Standards are nice, but it's NO PLACE for government. An industry board of some kind (like IEEE, or whatever) maybe, but NOT the government.
If the government were to decided the standards, we'd all be writing programs in Ada. In other news we would just be getting the standard for 10Base-T later this year (because of the special interest groups for the lithium industry trying to require the the wires in Cat5 cable are made of 20% lithium), and a byte would soon be 37 bits long (becuase it's the only number that doesn't offend lacto-vegitarian-femi-nazi-free-range-chicken-head s) or some other weird thing.
I would be nice to have the government say something like "OK all you companies, decided on a format for word processor documents and stick to it untill the you issue a new standard after that", but for government to decide the standard its self probably wouldn't be good.
I agree, though, that open standards are important. We have standards now (.doc, Internet Explorer, etc), but they're not open. Opening them would make all the difference.
Without MS, where would we be? That's a very good question.
First off we have to consider the fact that MS has really pushed the PC market very far. Without MS, IBM may have made their own OS for the PC or had a company make it that wouldn't have sold it to clone makers. This would give IBM a monopoly on (what became) Wintels, so we would have had more kinds of computers (at least for a longer time). Would this have forced more innovation, or would everyone be re-implementing everyone else's ideas so things would have slowed down?
The standardization of MS has also pushed us a long way. I know that I can take a disk from my computer (Win XP right now) and read it on nearly every other computer I'll find (Windows PCs, Macs, BSD, Linux, BeOS, etc). When Microsoft has backed a standard, often it's the one that survives so who knows how many more VHS/Betamax type fights computer users would have had to go through without them. At the same time, who's to say Apple wouldn't have become dominant and caused the same kind of standards.
In software innovation, MS has done many things too. While they are stagnating now, back when Apple was a major contender they really pushed things. Some things have really improved because of them (most computers run the same API for games, DirectX), but then again they have tried to strange/take over other things (Java).
So I guess it all depends on who would have existed if MS didn't become who they did. There are a couple of options.
A bunch of companies competing - Great for consumers, quite possibly where we would have ended up
A different monopoly, but with stiff competition - Like when Apple still kept MS on their toes all the time (unlike what we saw when the Mac wasn't much of a challenge, like the OS 9 days). I think we're approaching this thanks to OS X and Linux
A different monopoly who would have done the same - From a business point of view, a (near) total monopoly with a strangle hold on the market is a great place to be in
While computers have stagnated (relativly) in the last few years due to lack of competition, I think the increased incompatabilites that would have stayed around if there were many computer standards for a while might have kept the computer from becomming any more advanced from what it is now. So I guess I don't things would be too different (ability wise), although interfaces and such would probably look quite different.
I've been a gamer for a LONG time. The only things I can think of are things like companies giving you new discs or carts (this was SNES or PS1 era) when a real percentage of defective carts were released. Things like a game didn't work with a specific series of PS1s for some odd reason so you could get a new disc.
As for games that actually got patched (as opposed to the media they're on being bad) I can't think of any. There have been many games that have major problems. Donkey Kong 64 had major bugs IIRC. Enter the Matrix was supposed to have major bugs, and there are many games that are just PATHETIC (there was an episode of X-Play the other day that had a trucking game that I just had to laught out loud at. No collision detection, you raced against an oppontent that never moved, and there was no sound AT ALL).
Basically, major bugs either prevent release and get fixed, get released, or the game is released and then the bug is discovered. I can't remember any games ever getting patched.
And I agree with you guys. The fix is free, easy to get, gives you a bonus, and it's for a bug that most people would never encounter (because most people aren't still playing the game unless they have started a new game which negates the bug).
Nintendo has always been a stand-up company to me. Most companies these days would say "oops", or deny it, or ignore it, or already knew about it before the game shipped. Nintendo finds a bug that won't effect most people and they make it RIGHT.
Aren't all of those things ones that could/would have been done with the CPUID that Intel tried to put in the P3 that got privacy people so freaked out?
Why then and not now? It's basically the same thing.
I admit I like the idea of calling it "OS X" (not a number). I know that's not right, but from a marketing stand point I could see why they might like a nice name like that (with the great X logo, etc).
If I was in charge of the decision but told to try to keep it sort of the same, I would call it "Mac OS X2" or something like that. That X makes such a perfect logo. Maybe "OS X+" or some such. You know, keep the "Mac OS X" part as the platform (like saying "Windows" or "Linux") and then adding the version number (or something else). "Mac OS X 11" would work for me.
My brother has one of the origional PowerBook Titainiums and it's VERY nice. I could see my self buying a PB, but the thing I lust over the iBook for is it's size. I might get a 12" PB. It's just than in my mind, iBook means small, PB means medium/large. I'm still not used to the 12" PB idea.
I said iBook mostly because of the size. I love my large Dell laptop (I knew it was large when I bought it, I liked it) but my needs are changing and a small/light laptop is starting to appeal to me, and that's probably what I'll buy next.
