offered inexpensive (usually the cost of shipping/handling, and sometimes adding a nominal fee for reproduction) backup copies to anyone who sent in proof of purchase. In particular, I recall paying about $5.00 to replace my burnt-out discs of Red Storm Rising, and Microprose sent the replacement out VERY quickly.
As an even further off-topic note, Microprose would also, in those days, send out update discs free of charge. Man, they used to be a good company.
The Diablo problem is pretty mild because anyone can start a game and randomly get any "rare" item they want, though it may take a lot of time and effort.
However, extending your "just a game" concept to other games like Everquest, where there is a very limited opportunity to get some items (the really good stuff only drops off one creature in one place) is a joke. The time it takes to get a character to a high-level in a MMORPG means that most players will only have one place on one server/shard to get that item. If someone is "farming" that place/creature to sell items for cash, then others don't have a chance to enjoy the "available" content.
Worse than both the Amiga's and Pharaohs' curses is the curse of executives who don't know their markets. Gateway is getting killed now because they took a successful mail order business and tried to open [bad] retail stores.
Ah, but they don't have to leave the country to do that. In fact, I'm sure an X-Files screenwriter is sitting right now, pen in hand, ready to put the finishing touches on the big X-Files stem-cell episode.
I thought 'Family Ties' went to London and Facts of Life went to Paris? (Remnants of my callow TV-filled youth.)
This is particularly true since they didn't end the show when and how they should have: When Duchovny was leaving and with another big event, perhaps leaving a nice big hole (yes, the arcs are full of holes already) where another feature film could have jumped off from.
I think 'X-Files Goes to New Zealand' will be JUST as exciting as 'Facts Of Life In France'!
Yes, a few sets ARE shipping with built-in HD tuners/decoders. Here's one to start you off with.
Finally, wow! Has someone already transmitted a signal that a particular (functioning) HDTV decoder can't decode? No? Could it be because there IS a standard established for HDTV broadcasts (if you don't want the technical data, here is a FAQ from the FCC about DTV)?
Do YOUR homework, ace modded-up complainer.
Well, considering people have been watching NTSC television (PAL in Europe), which is interlaced, for years and years without complaining, I would say that the increased resolution is indeed a big deal. It should also be noticed that part of the reason interlacing sucks on a computer screen isn't a problem with most television programming: Displaying screens of static information. It is difficult indeed to tell interlaced from progressive (assuming the same *total* resolution) except by sort of a "feel" of it (try it at your local high-end television store with a big display).
This is a good point. It should also be noted that they might have kept under the radar longer had they not purposely named the program "Aimster," which connotes a similarity of function and purpose to Napster. Of course, I guess that means that my handle is going to be investigated too. I hope someone has some old 1541 discs showing that I've been using the name for over 15 years...
Hate to break it to you, but Everquest does it right now, and has been doing it for two years now. It can be run on a 266-MHz machine and uses approximately the bandwith of a 28.8 modem. Technically, at least in terms of the 3-D part of the equation, another game was out even before EQ that dealt with it. I'm sure you've heard of it? Quake?
Considering that UO2 was arguably one of the best-funded and biggest first-person massively multiplayer RPGs currently on the way, I wonder if this bodes ill for the rest of the crop. If EA/Origin didn't think they were going to make a profit off the game (come on, what other reason would they REALLY have for cancelling the game?), even with an already installed base of users (in the current Ultima Online), what hope do the smaller game companies have? Dark Age of Camelot, Anarchy Online, Horizons, etc. are all in various stages of development, but this makes me wonder who is taking the risk that they are actually going to work and whether that risk is going to continue to be viable if even the well-branded Ultima name wasn't considered enough...
My only complaint is with the complaining. I do that a lot, which makes me a complainer too!
