Does Google actually provide an equivalent to Exchange?
I'm no business user, but I'd love a way to sync my contacts, appointments and e-mail to my Gmail account. As it stands right now (IIRC), I can sync my Windows Mobile phone's appointments and contacts with Google Calendar and Gmail via the pseudo-Exchange server that they've set up, and/or sync my Outlook 2007 calendar with Google Calendar via the Google Calendar Sync application. Contact sync for Outlook 2007 is nonexistent, and all E-Mail has to be done over IMAP (which is a pain, because Outlook 2007's IMAP implementation sucks donkey balls).
Is there a better way to do this? I'd be (more than happily!) willing to ditch Outlook and Windows Mobile all together if there's another solution that provides contact/appointment/e-mail syncing in one package. Preferably no hobbled-together open source solutions that work half the time... Would Android get me where I want to go? Do their phones sync to Gmail/GCalendar properly? How about a desktop program that syncs seamlessly with Google?
That's weird, the only two drives I've ever had die on me were a Seagate (which is actually quite useful as a paperweight) and a Maxtor. Guess i got the duds that were meant for you...
Now Western Digital and Samsung on the other hand... the 80 gigger WDs I bought some time around 2002 (or was it 2003?) have been abused so badly (swapped in and out of cheap external cases, thrown into checked airline baggage without so much as anti-static wrap, dropped by idiot friends...) are still going strong as 2nd-and-3rd-in-line backups for the really important stuff (not pr0n:P).
I'm guessing there's enough horror stories about WD and Samsung out there too, though;)
"# Originals Venues don't pay as much now as they did in the 1970's (well, optimally you may get a one night agreement for an hour at 1970's price -- that's a few hundred for the whole band all together -- back in the day you could be a road band, play 5 days out of 7 with room board included for $150 or more per man per night as an original band... now you get $150 a man if you're an established cover band, in the same town, for a one night 4 hour set that *might* get some beers comp'd -- originals bands often play for free, on very long multi-bills, with 30 minutes including load-on/load-off)"
As a cover musician/part time sound tech/engineering student, I have to say: Is that truly a bad thing? The few original bands I know that are actually _good_ aren't playing free shows once a month. They're playing shows for 200 Euros a head after tax every second night, and making a pretty good living out of it. That means no roadies, setup and teardown done by the band each night, an initial investment of 20-30K Euros for equipment, etc.. Same thing with coverbands... It's hard work, but definitely doable.
The original bands that play for free usually don't deserve any better, and probably won't make it anywhere higher. If you're not good enough that people are willing to pay to see you, then you're not going to get paid... simple as that.
Artists, just like any other industry, should be able to support themselves. The easiest way to do this is through live performance.
A lot of the smaller fish (and a lot of the bigger ones) won't be able to hack it - but it's all for the greater good, because we'll be left in a world with less junk and more music that's actually worth listening to.
In a world where every jackass can buy a complete "home studio" for $800 and start recording their band in high quality, truly talented artists are going to have to find a way to separate themselves from the masses and show that they ARE useful to society and worth being paid... Live performance is the answer (at least when it comes to contemporary music).
So what DO you make money off of as a (what sounds like classical?) composer?
The problem is that there's just so much crap on the market these days that just isn't WORTH paying for. Just a few days, I bought a multi-CD set of Bach's Cello Suites - now that was worth paying for, even though it's so old it's probably (legally) downloadable for free somewhere. It's just so good that I don't mind spending a few bucks on it.
If your work isn't good enough that people are willing to pay to see you (or someone else) perform it, then why do you think you should be able to make a living off of it? It's harsh, but yeah... why should you make money off of something that nobody actually needs or wants?
Supply and demand are at work in the music industry as well, and currently supply is being held at a very artificial low... You know what's really in limited supply? Good musicians who write their own songs and excel at live performance... If you're one of those, you're set for life - IF you're willing to put in a lot of hard work.
My thoughts exactly. An artist that can't perform live on a regular basis and generate enough cash to stay on his feet and continue making great music isn't worth the trouble.