But no matter what, I know it will be a while. I'm not hurting, and I wouldn't even start to look into buying something new for probably a year or more (unless something happened to my laptop).
I basically used Macs (mostly my good old LC II) untill about the time the Pentium came out and that's about when I got my first PC (a 386 clone) and I've been a PC person every since.
Now I had USED Macs during that time, I just didn't own one. I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Macs (their design elegance, I though the interface was quite nice, etc) but I wouldn't have bought one (except as a second/spare/extra/toy comptuer) because of the OS. OS 8/9 wasn't BAD, but it wasn't as modern as Windows 9x or what I could do on Linux. I wouldn't have wanted to use it for a main computer. Add to that the speed difference that started to appear and that I played lots of games and that I liked to build computers and a Mac just wasn't an option.
But the OS (my biggest problem) because OS X which I have to admit I drool over. If I could buy it to put on my PCs (even if it cost $350 or so) I'd do it. It's got the Unix core (which thanks to Linux I've come to LOVE) but the great modern no fuss desktop. I don't play that many computer games any more (and those that I do then to be things that will get ported to the Mac anyways, even if I have to wait 6 months). I have moved to using a laptop almost exclusively (so building is out of the question, not to mention that I just don't have too much time to do that with my main computer, only "extra" computers). And now with computers getting so much faster than what I need most of the time (a G4 would be more than enough for me most of the time, but I drool over that G5). I've basically made up my mind that my next computer will be a Mac (probably laptop. I can't wait for iBook G5s. I'm not hurting so I can survive).
In summary I didn't "hate" Macs, but I wouldn't have bought one. They were outdated and dying for me compared to the "Wintel" side of things. But now Macs are back (with a VENGENCE). OS X fixed my biggest problem with Macs (the rest I could have survived). And not only did it FIX the problem, it added a Unix core that I envy. And while most things on Windows "Just Work" pretty well, these days when I don't have much free time to screw around with computer issues the "it nearly ALWAYS Just Works" of a Mac is majorly appealing too. Fixing my own computer problems (you know, the oddities of Windows and installing hardware/etc) is no longer challenging or entertaining in ANY way, it's just an annoyance. Years ago there was often something I would LEARN by going through all that stuff (even if I shouldn't have had to), but now it's just a pain.
Hold on little iBook G5... I'll be comming for you!
10.6? I seriously doubt that people will be running 10.6 when Longhorn comes out. It will be more like 10.2834 (*rimshot*).
Seriously though, by the time Longhorn is supposed to come out (2 or 3 years, assuming no more delays) OS X will be 5 ot 6 (or more) years old. I would think by then it would get bumped to XI.
I agree about hydrogent fuel cells being a good battery replacement. When they start to be mass-manufactured (like for fuel cell cars) they'll be better.
As for alternatives, I agree. Solar isn't very efficent. As for wind, in the right area and done the right way it can be fanstastic. I live in eastern Kansas and let me tell you it can get VERY windy on some of the highways that I drive that are surounded (basically) by farms. Now, you would lose some crop if you put the windmills up in the middle of your fields, but there are also a large number of cow farms around (mostly meat cows, not dairy I think). Now you have all this land that's just used for grazing. You add some windmills and all of a sudden your land is now producing energy for free for you. You'd only lose a tiny ammount of grass (wouldn't effect the herd). You get money (that will cover the maintence) and it works year round. As for the cost of putting up the mills, you could almost certainly get grants from the Government and private groups to help pay for 'em (or band with other farmers to buy in "bulk"). The biggest problem is "environmentalists" complaining about the what it will do to the view (I think they're neat, personally) or how it makes the landscape unnatural (and ripping everything down for cattle grazing doesn't, let alone building "real" power plants). With all I've heard about the plight of family farms, this could be a fantastic way to suppliment income. Wind won't work everywhere, but in some areas you could get a LOT of power.
In fact, just 10 minutes or so down the road from me is a company's headquarters that has a few small windmills outside their building. I think they design/manufacture them.
I think this is good (although there should also be a "custom" option, obviously). I just worry that if you have a choice between "defalut" and "custom" many people who don't know what they are doing would choose "default" and then screw up their computer ('cause it overwrote Windows when they didn't expect it). If the "choose the default on most everything" option is clearly labeled (in that it will DESTROY WHAT'S ON YOUR PC) that's fine.
This is an idea I've heard before, and while it's not practicle, there is a good argument for making legislatures reconsider things every few years.
Let's take social security. Today it's an entitlement. Everyone expects to have it and that it be run the way it always has. The problem is that when it was established, there were something like 50 people working for each person collecting SS. Today it's like 2 or 3 if that. But it's been done the same way so long that people are "entrenched" and will fight almost any change in the policies. They just want it "fixed" but don't want it "changed".
Another example is health care. The US government provided tax deductions to companies after WWII if they provided health care to their employees. Now, companies are EXPECTED to provide health care, and everyone is "entitled" to it. If everyone didn't get their healthcare from their employers we'd have a free market which would mean better treatment, lower prices, etc. Self-employed people and people without jobs wouldn't have such a terrible time getting insurance and the rates wouldn't be so bad. We wouldn't have any of this HMO stuff (which is basically a move to make it cost your employer less).