How long is it going to be before nerds realize that their usage of terms has no direct correlation with, or influence on, the usage of terminology by the general public? The general public uses the word "hacker" to describe someone who breaks into web sites, steals data, destroys hard drives, etc. That IS NOT going to change, and it CERTAINLY isn't going to change because of whining nerds who like to call themselves hackers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a nerd in many ways. However, I have learned enough about the English language to realize that definitions change and adapt over time to the way words are used by the majority. Get with the program and quit yer whining.
Of course, I still think that jamming someone in the side with your finger should be called something besides a "poke".
In the real world, you are not going to be prosecuted by the State of New York for sitting in your home in California and viewing New York-based pornography, so the point is moot.
In the real world, you can follow someone around with impunity until you do something threatening or harassing, such as make threats, make sexual advances or *possibly* commit a real crime such as trespassing, breaking and entering, etc. (note that these things can be *perceived* threats, as long as there is some basis for it). Obviously, if the same concepts were applied to computer security, then port-scanning would be fine (just seeing what your computer is doing) until a threat is made (just seeing what your computer is doing so an attempt can be made to damage it).
This would allow "reasonable" port-scanning (i.e. searching for FTP sites that allow anonymous access, accessing "public" resources, checking security for a friend, etc.) and would disallow port scans from people who have acrimonious relationships with the owner of the computer, are "known" crackers, etc.
Of course, to make these kinds of changes requires getting state and federal legislatures interested. Unfortunately, virtually all of the lobbying from the Internet "community" comes from free speech advocates, who are generally against virtually any restrictive legislation regarding computers at all, advocating an almost-complete hands-off policy. I'm just glad that laws against burglarly, robbery, assault and the like came before they did.
I think the real test (IMHO) of how well ReplayTV is doing (and is going to do) is how many stores are physically carrying the devices. At first, only TiVo was available locally while the ReplayTV could only be had by ordering over the Internet. Once Panasonic got the deal to produce ReplayTV devices, BOOM! They were in The Good Guys, Fry's, etc. Frankly, I waited for that to happen before I bought one (I liked the ReplayTV better from all that I had read about the two devices), simply because I'm not a fan of buying devices sight unseen.
This sort of overreaction from the public (yes, you people are included in the public) is typical. I suppose it's caused by the news media who treat every press release as if it is a big deal and/or crisis. Get with the program. ReplayTV isn't dead yet.
Anyone who believes that AMD should start spending the kind of money on marketing that Intel does needs to have a note pinned to their jacket and take a ride on the short bus.
One of the big reasons that AMD can charge less for their processors is lower overhead. One of the biggest pits that money can fall into is advertising. You get the talk every year about how much it costs to buy commercial time during the Super Bowl. What is never discussed is how much it costs to put three or four commercials per NIGHT into prime-time network television every year. Start adding in cable/satellite stations (you don't want to miss any market segment in the viewing population) and the costs go through the roof.
I've found it hard to watch television on just about any station without seeing Intel advertisements, and this tells me that Intel is spending a LOT of money on advertising. I, for one, don't want AMD to go down that road if they can keep making inroads on price. After all, with companies like Compaq and Gateway selling Athlon-based PCs, it's not just the computer "geek" community buying the things. More and more, companies are going to be using AMD processors because of the price/MHz advantage, which is what most customers are looking for.
In closing: "Keep the advertising to the lowest roar you can manage, AMD. That way I don't have to win a lottery to buy a 'top-of-the-line' computer."
Why is it that the dependence of the majority of consumers on Windows is considered apathy by the majority of non-Windows users? Guess what, Linux evangelists: Windows works fine for MOST people! Does it work perfectly? No way. Does Linux work perfectly? No way. BeOS? MacOS? Nuh uh. However, they all work for the purposes that people are putting them to. Fine, Linux is more stable. Fine, Linux handles networking better. But this idea that Windows is crushing productivity all over the country/world is ridiculous. People who install Windows and then install Office or Word Perfect and then use those programs (a plurality [sp] of consumers) are doing just fine.
In addition, do any of you know the costs associated with converting over to a new operating system in a medium- to large-sized business? While I don't have the figures (not an economist), the training alone would drain many valuable hours from employees who are already productive under their current systems.