Just think - if record sales decline and are turned into a form of advertising for live shows (pretty much the way it should be, IMO), the general standard of music should rise dramatically. Only the really good ones will be able to continue touring and making music. Goodbye, lipsyncing teenaged pop queens... hello people who actually know how to play an instrument or, God forbid, sing...
Also, if we're lucky, this would lead to an abundance of live recordings as less and less artists will see the point in recording hugely expensive albums that're largely faked with "studio magic" anyway...
I think it had something to do with new features only being integrated into the paid version when they'd been thoroughly tested in the free version - or something along those lines.
Maybe I'm just imagining it, but I think I remember reading something about that a while ago.:)
It also depends what kind of food it is - if I drop a steak (wet and sticky) I'm probably not gonna eat it any more, but if it's a cracker or a roll (dry), i'll eat it right off the floor:)
Then again, I keep my floors and counter/tabletops relatively clean compared to a lot of people I know;)
It's not worth it to me either, but I can see the appeal of a device like the Kindle 1/2/DX for people who actually just want to read (yep, there are people who don't feel the need to carry around a laptop everywhere they go... freaks, I know:p) novels and news articles. The long battery life is great, as well as the sunlight-capable screen.
Ouch. Hanging out with aspiring engineers and technicians (or on Slashdot:D) all the time makes you forget how stupid a large percentage of the world's population is...
This is the kind of thing that makes me want to write malware - not for profit, but rather to destroy the computers of people who have no business being on the Internet.
Also, although one can infer this from the "How to change the default search engine in Firefox" part, nowhere does he actually state that the Firefox search was changed - or did I miss something?
I mean, if it's just IE, who cares? It's MS's browser, let'm do what they want with it...
Uuuuh... what about people who are atheist because they just don't care?
Sure, if some hardcore Christian tries to convince me that I should be worshiping the Lord and repenting for my sins, I'll go on the offensive and point out all the things that are blatantly wrong with most major religions... but why the hell should I try to convince perfectly happy, religious people, to become atheists?
Belief systems are nothing more than a system of beliefs. If it works well for someone (who doesn't become a fanatic or otherwise let it go to their head - I'm guessing that includes about 99% of Christians), why would I want to convert them to something else?
Trying to convert people to Atheism is stupid... why try to convince someone to believe in... wait for it... nothing?
I tend to agree with this assessment. I consider myself a power user when it comes to tabs, and I only rarely have more than 20 tabs open (and that's when I haven't checked Slashdot for 2 days and need to read every article/summary/comment I've missed), and then only for a short time. Do a lot of people really leave the browser running _all_ the time with dozens and dozens of tabs open? I can't really imagine that being the norm...
Print screen, on the other hand, I find rather useful. No need for "screen capture applications" or other crap like that. Just print screen and paste into Paint/Photoshop/PSP...
"I hope they tinker with smaller price tags some day."
Actually, they have. I'm typing this from a Thinkpad SL500, which cost me about half as much as a "real" thinkpad with similar specs (P7370, 1680x1050 matte screen), but leaves a lot to be desired in terms of build quality. Had to fix a lot of stuff before I got around to using it (keyboard was bent because of wires below, weird metal pieces with no discernable function made the palmrest bulge to the left of the trackpad), and the keyboard isn't exactly stellar - a complete joke if you're used to T-series thinkpads. It's pretty much a throwaway-Thinkpad - don't buy one if you're not planning on buying a new one in 2 years anyway...
I don't know about you other people, but I have two different computers for two different purposes. One's strictly gaming + video encoding + other strenuous tasks. If I need to something like this from the other (lightweight) computer, I just RDP into the workstation and do it there. What's the point of having multiple computers if they all do the same thing?:)
The main reason I can see for getting away from Flash is the awesomely humungous ginormous CPU usage. We're stuck in a situation where brand new computers (namely netbooks) aren't able to play back a simple web video without stuttering. The Youtube H.264 videos in HD mode? Slideshow, I'm talking like 2FPS.