Basically the problem is that the governement often makes good laws, and then leaves them on the books WAY past the time when they meant anything untill they cause far more problems then they solve and are relativly impossible to fix. Look at any site of weird laws to see all the "people driving on a road must have a guy walk infornt of them with a lantern so the car won't scare the horses" type laws that mean nothing now.
As for the show, I'll check it out. I don't expect much, but hopefully it will at least be somewhat entertaining. That it's entertaining enough to keep me from changing the channel is about all I expect from network TV these days considering how much of it is pure crud. Good shows seem quite rare, and it's even rarer that they survive their first (half) season or two.
I think that's a BAD idea. All those choices are important. Some may be confusing (like the Grub stuff) but it's important. If you make a "choose the default for everything" option, I would be FAR too worried that there would be many people who would choose that and then find out that it overwrote their whole hard drive, when they only thought it would choose the default selection of packages and such. As long as there are sensible defaults, I don't see any reason not to prompt them for that stuff.
That said, much of that DOESN'T have defaults. What's the default langauge/keymap? If you have an odd keyboard you could find yourself in serious trouble. What's the default timezone? And I don't think the machine name/root password/user name/etc have good defaults either.
I think they did a great job, and if the user wants the defaults they can just hit "enter" a bunch of times like you have to in so much software. The "all defaults" setting doesn't really start to apply untill you get to package selections and configurations. Windows does it the same way, and it makes great sense.
Re:I want a filter dammit. Server side doesn't cut
on
DSPAM v2.10 Released
·
· Score: 1
Popfile. It's fantastic. It has a great UI (it's web based, you just open http://localhost:8080 in a broswer), it works with all E-Mail clients that use POP (it might work with others too). It supports multiple accounts, is easy to use, and is very very accurate. Best of all, it's free! Check it out.
It is a little thing that sits in your system tray. That said, it's just perl modules (I think) so it runs on other OSes too. That said, best thing I've found on Windows.
I don't believe that it's a true TiVo. I know Dish has PVRs, and you can hook a stand alone TiVo up to allow you to record of Dish, but there is no combination Dish/TiVo as far as I know. If you can provide a link to a page about it, I'd love to see it though.
We'd all like a la carte cable/satalite but it'll never happen. As pointed out in many other parts of this threat, how many of you out there watch more than 10 to 15% of the channels you get? Without providers FORCING channels on consumers, a LARGE majority would never ask for those channels and the channels would sink. The only way for networks to survive would be to go to all HBO like stuff. There would be the Disney package, the Warner package, the Viacom package, etc.
It's really too bad that this won't happen, becasue being forced to actually EARN your viewship DOES work. Disney used to be a fantastic channel, but after it started to fall. It has taken a MAJOR nosedive (IMHO) after it because a standard channel (as opposed to premium, but this could all be Eisner's fault). HBO is always getting awards for their shows. Why? Because if they don't make GOOD shows, they don't get paid. Other networks (cable and broadcast) can get away with the "do the most outrageous crap to get viewers to tune in for a second to get your share numbers up to sell more expensive advertising space" thing, while HBO would DIE if they tried that.
And is it any wonder that some of the best shows I've seen recently end up canceled (they are too "smart" or something) on broadcast channels while Showtime can come up with Dead Like Me and KEEP IT AROUND for more than 3 episodes. Broadcast are the worst offenders, followed by cable, and then premium are the least.
We all want a la carte, but it will never happen because it's too much work (read: more they would be accountable and die off) for most of the companies involved.
PS: Comcrap does my local cable too. Do yourself a favor and get DirecTV.
I've got to say, I'm a little mixed over all of this.
First of all, I like that Dish isn't bowing to the corporate pressure. That's good.
The problem is that they aren't giving me the serivice that I am paying for (if I was a Dish customer, that is).
But, I have DirecTV and I don't think I'm supporting Viacom's business practices. I have the top package (plus one or two premium channels) so I am PAYING EXTRA to get lots of channels. This is a fight for the base subscriber. Not me. Viacom is being stupid, but whether they're right or wrong my service would stay the same if this was happening to DirecTV (as Dish should do for people with the higher packages, IMHO).
As for the Microsoft argument, I don't think that fits. The problem with Microsoft is that their software (like IE) is the default and it's already there while competitors have to have their software downloaded... and installed... and blah blah blah. If I want MTV and get Nickelodean bundled, that doesn't prevent me from watching Cartoon Network in any way. Both Nick and 'Toon are there, just as easy to tune to (just a different number). The barries for entry are the same (unlike IE versus Mozilla or Opera). Viacomm is being cheap, but it's not like MS doing it.
Now if Viacom demanded that to carry their channels you COULDN'T carry compeditors (like Disney owned channels) that would be different.
