The thing about Fox is you can never guess what particular crazed, easily ridiculed direction they're going to lunge in next. They just make the jokes come so easily...
Indeed, if all this is is a standard USB port but built into a special phone-shaped clip so you don't have to have the trailing USB cables, I can sort of see how it was a good idea- although I can't say I'd go for it myself.
If it's proprietary connection crap then it is just plain stupid, and I can't really see what they hope to achieve.
While admittedly my cheap-ass netbook struggles a bit with videos, it's only the higher-def ones that trip it up. I don't use my netbook for "proper" TV watching (I have larger screened computers for that), and it handles YouTube et al just fine.
The more expensive ones certainly perform better, and I'd be willing to bet that you hit ones that can handle the full gamut long before that whole price difference is eroded.
1.) I think you overestimate the number of people on insist they must keep using their old printer. Basic printers are pretty cheap these days. I'm sure someone will come out with some kind of adapter for older printers, anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously, it's been a while since all of the iPad hype articles), but the iPad doesn't have a standard USB port, or Firewire or Ethernet for that matter, does it?
Cheap, basic printers still generally aren't wireless. Most connect using a cable, and most require drivers to be either preinstalled on your computer, or installed using a provided disk. That's all a no-go area for the iPad.
Although it is possible to make a regular printer into a network printer using a PC, router or NAS that can act as a print server, you're really starting to stack up the costs of making a cheap printer work with your iPad. And it's questionable whether that would count as doing it with an iPad as your "sole" computing device, what with all the extra computer hardware you're having to involve.
I got my eeePC netbook for £200. The UK price for the iPad is between £500 and £700. Assuming the cheaper model (my netbook is, after all, towards the low end of the spectrum), thats 2.5x the price.
My netbook is not limited in any way. It can run linux (Xandros by default, Ubuntu now), or XP. It has USB ports, a removable battery, replaceable RAM, replaceable HDD. It can run flash, has bluetooth, has wifi, can be upgraded with 3G, and can run any programme which is available on mainstream Ubuntu / XP.
The only single possible way it is inferior is that it doesn't have a touch screen, but then I don't really like touch screens very much anyway.
I struggle to see why I, or anyone, would want to pay 2.5x as much for a device that doesn't do anywhere near as much. I mean people can and will, and they will enjoy it. But can we not have the ridiculous justifications? "Because I enjoy it" should be enough.
Why? It capitulates to a non-free standard, and if H.264 becomes the defacto standard for HTML5 it effectively destroys the ability of any free browsers without deep pockets behind them to compete in the market.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it only non-free in the US and South Korea; the only two countries with software patents? Here in the EU, for example, what prevents it from being an open standard?
I don't see why I should suffer just because some 350 million people elsewhere in the world have daft laws.
A closer analogy is like buying on credit. You own the phone completely on day one (not leased or rented-to-own), but you are contracted to repay the costs over the year or 2 agreed. The moment you have the phone you're allowed to resell it, destroy it, give it away, whatever. But just as if you'd bought it on a credit card, you'll still be paying for it until the costs are met.
I bought one of Buffalo's NAS', due to getting a good price, and it has served me well so far. I got one of the single-drive Linkstations, which is expandable by USB (just plug in extra drives and you're away). They also have more heavy duty "Terastation" models, although I can't vouch for them, feature or price wise.
As ever, you can probably do better if you build these things yourself, but the out-of-the-box solutions seem pretty solid these days.
Nah. Eating meat raw has always been a sign of the very most expensive dining. Go into a very posh restaurant and try ordering a steak "well done" and see the looks it'll get you; your choice is "rare" or "blue", if you want to fit in. Fish is often served raw in western culture too; smoked salmon is basically uncooked, oysters are usually served raw, sea bass is best uncooked (in the best restaurants).
Well cooking food is a peasant thing- if the meat is cheap, you need to cook it lots to stop it killing you. If the meat is raw, it has to be high quality and expensive.
Anyway, sushi is yummy. That's all that really matters.
I imagine you'd only be liable if you actually sell your product to someone, for money, promising them that it'll do something for them. If you just whacked a GPL programme on a website with a label "here is my programme, may or may not work, YMMV", I doubt you could be held accountable for what anyone does with it.
The crux of the court case, if I read it rightly, is that in the UK you aren't allowed to promise your product can do things that you know it can't do and then sell it to someone on that basis. That's standard- what the court case tested is whether putting "(but it probably can't)" in the small print is enough to get you around that. Turns out its not.
How have they "pissed all over it"? Debian still exists, and is still thriving.
The very definition of open source is "you can take this code and do what you like with it (within legal limits)". You can't very well whine that they've done something you don't approve of with the code. If you want control over your source, keep it closed.
Why should you get to influence the Ubuntu project if you're not even a user any more?
You can use any distro that you wish. Distros that don't appeal to you no doubt appeal to others. If a project appeals to almost no-one then it will wither and die.
Specifically, I am an Ubuntu user. I want to be able to use new video standards, and I want to do so legally, and I want to do so without unnecessary technical fiddling. If you disagree then feel free to change distro, but don't demand that I can't have it my way too.