Sure, some people are hoping for hardware acceleration, but that's just a temporary fix - what about the next iteration of Flash? Pop in a new Flash hardware accelerator you say? It's a freakin video. A computer that's able to render a screen full of complex polygons at 1024x600 (say, for instance, Unreal Tournament GOTY, or Warcraft III) can't play a simple video that's 800x480? I think developers took a wrong turn somewhere.
And just BTW, these machines also have no problem playing 720P H.264 files - _if_ they have a fast decoder installed.
So where were we? HTML5 Video? Ogg Theora? The big question here is: Will it run smoothly on a PIII-class CPU?
Pretty much everything HTC makes these days... The Touch Diamond, the Touch Pro, the Touch HD, the Diamond 2, the Touch Pro 2. Not to mention stuff like the Samsung Omnia...
"As far as smartphones go, i hear rumors that AT&T is finally coming out with an android phone this summer, and it has a *QVGA* screen!? WTF? That is horrible. the iphone and g1 have TWICE as many pixels! Why go backwards!?"
You are aware of the fact that the 320x480 that the iPhone and most Android phones use (IIRC) is also quite a step back from the VGA and WVGA (800x480) resolutions that have become pretty much standard on Windows Mobile-based phones, right?:)
I've actually been wondering why that is - are capacitive screens harder to produce with high pixel densities?
Lots and lots of the horizontal bars here, and pills too. I've actually posted a screenshot on the slashdot bugtracker, but nobody seems to have noticed...
That's actually what's stopping me from going Blu-Ray. I have a movie rental "flat rate" that includes both DVDs and Blu-Rays, but I find myself renting and buying DVDs because I'm not sure I'll be able to format-shift all the Blu-Rays (I often watch content on a netbook or smartphone).
I would _love_ a digital video rental service that gives me the choice to either stream or download the film and keep it for 24 hours or so - at a reasonable price. Not to mention the DRM (I'm not as naive to think that there won't be any) needs to be up to par (non-intrusive, the user can NOT see it), and the file needs to be available in various formats for different playback devices.
Slashdot Mirror
Does Google actually provide an equivalent to Exchange?
I'm no business user, but I'd love a way to sync my contacts, appointments and e-mail to my Gmail account. As it stands right now (IIRC), I can sync my Windows Mobile phone's appointments and contacts with Google Calendar and Gmail via the pseudo-Exchange server that they've set up, and/or sync my Outlook 2007 calendar with Google Calendar via the Google Calendar Sync application. Contact sync for Outlook 2007 is nonexistent, and all E-Mail has to be done over IMAP (which is a pain, because Outlook 2007's IMAP implementation sucks donkey balls).
Is there a better way to do this? I'd be (more than happily!) willing to ditch Outlook and Windows Mobile all together if there's another solution that provides contact/appointment/e-mail syncing in one package. Preferably no hobbled-together open source solutions that work half the time... Would Android get me where I want to go? Do their phones sync to Gmail/GCalendar properly? How about a desktop program that syncs seamlessly with Google?
That's weird, the only two drives I've ever had die on me were a Seagate (which is actually quite useful as a paperweight) and a Maxtor. Guess i got the duds that were meant for you...
Now Western Digital and Samsung on the other hand... the 80 gigger WDs I bought some time around 2002 (or was it 2003?) have been abused so badly (swapped in and out of cheap external cases, thrown into checked airline baggage without so much as anti-static wrap, dropped by idiot friends...) are still going strong as 2nd-and-3rd-in-line backups for the really important stuff (not pr0n :P).
I'm guessing there's enough horror stories about WD and Samsung out there too, though ;)
Nice one, your post makes me wish I hadn't posted anything so that I could mod you up :)
"# Originals Venues don't pay as much now as they did in the 1970's (well, optimally you may get a one night agreement for an hour at 1970's price -- that's a few hundred for the whole band all together -- back in the day you could be a road band, play 5 days out of 7 with room board included for $150 or more per man per night as an original band... now you get $150 a man if you're an established cover band, in the same town, for a one night 4 hour set that *might* get some beers comp'd -- originals bands often play for free, on very long multi-bills, with 30 minutes including load-on/load-off)"
As a cover musician/part time sound tech/engineering student, I have to say: Is that truly a bad thing? The few original bands I know that are actually _good_ aren't playing free shows once a month. They're playing shows for 200 Euros a head after tax every second night, and making a pretty good living out of it. That means no roadies, setup and teardown done by the band each night, an initial investment of 20-30K Euros for equipment, etc.. Same thing with coverbands... It's hard work, but definitely doable.