Of course, the consumer shouldn't know about ANY OF THIS. The FCC/FTC should have stepped in by now and put Viacom in their place. Isn't trying to drive someone's customers away unless they pay you more money demanding "protection money" and therefor racketeering? This must at LEAST be against "must carry" and fair trade.
I've never had Dish, but my family has had DirecTV for years now. Below is a copy of a comment I posted in the last story about this about why people should switch to DirecTV:
*SNIP*
I have been watching DirecTV for a few years and I have no reason to ever switch off of them. Tons of channels, great shows, all is quality that puts my local cable to shame (although over the air broadcast also puts them to shame, they're terrible).
All DirecTV channels are digital and look fantasic. On my cable things look bad on the locals, on HBO, on any other channel. The varry from very mild (you have to be looking for it) to obvious (color fluctuations, 5 ghosts, etc).
And the best reason to get DirecTV? TiVo of course! With a DirecTiVo, you get to record TWO shows SIMULTANIOUSLY and watch a previously recorded show AT THE SAME TIME. And the recording is in pure digial quality, which means it looks EXACTLY like when it was broadcast (you don't have to choose "high quality" for sports, etc). And it even records the DolbyDigial streams (if they are there). It's EXACTLY like watching it live, no quality difference. Best of all, this is only $5 per month added to your DirecTV bill (not the $15 that all you stand alone TiVoers pay). Better quality, better TiVo, cheaper TiVo, lots of channels. What's to lose?
*SNIP*
Basically I was willing to do ANYTHING to get off cable. My family decided to go with DirecTV (can't remember why) and I love it. And once I got a DirecTiVo this summer, I'm in heaven. Dish doesn't have TiVo (you can use a normal TiVo, but you lose the record 2 shows at once, pure digital quality, etc), just some PVR (which I haven't heard much about, but it's not a TiVo).
Ignoring the TiVo issue, if I remember correctly when we were shopping we were told DirecTV had better sports offerings, and Dish had better movie channel (you know, HBO, Showtime, etc) offerings. I don't know if that's still true or what. All I can tell you is I have DirecTV and I'm VERY satisfied. If you have any questions, just reply to this and I'll try to answer 'em.
I've seen complaints about that on the TiVo board for DirecTiVo users. Basically DirecTV "removes" those channels and then instantly "adds" them, instead of just changing the title. This means that your box is seeing that a new channel has been added and is adding it to the list of channels you watch (like you would probably want it to do if a MTV3 was just added, or some other channel that you would care about). It's a "bug" in the way they do things that they don't really care about fixing.
If you have an option to turn off "add new channels to my favorites list" that will probably fix it. I have a DirecTV Tivo so it doesn't bother me because I never need to know the channel numbers for flip through them.
I know what you mean, but look at what you might lose. No I have no qualms over losing the MTVs, BET, VH1s, etc. SpikeTV has made me mad enough to hate them too ("TV for men" is offensive to me (a guy), and most of their programming is terrible (save TNG and Cheers), and they have anoying little ads plastered over the screen). The others tend to annoy me too (Noggin, Nick GAS)
That said, I would miss the Nickelodean stations (Jimmy Neutron isn't bad, Faily Oddparents too, and now that they've started showing old Invader Zim episodes that's great) but I would be VERY mad to lose Comedy Central (must... watch... Dail Show with John Stewart...). I'd lose UPN (I only care because of ST: Enterprise), CBS (decent sitcoms, CSI, The District, survivor isn't bad, and they're my favorite local news station). I enjoy Nick at Night (they play MacGyver, Cheers, and more) too.
I have been watching DirecTV for a few years and I have no reason to ever switch off of them. Tons of channels, great shows, all is quality that puts my local cable to shame (although over the air broadcast also puts them to shame, they're terrible).
All DirecTV channels are digital and look fantasic. On my cable things look bad on the locals, on HBO, on any other channel. The varry from very mild (you have to be looking for it) to obvious (color fluctuations, 5 ghosts, etc).
And the best reason to get DirecTV? TiVo of course! With a DirecTiVo, you get to record TWO shows SIMULTANIOUSLY and watch a previously recorded show AT THE SAME TIME. And the recording is in pure digial quality, which means it looks EXACTLY like when it was broadcast (you don't have to choose "high quality" for sports, etc). And it even records the DolbyDigial streams (if they are there). It's EXACTLY like watching it live, no quality difference. Best of all, this is only $5 per month added to your DirecTV bill (not the $15 that all you stand alone TiVoers pay). Better quality, better TiVo, cheaper TiVo, lots of channels. What's to lose?
As for those scrolling messages, I wish they could somehow only put them on Dish. As it is now I get them on DirecTV and on my Comcast cable. You may be getting Dish customers mad at Dish, but you're getting everyone ELSE mad at YOU.
On topic, DUH. They aren't saying you HAVE to switch, they are just strongly suggesting it because it will improve your reception. And you forked out all that extra cash for a smart phone, you should be prepared to do it again. If AT&T was going to disable your phone, then it would be reasonable to make them replace it with the same thing. But as it is they are just offering you one of their standard phones free. If you still want all those extra features, you can pay again.
