If the computer retailer gave you a disk with Windows on it so that you can do a reinstall, smart money is that they also supply a disk with the rest of their bundled software on- including their browser of choice. If you downloaded/bought a copy of Windows yourself, you're probably smart enough to obtain a browser too. And you never know, we might even start seeing "free" browser CDs again, like the AOL days (I could do with some more coasters).
Not only that, but what's the betting that somewhere in the Euro version of Win7 there will be a big button saying "do you want to download the latest version of IE?". I wouldn't be surprised if they stick it in the "optional" basket on Windows Update and Automatic Updates, so you can grab it whenever.
Just because they're not bundling it ready-to-go with 100% of their installs anymore doesn't mean they won't still encourage you to use IE.
And to be honest, as long as it breaks people's association that the internet = the big blue "e", it'll be worth it. For as long as people think that icon IS the internet, there can be no serious competition. At least once people are aware there are different browsers, they might be easier to sway when it comes to switching to a better product.
Cigar & cigarette uses the "-ette" suffix to mean "small". Actor and actress uses the "-ess" suffix to mean "woman".
They're different suffixes entirely. "-ess" always means woman, "-ette" always means small. The former may be archaic and unpopular these days, but the meaning is still clear.
TFA suggests a method of collecting water, for free, from the air without requiring any additional energy input. You're suggesting they build a 200km pipe, plus desalination plant, to pump water across miles of hostile desert.
Assuming TFA's invention isn't very expensive (and if it's just brine and solar heaters, it shouldn't be), I fail to see how mass desalination and water transport is going to be "more efficient". Easier perhaps, but efficient it isn't.
The universe isn't imaginary- it is supposed to be this one, only long after humans left and "forgot" Earth. All planets in sci fi are imaginary, unless they're the 8 or so that we know about today. All aliens are imaginary creatures, and there are lots of aliens in sci fi.
All of the mystic powers seem outlandish today, but we've got to put the book in context. It was written in the early 60's, only a decade or so since DNA's role in heredity had been proven. Back then, the concept of "genetic memory" was actually pretty credible. Even the "seeing the future" device, which is pretty difficult to swallow, had a fairly firm grounding in early quantum theory, and would have found quite a few reputable supporters in the science community of the time, if only as a distantly unlikely possibility.
Just because it seems daft now, it doesn't mean it wasn't science. Science fiction in the 40's and 50's used to talk about Mars as anything from an inhabitable desert to a lush jungle planet teeming with life. It wasn't until the 60's that this was properly debunked, and now it seems ridiculous. But to them at the time, it seemed like proper science.
You select "Games" from the categories along the side, and are given a list of programmes with a blurb-sized description and a popularity rating. If you search for "Bejeweled" or "Diamond Mine" in the main search box, Gweled (and two other clones) comes right up, as it mentions that it is similar to these games in its description.
I can't see how it could be any simpler, even on the Apple App Store.
That said, I'd be all for a central "App Store" style repository, perhaps web-based, with a simple UI. Anything that makes finding programmes easier gets my whole hearted support.
I agree. My last non-iPhone mobile phone seemed to be about the same in terms of upgrade terms, and I imagine all phones are the same.
My last phone was on a 12 month contract. At the end of each 12 month period, they'd offer me a discounted upgrade to a new handset (the discount would have been bigger if I were on a longer contract than 12 months) or various other incentives if I chose not to upgrade. If I had wanted a new handset before the end of my contract and without signing up to a new contract (essentially AT&T's requirement to receive their "new customer discount") I would have has to pay top whack.
Whining that a company won't give you a discount despite the fact they never ever promised to- my loathing for Apple fanatics is climbing to interesting new levels.
Here here. I don't blog, because it has never interested me. I don't use social networking sites either, seeing as most of my friends don't. But I don't see them as inherently bad if they're used right.
If you treat a blog as just something for your friends and family, or as essentially a non-private diary, that's fine. If you're using a blog as a get-rich-quick scheme or are just whoring for attention, it's not fine; but then you're probably an obnoxious pillock in everything else you do too, so that isn't really the blog's fault.