The original bands that play for free usually don't deserve any better, and probably won't make it anywhere higher. If you're not good enough that people are willing to pay to see you, then you're not going to get paid... simple as that.
Artists, just like any other industry, should be able to support themselves. The easiest way to do this is through live performance.
A lot of the smaller fish (and a lot of the bigger ones) won't be able to hack it - but it's all for the greater good, because we'll be left in a world with less junk and more music that's actually worth listening to.
In a world where every jackass can buy a complete "home studio" for $800 and start recording their band in high quality, truly talented artists are going to have to find a way to separate themselves from the masses and show that they ARE useful to society and worth being paid... Live performance is the answer (at least when it comes to contemporary music).
So what DO you make money off of as a (what sounds like classical?) composer?
The problem is that there's just so much crap on the market these days that just isn't WORTH paying for. Just a few days, I bought a multi-CD set of Bach's Cello Suites - now that was worth paying for, even though it's so old it's probably (legally) downloadable for free somewhere. It's just so good that I don't mind spending a few bucks on it.
If your work isn't good enough that people are willing to pay to see you (or someone else) perform it, then why do you think you should be able to make a living off of it? It's harsh, but yeah... why should you make money off of something that nobody actually needs or wants?
Supply and demand are at work in the music industry as well, and currently supply is being held at a very artificial low... You know what's really in limited supply? Good musicians who write their own songs and excel at live performance... If you're one of those, you're set for life - IF you're willing to put in a lot of hard work.
My thoughts exactly. An artist that can't perform live on a regular basis and generate enough cash to stay on his feet and continue making great music isn't worth the trouble.
Just think - if record sales decline and are turned into a form of advertising for live shows (pretty much the way it should be, IMO), the general standard of music should rise dramatically. Only the really good ones will be able to continue touring and making music. Goodbye, lipsyncing teenaged pop queens... hello people who actually know how to play an instrument or, God forbid, sing...
Also, if we're lucky, this would lead to an abundance of live recordings as less and less artists will see the point in recording hugely expensive albums that're largely faked with "studio magic" anyway...
Sounds a lot like UT2004 Onslought mode... or Battlefield :)
This had me confused too, but I figured it was because I only skimmed the first page of the Article...
I think it had something to do with new features only being integrated into the paid version when they'd been thoroughly tested in the free version - or something along those lines.
Maybe I'm just imagining it, but I think I remember reading something about that a while ago. :)
Wasn't the paid version non-beta all along?
IIRC only the free versions were marked beta...
It also depends what kind of food it is - if I drop a steak (wet and sticky) I'm probably not gonna eat it any more, but if it's a cracker or a roll (dry), i'll eat it right off the floor :)
Then again, I keep my floors and counter/tabletops relatively clean compared to a lot of people I know ;)
It's not worth it to me either, but I can see the appeal of a device like the Kindle 1/2/DX for people who actually just want to read (yep, there are people who don't feel the need to carry around a laptop everywhere they go... freaks, I know :p) novels and news articles. The long battery life is great, as well as the sunlight-capable screen.
Ouch. Hanging out with aspiring engineers and technicians (or on Slashdot :D) all the time makes you forget how stupid a large percentage of the world's population is...
This is the kind of thing that makes me want to write malware - not for profit, but rather to destroy the computers of people who have no business being on the Internet.
Also, although one can infer this from the "How to change the default search engine in Firefox" part, nowhere does he actually state that the Firefox search was changed - or did I miss something?
I mean, if it's just IE, who cares? It's MS's browser, let'm do what they want with it...
Uuuuh... what about people who are atheist because they just don't care?
Sure, if some hardcore Christian tries to convince me that I should be worshiping the Lord and repenting for my sins, I'll go on the offensive and point out all the things that are blatantly wrong with most major religions... but why the hell should I try to convince perfectly happy, religious people, to become atheists?