It's not extra nice, but it makes perfect sense to me. I don't think you can really falt AT&T for this. Sorry.
The OT part: I am seroiusly thinking about switching carries for my phone (I don't care about my current number, so that hassle doesn't factor in), and I'm seriously looking at AT&T. I was thinking of getting a Sony-Ericsson T610 (or T616, whatever they want to sell me) for it's bluetooth and java (and looks).
Is AT&T a very nice provider? How hard is it to use a bluetooth phone as a modem (you know, connect to the internet through it)? Where can I find directions on that?
But overall, how are people's expiriances with it?
PS: I'm in eastern Kansas if you know what the reception is like there
I've heard that before. Really the game was very fun, but there were just so many horrid bugs that it totally destroyed all the fun (and then some). The problem was probably more the developers (Firaxis), but Sid Meier is the name that sticks in my mind. It wasn't the game, it was the experiance with the game.
But I hear he is going to remake Pirates!, which I may have to check out.
Makes sense to me. I bought Pikmin for the Game Cube (now one of my all time favorite games) becasue it was Miyamoto's baby. Don't get me wrong, if someone else had made the EXACT same game I would have looked at it. But I probably would have rented it and then beaten it, or maybe (very maybe) rented then bought. But I TRUST Miyamoto and BOUGHT the game without ever seeing more than a small description and screenshots. I have been burned FAR too many times by bad games to buy them anymore. I very rarely buy games, almost never without playing them. It's those few title that I KNOW I can trust that I'll buy. This is but one example.
It works the other way too. I had a TERRIBLE expiriance with Sid Meier's Sim Golf, and I doubt I will ever buy one of his games again. If I do it will be a very VERY hard sell. This would be nice too because companies that continue to produce slop would be frowned upon and more people would avlid their crud. As it is now you have everything from fantastic games to the worst things you've ever played all under one name (like EA).
It makes sense too. This really is a talent business like the movies and not just a "name" business like bras or something. And when was the last time ANYONE went to see a movie because it was being distributed by Warner or Sony? People could care less who distributes the movie, it's who directed/stars/wrote/produced it.
Slashdot Mirror
If the government were to decided the standards, we'd all be writing programs in Ada. In other news we would just be getting the standard for 10Base-T later this year (because of the special interest groups for the lithium industry trying to require the the wires in Cat5 cable are made of 20% lithium), and a byte would soon be 37 bits long (becuase it's the only number that doesn't offend lacto-vegitarian-femi-nazi-free-range-chicken-head s) or some other weird thing.
I would be nice to have the government say something like "OK all you companies, decided on a format for word processor documents and stick to it untill the you issue a new standard after that", but for government to decide the standard its self probably wouldn't be good.
I agree, though, that open standards are important. We have standards now (.doc, Internet Explorer, etc), but they're not open. Opening them would make all the difference.
First off we have to consider the fact that MS has really pushed the PC market very far. Without MS, IBM may have made their own OS for the PC or had a company make it that wouldn't have sold it to clone makers. This would give IBM a monopoly on (what became) Wintels, so we would have had more kinds of computers (at least for a longer time). Would this have forced more innovation, or would everyone be re-implementing everyone else's ideas so things would have slowed down?
The standardization of MS has also pushed us a long way. I know that I can take a disk from my computer (Win XP right now) and read it on nearly every other computer I'll find (Windows PCs, Macs, BSD, Linux, BeOS, etc). When Microsoft has backed a standard, often it's the one that survives so who knows how many more VHS/Betamax type fights computer users would have had to go through without them. At the same time, who's to say Apple wouldn't have become dominant and caused the same kind of standards.
In software innovation, MS has done many things too. While they are stagnating now, back when Apple was a major contender they really pushed things. Some things have really improved because of them (most computers run the same API for games, DirectX), but then again they have tried to strange/take over other things (Java).
So I guess it all depends on who would have existed if MS didn't become who they did. There are a couple of options.
While computers have stagnated (relativly) in the last few years due to lack of competition, I think the increased incompatabilites that would have stayed around if there were many computer standards for a while might have kept the computer from becomming any more advanced from what it is now. So I guess I don't things would be too different (ability wise), although interfaces and such would probably look quite different.
As for games that actually got patched (as opposed to the media they're on being bad) I can't think of any. There have been many games that have major problems. Donkey Kong 64 had major bugs IIRC. Enter the Matrix was supposed to have major bugs, and there are many games that are just PATHETIC (there was an episode of X-Play the other day that had a trucking game that I just had to laught out loud at. No collision detection, you raced against an oppontent that never moved, and there was no sound AT ALL).
Basically, major bugs either prevent release and get fixed, get released, or the game is released and then the bug is discovered. I can't remember any games ever getting patched.
And I agree with you guys. The fix is free, easy to get, gives you a bonus, and it's for a bug that most people would never encounter (because most people aren't still playing the game unless they have started a new game which negates the bug).