OK, well the alternative is that the person with the idea bankrolls the project.
If you have a great idea for a game but can't do any of the development work: get some money, hire yourself some developers. If your game is a success then you'll make your money back.
You have to bring something useful to the table, and if it's not coding or art design, it better be something bankable.
So if I found a now rare coin in my attic that my great granddad got from a bank than you say it's bad for me to sell it?
No. But if you're using "found in attic" as the basis for a whole economic industry worth millions, then I'd say it was a little far from ideal.
We allow people to play the lottery, but no-one is suggesting that a lottery would be the best way to, for example, allocate corporate support contracts, or rail franchises. What is OK on a small scale for individuals isn't necessarily OK for the world as a whole.
My dear mum went to see an episode being recorded just a few weeks ago. She said that the compère had to ask the studio audience to laugh less, as they didn't want it to sound like an over-the-top laughter track. She said that it was indeed that funny; the audience were in hysterics.
I enjoy the show; its pleasantly surreal, and makes a few low-key geek references which are worth appreciating. Its not my favourite, but I still watch it when its on.
I think it's worth remembering that if the Soviet Union had wonderfully exotic high-technology, the fabulously capitalist Russian Federation would now be making full use of it.
If the Soviets had developed exciting computing methods far in advance of their western rivals, why are there no Russian companies conquering the IT industry and generating billions roubles in taxes for their homeland? The knowledge surely wouldn't have just disappeared (or been confined to that warehouse at the end of Indiana Jones).
$3 an hour doesn't sound great to me. Admittedly better than a few other forms of multimedia entertainment I can think of, but that still doesn't make it great in the grand scheme of things.
Not that I'm complaining; these things cost what they cost. I just don't think it's anything to brag about.
Maybe the kind off people who flock to whatever the in-vogue subject for getting rich quick are the ones who are most likely to cheat.
CS is suddenly very popular because "everyone knows" that there are more and better paid jobs in computing. So in flood the lazy opportunists who don't have a passion for their subject.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about Fox is you can never guess what particular crazed, easily ridiculed direction they're going to lunge in next. They just make the jokes come so easily...
Ah, I getcha now. Yes, that'd be very handy.
Indeed, if all this is is a standard USB port but built into a special phone-shaped clip so you don't have to have the trailing USB cables, I can sort of see how it was a good idea- although I can't say I'd go for it myself.
If it's proprietary connection crap then it is just plain stupid, and I can't really see what they hope to achieve.
You can tether over bluetooth. That is essentially the thing you just said, except with the slight bandwidth-over-wireless thing.
Worked well enough for me and my Motorola V3i anyhow.
While admittedly my cheap-ass netbook struggles a bit with videos, it's only the higher-def ones that trip it up. I don't use my netbook for "proper" TV watching (I have larger screened computers for that), and it handles YouTube et al just fine.
The more expensive ones certainly perform better, and I'd be willing to bet that you hit ones that can handle the full gamut long before that whole price difference is eroded.
1.) I think you overestimate the number of people on insist they must keep using their old printer. Basic printers are pretty cheap these days. I'm sure someone will come out with some kind of adapter for older printers, anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously, it's been a while since all of the iPad hype articles), but the iPad doesn't have a standard USB port, or Firewire or Ethernet for that matter, does it?
Cheap, basic printers still generally aren't wireless. Most connect using a cable, and most require drivers to be either preinstalled on your computer, or installed using a provided disk. That's all a no-go area for the iPad.
Although it is possible to make a regular printer into a network printer using a PC, router or NAS that can act as a print server, you're really starting to stack up the costs of making a cheap printer work with your iPad. And it's questionable whether that would count as doing it with an iPad as your "sole" computing device, what with all the extra computer hardware you're having to involve.
I got my eeePC netbook for £200. The UK price for the iPad is between £500 and £700. Assuming the cheaper model (my netbook is, after all, towards the low end of the spectrum), thats 2.5x the price.
My netbook is not limited in any way. It can run linux (Xandros by default, Ubuntu now), or XP. It has USB ports, a removable battery, replaceable RAM, replaceable HDD. It can run flash, has bluetooth, has wifi, can be upgraded with 3G, and can run any programme which is available on mainstream Ubuntu / XP.
The only single possible way it is inferior is that it doesn't have a touch screen, but then I don't really like touch screens very much anyway.
I struggle to see why I, or anyone, would want to pay 2.5x as much for a device that doesn't do anywhere near as much. I mean people can and will, and they will enjoy it. But can we not have the ridiculous justifications? "Because I enjoy it" should be enough.
Why? It capitulates to a non-free standard, and if H.264 becomes the defacto standard for HTML5 it effectively destroys the ability of any free browsers without deep pockets behind them to compete in the market.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it only non-free in the US and South Korea; the only two countries with software patents? Here in the EU, for example, what prevents it from being an open standard?
I don't see why I should suffer just because some 350 million people elsewhere in the world have daft laws.
apt-get purge chromium-browser
apt-get install mozilla-firefox
Easier than replacing the whole distro?