If you treat a social networking site as just a way of communicating with variable groups of people (and that's something Facebook can do better than phone calls or emails), that's fine. If you're using it to install 300 apps about turning people into zombies, or stalking your friends/girlfriends/relatives, it's not fine; but then you're probably not someone I'd like in real life either, so you can't blame the website for that.
I'm still trying to figure out a legitimate use for Twitter though. Twitter seems to be up there with herpes as something desirable and fun to try with my friends.
Actually, T-Mobile's main parent company is German, not American, and has a large global presence. Not that that changes what you're saying- it just means that jurisdiction is even less of a problem since T-Mobile exists all over the place.
According to the Wikipedia link above, China Mobile grabs the number one spot (shocking). Vodafone, a UK company, has the number two spot, presumably because of an Indian presence. T-Mobile, a German company, is 8th. The highest US company is Verizon, at number 14, AT&T at 15.
Intelligence doesn't have to be measured in physical inventions (but I likely think it would manifest that way). Maybe the squids have the most awesome philosophy, stories, poems, songs, dance whatever.
Intelligence species don't necessarily have to care about other species - humans can't put on a good chemi-lumescent light show for beans, and maybe that makes us look F-ing retarded and boring to them - get the idea?
While all true, there is an important rider here. If we're talking to an alien, we know that they MUST be an alien capable of building large radio transmitter/receivers. That means that they'll also need some sort of civilization for which that makes sense- a civilization to which large radio arrays seem like a good idea. It also means we know that they're able to communicate in data signal form- whether their idea of "natural speech" involves bioluminescence or scent or whatever doesn't matter, because we'd only be talking to them via data messages.
This does two things. For one, it removes any communications problems based on differing anatomies. And for two, it means that we're dealing with an intelligence of the type and inclination to build civilizations with space radios. That gives us a huge amount of common ground with the "aliens" already, seeing as that's what we have too.
Same can't be said of squids. Even if they were of the most fantastic intelligence, the fact they've never used it in the above ways shows how different we are from squids. The same could be true of creatures on other planets, but they're not the ones we're going to be talking with, is it...?
Overall, it is likely it will be more intelligent than us.
Says who?
Not saying they wouldn't be, but what evidence makes it "likely"?
So far, in all of humanity's history, the most intelligent and capable animal we've ever discovered has been humans. There are billions of species, and there have been billions of years of history on this planet, but so far the only evidence of anything like "advanced" intelligence has been from homo sapiens and its close relatives.
Bearing in mind that TFA is talking about making contact with aliens by broadcast over very long distance (say, spotting signs of life on a distant planet and beaming a response their way), there is no good reason to assume that the creatures on the other end are automatically more intelligent, higher beings. They might be, but that's just guessing. And note that simply having been around longer doesn't denote higher intelligence- 21st century technology knocks Ancient Greek tech into a cocked hat, but I'm not about to claim that we're all far more intelligent than Socrates, Aristotle and Plato.
I still don't buy the squid analogy. Squid haven't proved themselves intelligent enough to, say, build and operate an interstellar radio transmitter, nor the will to do much else other than eat fish and swim about. If we accept that the only aliens we'll ever be talking to are those that have figured out wireless communication and space telescopes, that gives us at least some common ground which they'll be sharing with us.
GGP said "I don't and wouldn't own a TV, there is NOTHING (sic) in terms of programming, they give away nothing of value (in terms of content), and I mostly watch stuff on PC". The point of my reply is that the cast majority of the viewing that he watches "on his PC" was probably TV programming- meaning there is stuff on TV he wants to watch.
I then agreed with him, though, that TV is an outmoded pain in the ass, and that new technology should make this better. If, of course, we ever get internet TV working properly (which brings us back to the whole point of this article).
The rarity is probably more down to the rarity of ARM netbooks than anything else. WinCE is a pile of poo as is, but if the market for it was there then I'm sure MS would pour the money into it.
Still not sure why you'd pick it over the alternatives, though.
MS already has an ARM OS, and it'd be relatively easy for them to make any of their OS's the base for a new ARM OS.
The reason they don't pursue it with gusto is because Windows on ARM lacks the one thing that makes Window worth using: the extensive software library. No programmes compiled to run on i86 Windows will run on ARM Windows.