Nintendo has always been a stand-up company to me. Most companies these days would say "oops", or deny it, or ignore it, or already knew about it before the game shipped. Nintendo finds a bug that won't effect most people and they make it RIGHT.
Why then and not now? It's basically the same thing.
If I was in charge of the decision but told to try to keep it sort of the same, I would call it "Mac OS X2" or something like that. That X makes such a perfect logo. Maybe "OS X+" or some such. You know, keep the "Mac OS X" part as the platform (like saying "Windows" or "Linux") and then adding the version number (or something else). "Mac OS X 11" would work for me.
I said iBook mostly because of the size. I love my large Dell laptop (I knew it was large when I bought it, I liked it) but my needs are changing and a small/light laptop is starting to appeal to me, and that's probably what I'll buy next.
But no matter what, I know it will be a while. I'm not hurting, and I wouldn't even start to look into buying something new for probably a year or more (unless something happened to my laptop).
I basically used Macs (mostly my good old LC II) untill about the time the Pentium came out and that's about when I got my first PC (a 386 clone) and I've been a PC person every since.
Now I had USED Macs during that time, I just didn't own one. I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Macs (their design elegance, I though the interface was quite nice, etc) but I wouldn't have bought one (except as a second/spare/extra/toy comptuer) because of the OS. OS 8/9 wasn't BAD, but it wasn't as modern as Windows 9x or what I could do on Linux. I wouldn't have wanted to use it for a main computer. Add to that the speed difference that started to appear and that I played lots of games and that I liked to build computers and a Mac just wasn't an option.
But the OS (my biggest problem) because OS X which I have to admit I drool over. If I could buy it to put on my PCs (even if it cost $350 or so) I'd do it. It's got the Unix core (which thanks to Linux I've come to LOVE) but the great modern no fuss desktop. I don't play that many computer games any more (and those that I do then to be things that will get ported to the Mac anyways, even if I have to wait 6 months). I have moved to using a laptop almost exclusively (so building is out of the question, not to mention that I just don't have too much time to do that with my main computer, only "extra" computers). And now with computers getting so much faster than what I need most of the time (a G4 would be more than enough for me most of the time, but I drool over that G5). I've basically made up my mind that my next computer will be a Mac (probably laptop. I can't wait for iBook G5s. I'm not hurting so I can survive).
In summary I didn't "hate" Macs, but I wouldn't have bought one. They were outdated and dying for me compared to the "Wintel" side of things. But now Macs are back (with a VENGENCE). OS X fixed my biggest problem with Macs (the rest I could have survived). And not only did it FIX the problem, it added a Unix core that I envy. And while most things on Windows "Just Work" pretty well, these days when I don't have much free time to screw around with computer issues the "it nearly ALWAYS Just Works" of a Mac is majorly appealing too. Fixing my own computer problems (you know, the oddities of Windows and installing hardware/etc) is no longer challenging or entertaining in ANY way, it's just an annoyance. Years ago there was often something I would LEARN by going through all that stuff (even if I shouldn't have had to), but now it's just a pain.
Hold on little iBook G5... I'll be comming for you!
Seriously though, by the time Longhorn is supposed to come out (2 or 3 years, assuming no more delays) OS X will be 5 ot 6 (or more) years old. I would think by then it would get bumped to XI.
As for alternatives, I agree. Solar isn't very efficent. As for wind, in the right area and done the right way it can be fanstastic. I live in eastern Kansas and let me tell you it can get VERY windy on some of the highways that I drive that are surounded (basically) by farms. Now, you would lose some crop if you put the windmills up in the middle of your fields, but there are also a large number of cow farms around (mostly meat cows, not dairy I think). Now you have all this land that's just used for grazing. You add some windmills and all of a sudden your land is now producing energy for free for you. You'd only lose a tiny ammount of grass (wouldn't effect the herd). You get money (that will cover the maintence) and it works year round. As for the cost of putting up the mills, you could almost certainly get grants from the Government and private groups to help pay for 'em (or band with other farmers to buy in "bulk"). The biggest problem is "environmentalists" complaining about the what it will do to the view (I think they're neat, personally) or how it makes the landscape unnatural (and ripping everything down for cattle grazing doesn't, let alone building "real" power plants). With all I've heard about the plight of family farms, this could be a fantastic way to suppliment income. Wind won't work everywhere, but in some areas you could get a LOT of power.
In fact, just 10 minutes or so down the road from me is a company's headquarters that has a few small windmills outside their building. I think they design/manufacture them.
I think this is good (although there should also be a "custom" option, obviously). I just worry that if you have a choice between "defalut" and "custom" many people who don't know what they are doing would choose "default" and then screw up their computer ('cause it overwrote Windows when they didn't expect it). If the "choose the default on most everything" option is clearly labeled (in that it will DESTROY WHAT'S ON YOUR PC) that's fine.