Sure it does. Peasants need energy. The aristocracy? Who cares if they're not getting the most energy, as long as it tastes good!
Think about it.
Also wrong.
A closer analogy is like buying on credit. You own the phone completely on day one (not leased or rented-to-own), but you are contracted to repay the costs over the year or 2 agreed. The moment you have the phone you're allowed to resell it, destroy it, give it away, whatever. But just as if you'd bought it on a credit card, you'll still be paying for it until the costs are met.
I bought one of Buffalo's NAS', due to getting a good price, and it has served me well so far. I got one of the single-drive Linkstations, which is expandable by USB (just plug in extra drives and you're away). They also have more heavy duty "Terastation" models, although I can't vouch for them, feature or price wise.
As ever, you can probably do better if you build these things yourself, but the out-of-the-box solutions seem pretty solid these days.
Nah. Eating meat raw has always been a sign of the very most expensive dining. Go into a very posh restaurant and try ordering a steak "well done" and see the looks it'll get you; your choice is "rare" or "blue", if you want to fit in. Fish is often served raw in western culture too; smoked salmon is basically uncooked, oysters are usually served raw, sea bass is best uncooked (in the best restaurants).
Well cooking food is a peasant thing- if the meat is cheap, you need to cook it lots to stop it killing you. If the meat is raw, it has to be high quality and expensive.
Anyway, sushi is yummy. That's all that really matters.
I imagine you'd only be liable if you actually sell your product to someone, for money, promising them that it'll do something for them. If you just whacked a GPL programme on a website with a label "here is my programme, may or may not work, YMMV", I doubt you could be held accountable for what anyone does with it.
The crux of the court case, if I read it rightly, is that in the UK you aren't allowed to promise your product can do things that you know it can't do and then sell it to someone on that basis. That's standard- what the court case tested is whether putting "(but it probably can't)" in the small print is enough to get you around that. Turns out its not.
That's a good thing.
How have they "pissed all over it"? Debian still exists, and is still thriving.
The very definition of open source is "you can take this code and do what you like with it (within legal limits)". You can't very well whine that they've done something you don't approve of with the code. If you want control over your source, keep it closed.
Why should you get to influence the Ubuntu project if you're not even a user any more?
You can use any distro that you wish. Distros that don't appeal to you no doubt appeal to others. If a project appeals to almost no-one then it will wither and die.
Specifically, I am an Ubuntu user. I want to be able to use new video standards, and I want to do so legally, and I want to do so without unnecessary technical fiddling. If you disagree then feel free to change distro, but don't demand that I can't have it my way too.
I see you're interested in the "news futures" market.
OK, well the alternative is that the person with the idea bankrolls the project.
If you have a great idea for a game but can't do any of the development work: get some money, hire yourself some developers. If your game is a success then you'll make your money back.
You have to bring something useful to the table, and if it's not coding or art design, it better be something bankable.
So if I found a now rare coin in my attic that my great granddad got from a bank than you say it's bad for me to sell it?
No. But if you're using "found in attic" as the basis for a whole economic industry worth millions, then I'd say it was a little far from ideal.
We allow people to play the lottery, but no-one is suggesting that a lottery would be the best way to, for example, allocate corporate support contracts, or rail franchises. What is OK on a small scale for individuals isn't necessarily OK for the world as a whole.
I believe he was just alluding to it being a similar situation, with a MS "killer app" that is compatible with only the MS software suite.
It is using the non-compatibility of a popular product as a stick with which to drive people to their other, not necessarily as popular, products.
I suspect he realises that ASP and ActiveX don't exactly have much in common.
My dear mum went to see an episode being recorded just a few weeks ago. She said that the compère had to ask the studio audience to laugh less, as they didn't want it to sound like an over-the-top laughter track. She said that it was indeed that funny; the audience were in hysterics.
I enjoy the show; its pleasantly surreal, and makes a few low-key geek references which are worth appreciating. Its not my favourite, but I still watch it when its on.
It is a galaxy populated by sword fighting space wizards. Is a plausible explanation strictly necessary?
I think it's worth remembering that if the Soviet Union had wonderfully exotic high-technology, the fabulously capitalist Russian Federation would now be making full use of it.
If the Soviets had developed exciting computing methods far in advance of their western rivals, why are there no Russian companies conquering the IT industry and generating billions roubles in taxes for their homeland? The knowledge surely wouldn't have just disappeared (or been confined to that warehouse at the end of Indiana Jones).
$3 an hour doesn't sound great to me. Admittedly better than a few other forms of multimedia entertainment I can think of, but that still doesn't make it great in the grand scheme of things.
Not that I'm complaining; these things cost what they cost. I just don't think it's anything to brag about.
Maybe the kind off people who flock to whatever the in-vogue subject for getting rich quick are the ones who are most likely to cheat.
CS is suddenly very popular because "everyone knows" that there are more and better paid jobs in computing. So in flood the lazy opportunists who don't have a passion for their subject.
That's just my guess, though.