Hell, I've seen people still using Windows 3.11 because it continues to serve their particular needs.
What does this mean for innovation? I don't know. I do know that, despite the paranoia rampant among the Linux community, nobody but Microsoft has an interest in their perpetual hegemony over the operating system market.
Most people, and most business, deal in percentages when dealing with the idea of this kind of sweeping change (changing operating systems). By what percentage is the productivity of my employees who are currently using Windows going to increase by moving over to Linux? By what percentage are my profits going to increase by adopting Linux? Unless the answers to those questions are significant, people are going to stick with what they now.
Look how long the NTSC and PAL standards for television transmission have lasted, despite the fact that capabilities could have been added, particularly over the last 20 years? Know why? Because they have worked well enough. Sure, we haven't had as detailed a television picture as we could have, but the picture was fine. Of course there was some static, but you just needed to get an antenna, cable or satellite dish. Hardware geeks lamented the fact that their televisions and monitors (particularly in the last 10 years) could handle more resolution and agitated for changes and HDTV is still coming slowly.
I think that Linux has the potential to gain a more significant share of the operating system market (particularly as compatibility and usability issues decrease in number), but you need to be patient. The PC world has been a Microsoft world for a long time, and that kind of inertia doesn't go away overnight.
If you can't be patient, then at least lose some of the condescending attitude toward the rest of the population, who feel that their work and play are getting done just fine.
It seems that because of the "underground" nature of computers, computer programming and the Internet before the last 10 years or so, there are a lot of long-time computer people who believe that we should go easy on people who break through security and do malicious (often petty) mischief to computers on the Internet. They want to blame software companies because their software isn't perfectly secure. They want to blame system administrators because they missed a spot on the security checklist. They want to blame everyone except the person who did the crime.
Why is it that it's a sysadmin's fault when someone breaks into their computer because of a lapse of security (which can be very tiny, difficult to detect and sometimes undocumented) on their system? Does that mean that if I have only a cheap lock on my door, it's my fault that someone picked the lock and stole my stuff? Did that person commit less of a crime because it was easier?
Punishing people who break the law is important. I don't think very many people disagree with that. It's likely, for better or worse, that the people who get jacked up for this over the next few years ARE going to be over-prosecuted. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It will hopefully send a message to those who might do the same, and make them at least a little more reluctant. Frankly, I think these people should be punished MORE than, for example, a crack addict who breaks into my house and steals stuff to pay for their habit. At least they have a "reason" to be doing it (feeding their physical addiction). These punks who crack into computers are generally doing it just for the hell of it, and that mind-set seems more dangerous to me.
The gaming industry has come a long way since CGA sprite-based graphics, tinny sound and 64K (on the high side) of RAM. Who is going to spend $50, $40 or even $20 on the latest greatest Ultima I? Who is going to spend $10 *per month* on an ASCII MUD?
I know that there are people still out there making games as a hobby, but they have little or no hope of taking those games and selling them at the same rate that a graphics-intensive FPS or RTS is going to sell at. Hell, look at the *modifications* for games like Unreal and Quake III. These programs are taking months WITH as many as 20-30 people working on them, and they don't even require building the game from scratch!
Hobbyists are not the future of PC gaming because the complexity of today's games demands more time and more people to make them look, sound and feel the way today's games do. It would be nice if one person sitting in the dark and working 18 hours a day on it for a month could do it, but I sincerely doubt it's going to happen again.
Forgive me, but aren't stores laid out clockwise above the equator and counter-clockwise below?
This issue is going to become more and more heated in the coming years, and no one country should have more power over the topography of the Internet than others, no matter where the companies/groups are who currently run roughshod over these issues.
Not only can the telephone company take away your phone number, but they can and do "sell" phone numbers. Often, companies want particular phone numbers that are either particularly easy to remember or spell out something with the numbers. The phone company charges a premium to those companies to get the specific number they want, though friedly telcos will not sell numbers that are already assigned.