Belief systems are nothing more than a system of beliefs. If it works well for someone (who doesn't become a fanatic or otherwise let it go to their head - I'm guessing that includes about 99% of Christians), why would I want to convert them to something else?
Trying to convert people to Atheism is stupid... why try to convince someone to believe in... wait for it... nothing?
I tend to agree with this assessment. I consider myself a power user when it comes to tabs, and I only rarely have more than 20 tabs open (and that's when I haven't checked Slashdot for 2 days and need to read every article/summary/comment I've missed), and then only for a short time. Do a lot of people really leave the browser running _all_ the time with dozens and dozens of tabs open? I can't really imagine that being the norm...
WTF is scroll lock for anyway?
Print screen, on the other hand, I find rather useful. No need for "screen capture applications" or other crap like that. Just print screen and paste into Paint/Photoshop/PSP...
"I hope they tinker with smaller price tags some day."
Actually, they have. I'm typing this from a Thinkpad SL500, which cost me about half as much as a "real" thinkpad with similar specs (P7370, 1680x1050 matte screen), but leaves a lot to be desired in terms of build quality. Had to fix a lot of stuff before I got around to using it (keyboard was bent because of wires below, weird metal pieces with no discernable function made the palmrest bulge to the left of the trackpad), and the keyboard isn't exactly stellar - a complete joke if you're used to T-series thinkpads. It's pretty much a throwaway-Thinkpad - don't buy one if you're not planning on buying a new one in 2 years anyway...
I don't know about you other people, but I have two different computers for two different purposes. One's strictly gaming + video encoding + other strenuous tasks. If I need to something like this from the other (lightweight) computer, I just RDP into the workstation and do it there. What's the point of having multiple computers if they all do the same thing? :)
The main reason I can see for getting away from Flash is the awesomely humungous ginormous CPU usage. We're stuck in a situation where brand new computers (namely netbooks) aren't able to play back a simple web video without stuttering. The Youtube H.264 videos in HD mode? Slideshow, I'm talking like 2FPS.
Sure, some people are hoping for hardware acceleration, but that's just a temporary fix - what about the next iteration of Flash? Pop in a new Flash hardware accelerator you say? It's a freakin video. A computer that's able to render a screen full of complex polygons at 1024x600 (say, for instance, Unreal Tournament GOTY, or Warcraft III) can't play a simple video that's 800x480? I think developers took a wrong turn somewhere.
And just BTW, these machines also have no problem playing 720P H.264 files - _if_ they have a fast decoder installed.
So where were we? HTML5 Video? Ogg Theora? The big question here is: Will it run smoothly on a PIII-class CPU?
Pretty much everything HTC makes these days... The Touch Diamond, the Touch Pro, the Touch HD, the Diamond 2, the Touch Pro 2. Not to mention stuff like the Samsung Omnia...
"As far as smartphones go, i hear rumors that AT&T is finally coming out with an android phone this summer, and it has a *QVGA* screen!? WTF? That is horrible. the iphone and g1 have TWICE as many pixels! Why go backwards!?"
You are aware of the fact that the 320x480 that the iPhone and most Android phones use (IIRC) is also quite a step back from the VGA and WVGA (800x480) resolutions that have become pretty much standard on Windows Mobile-based phones, right? :)
I've actually been wondering why that is - are capacitive screens harder to produce with high pixel densities?
Lots and lots of the horizontal bars here, and pills too. I've actually posted a screenshot on the slashdot bugtracker, but nobody seems to have noticed...
That's actually what's stopping me from going Blu-Ray. I have a movie rental "flat rate" that includes both DVDs and Blu-Rays, but I find myself renting and buying DVDs because I'm not sure I'll be able to format-shift all the Blu-Rays (I often watch content on a netbook or smartphone).
I would _love_ a digital video rental service that gives me the choice to either stream or download the film and keep it for 24 hours or so - at a reasonable price. Not to mention the DRM (I'm not as naive to think that there won't be any) needs to be up to par (non-intrusive, the user can NOT see it), and the file needs to be available in various formats for different playback devices.