Let's take social security. Today it's an entitlement. Everyone expects to have it and that it be run the way it always has. The problem is that when it was established, there were something like 50 people working for each person collecting SS. Today it's like 2 or 3 if that. But it's been done the same way so long that people are "entrenched" and will fight almost any change in the policies. They just want it "fixed" but don't want it "changed".
Another example is health care. The US government provided tax deductions to companies after WWII if they provided health care to their employees. Now, companies are EXPECTED to provide health care, and everyone is "entitled" to it. If everyone didn't get their healthcare from their employers we'd have a free market which would mean better treatment, lower prices, etc. Self-employed people and people without jobs wouldn't have such a terrible time getting insurance and the rates wouldn't be so bad. We wouldn't have any of this HMO stuff (which is basically a move to make it cost your employer less).
Basically the problem is that the governement often makes good laws, and then leaves them on the books WAY past the time when they meant anything untill they cause far more problems then they solve and are relativly impossible to fix. Look at any site of weird laws to see all the "people driving on a road must have a guy walk infornt of them with a lantern so the car won't scare the horses" type laws that mean nothing now.
As for the show, I'll check it out. I don't expect much, but hopefully it will at least be somewhat entertaining. That it's entertaining enough to keep me from changing the channel is about all I expect from network TV these days considering how much of it is pure crud. Good shows seem quite rare, and it's even rarer that they survive their first (half) season or two.
Pfft. It's all been down hill since "Elevator Inspector's Unit."
That said, much of that DOESN'T have defaults. What's the default langauge/keymap? If you have an odd keyboard you could find yourself in serious trouble. What's the default timezone? And I don't think the machine name/root password/user name/etc have good defaults either.
I think they did a great job, and if the user wants the defaults they can just hit "enter" a bunch of times like you have to in so much software. The "all defaults" setting doesn't really start to apply untill you get to package selections and configurations. Windows does it the same way, and it makes great sense.
It is a little thing that sits in your system tray. That said, it's just perl modules (I think) so it runs on other OSes too. That said, best thing I've found on Windows.
I don't believe that it's a true TiVo. I know Dish has PVRs, and you can hook a stand alone TiVo up to allow you to record of Dish, but there is no combination Dish/TiVo as far as I know. If you can provide a link to a page about it, I'd love to see it though.
It's really too bad that this won't happen, becasue being forced to actually EARN your viewship DOES work. Disney used to be a fantastic channel, but after it started to fall. It has taken a MAJOR nosedive (IMHO) after it because a standard channel (as opposed to premium, but this could all be Eisner's fault). HBO is always getting awards for their shows. Why? Because if they don't make GOOD shows, they don't get paid. Other networks (cable and broadcast) can get away with the "do the most outrageous crap to get viewers to tune in for a second to get your share numbers up to sell more expensive advertising space" thing, while HBO would DIE if they tried that.
And is it any wonder that some of the best shows I've seen recently end up canceled (they are too "smart" or something) on broadcast channels while Showtime can come up with Dead Like Me and KEEP IT AROUND for more than 3 episodes. Broadcast are the worst offenders, followed by cable, and then premium are the least.
We all want a la carte, but it will never happen because it's too much work (read: more they would be accountable and die off) for most of the companies involved.
PS: Comcrap does my local cable too. Do yourself a favor and get DirecTV.
First of all, I like that Dish isn't bowing to the corporate pressure. That's good.
The problem is that they aren't giving me the serivice that I am paying for (if I was a Dish customer, that is).
But, I have DirecTV and I don't think I'm supporting Viacom's business practices. I have the top package (plus one or two premium channels) so I am PAYING EXTRA to get lots of channels. This is a fight for the base subscriber. Not me. Viacom is being stupid, but whether they're right or wrong my service would stay the same if this was happening to DirecTV (as Dish should do for people with the higher packages, IMHO).
As for the Microsoft argument, I don't think that fits. The problem with Microsoft is that their software (like IE) is the default and it's already there while competitors have to have their software downloaded... and installed... and blah blah blah. If I want MTV and get Nickelodean bundled, that doesn't prevent me from watching Cartoon Network in any way. Both Nick and 'Toon are there, just as easy to tune to (just a different number). The barries for entry are the same (unlike IE versus Mozilla or Opera). Viacomm is being cheap, but it's not like MS doing it.
Now if Viacom demanded that to carry their channels you COULDN'T carry compeditors (like Disney owned channels) that would be different.
Of course, the consumer shouldn't know about ANY OF THIS. The FCC/FTC should have stepped in by now and put Viacom in their place. Isn't trying to drive someone's customers away unless they pay you more money demanding "protection money" and therefor racketeering? This must at LEAST be against "must carry" and fair trade.
*SNIP*
I have been watching DirecTV for a few years and I have no reason to ever switch off of them. Tons of channels, great shows, all is quality that puts my local cable to shame (although over the air broadcast also puts them to shame, they're terrible).
All DirecTV channels are digital and look fantasic. On my cable things look bad on the locals, on HBO, on any other channel. The varry from very mild (you have to be looking for it) to obvious (color fluctuations, 5 ghosts, etc).
And the best reason to get DirecTV? TiVo of course! With a DirecTiVo, you get to record TWO shows SIMULTANIOUSLY and watch a previously recorded show AT THE SAME TIME. And the recording is in pure digial quality, which means it looks EXACTLY like when it was broadcast (you don't have to choose "high quality" for sports, etc). And it even records the DolbyDigial streams (if they are there). It's EXACTLY like watching it live, no quality difference. Best of all, this is only $5 per month added to your DirecTV bill (not the $15 that all you stand alone TiVoers pay). Better quality, better TiVo, cheaper TiVo, lots of channels. What's to lose?
*SNIP*
Basically I was willing to do ANYTHING to get off cable. My family decided to go with DirecTV (can't remember why) and I love it. And once I got a DirecTiVo this summer, I'm in heaven. Dish doesn't have TiVo (you can use a normal TiVo, but you lose the record 2 shows at once, pure digital quality, etc), just some PVR (which I haven't heard much about, but it's not a TiVo).
Ignoring the TiVo issue, if I remember correctly when we were shopping we were told DirecTV had better sports offerings, and Dish had better movie channel (you know, HBO, Showtime, etc) offerings. I don't know if that's still true or what. All I can tell you is I have DirecTV and I'm VERY satisfied. If you have any questions, just reply to this and I'll try to answer 'em.
If you have an option to turn off "add new channels to my favorites list" that will probably fix it. I have a DirecTV Tivo so it doesn't bother me because I never need to know the channel numbers for flip through them.
That said, I would miss the Nickelodean stations (Jimmy Neutron isn't bad, Faily Oddparents too, and now that they've started showing old Invader Zim episodes that's great) but I would be VERY mad to lose Comedy Central (must... watch... Dail Show with John Stewart...). I'd lose UPN (I only care because of ST: Enterprise), CBS (decent sitcoms, CSI, The District, survivor isn't bad, and they're my favorite local news station). I enjoy Nick at Night (they play MacGyver, Cheers, and more) too.
I have been watching DirecTV for a few years and I have no reason to ever switch off of them. Tons of channels, great shows, all is quality that puts my local cable to shame (although over the air broadcast also puts them to shame, they're terrible).
All DirecTV channels are digital and look fantasic. On my cable things look bad on the locals, on HBO, on any other channel. The varry from very mild (you have to be looking for it) to obvious (color fluctuations, 5 ghosts, etc).
And the best reason to get DirecTV? TiVo of course! With a DirecTiVo, you get to record TWO shows SIMULTANIOUSLY and watch a previously recorded show AT THE SAME TIME. And the recording is in pure digial quality, which means it looks EXACTLY like when it was broadcast (you don't have to choose "high quality" for sports, etc). And it even records the DolbyDigial streams (if they are there). It's EXACTLY like watching it live, no quality difference. Best of all, this is only $5 per month added to your DirecTV bill (not the $15 that all you stand alone TiVoers pay). Better quality, better TiVo, cheaper TiVo, lots of channels. What's to lose?
As for those scrolling messages, I wish they could somehow only put them on Dish. As it is now I get them on DirecTV and on my Comcast cable. You may be getting Dish customers mad at Dish, but you're getting everyone ELSE mad at YOU.
On topic, DUH. They aren't saying you HAVE to switch, they are just strongly suggesting it because it will improve your reception. And you forked out all that extra cash for a smart phone, you should be prepared to do it again. If AT&T was going to disable your phone, then it would be reasonable to make them replace it with the same thing. But as it is they are just offering you one of their standard phones free. If you still want all those extra features, you can pay again.
It's not extra nice, but it makes perfect sense to me. I don't think you can really falt AT&T for this. Sorry.
The OT part: I am seroiusly thinking about switching carries for my phone (I don't care about my current number, so that hassle doesn't factor in), and I'm seriously looking at AT&T. I was thinking of getting a Sony-Ericsson T610 (or T616, whatever they want to sell me) for it's bluetooth and java (and looks).
Is AT&T a very nice provider? How hard is it to use a bluetooth phone as a modem (you know, connect to the internet through it)? Where can I find directions on that?
But overall, how are people's expiriances with it?
PS: I'm in eastern Kansas if you know what the reception is like there
But I hear he is going to remake Pirates!, which I may have to check out.
It works the other way too. I had a TERRIBLE expiriance with Sid Meier's Sim Golf, and I doubt I will ever buy one of his games again. If I do it will be a very VERY hard sell. This would be nice too because companies that continue to produce slop would be frowned upon and more people would avlid their crud. As it is now you have everything from fantastic games to the worst things you've ever played all under one name (like EA).
It makes sense too. This really is a talent business like the movies and not just a "name" business like bras or something. And when was the last time ANYONE went to see a movie because it was being distributed by Warner or Sony? People could care less who distributes the movie, it's who directed/stars/wrote/produced it.
I knew I was off. But, Slashdot always knows. Thanks guys.