Why else would anyone pick Windows over the competition, if not for the almost universal compatibility and endless back catalogue? Windows on ARM would be competing on a level playing field- not something MS are particularly wanting to devote themselves to.
Usability of XP is a lot more than just having it.
For one, security. Security threats march forever onward, and are kept at bay in the long run by MS patching up the various breaches. When they stop doing that, XP stops being useful to anyone who desires a secure computing environment (eg, national governments).
For two, new licences. Large organisations are forever gradually replacing hardware, reformatting old hardware, and generally altering their computing setup gradually over time. If MS will no longer license you to install their OS, you'll be forced to replace it with something else (see GP).
For three, compatibility. If MS is pushing an OS that has fundamental difference in the way it interacts with hardware, drivers and the like will be different. The more pressure MS puts on obsoleting XP, the less likely it is to be compatible with new hardware, software and APIs.
None of this applies to your car. The only thing your car needs to interact with is fuel (still available 40 years on) and spares (still, you guessed it, available 40 years on). A well maintained 1960s car is exactly as useful now as it was when it was made, capable of all of the exact same things. The same can't be said of an obsoleted OS.
AFAIK, all of the content on Hulu was made for original broadcast on TV. Of all the things on the torrent circuit, too, most of it was probably on TV the first time around. If you watch any professionally made video, odds are it was originally either a TV or cinema show the first time around.
TV over the airwaves/cable is 70 year old technology, and hasn't changed fundamentally at all in that time (just got higher quality and more plentiful). Its big draw back is the scheduling, being forced to wait until a given time to watch what you want, and not being able to pick what is shown. But the vast VAST majority of content available on any medium today will have passed through TV at some point.
Honourable exception is YouTube and similar made-by-anyone sites. Perfectly valid video content, but sometimes you just plain need programming by professional, funded film makers.
No one forces you to stop using 1960s muscle cars. If you owned one, you can continue to own it forever. You can also legally maintain and service it, and it is compatible with still-available fuels.
Taking away XP is a little different. Whole countries rely on Windows to function. If you pulled the Windows rug out from under Russia (or anyone else) it'd be a train wreck. Without major (MAJOR) hardware upgrades, Vista isn't an option for your average East European lesser-government-agency-office. And refusing to license, support, or open-source (thus allowing self-support) XP when there is no easy alternative is essentially leaving Vista as the only option.
If you were a national government, and you were being told "Pay billions in licensing and hardware upgrades for no reason OR ELSE" by a monopoly company, you'd be reaching for the anti-trust box too.
Re:Humptey Dumptey Syndrome Alert!
on
Vintage Games
·
· Score: 1
Like I said: "Little known".
I'm not implying that you can't use it to mean old if you want. Just that the proper usage is as the book is using it- so lets not rip into the book for using the term correctly.
I don't really understand the hostility (not really from parent, but from this whole thread).
Cisco is a hardware manufacturer/provider/rebrander/supporter/whatever it is they do with hardware. Rackmounts are hardware. Cisco is big. What's to stop them entering into a new market? It isn't like they're trying to broach a monopoly or anything here- the market in question is relatively healthy.
If they want to try their hands at a new product, hats off to them. They're big enough, rich enough and influential enough that they might do well, or then again they might not. That's the market for you.
Re:Grand Theft Auto? Vintage?
on
Vintage Games
·
· Score: 1
Little known fact- vintage does not mean old.
In wine, vintage is just the term for the age of a wine. There is a 2000 vintage, a 2008 vintage, a 2009 vintage...every year is a vintage. When wine has a really good year, people say things like "2002 was a good vintage for French merlot" or something similar.
When people use it in common speech, what they really mean is "good vintage". A "vintage game" is just a sort of metaphor for "really notably good game". Nothing says it has to be old too.
Most companies quite rightly realise that the majority of the people who would like to buy entertainment in all it's various forms are not people you'd consider part of the "hardcore gamer" subculture.
The vast majority of the population want games they can pick up and play easily (eg Wii Sports, Smash Bros, Wario Warez, and most other Wii games), or plot-driven games where they an actually complete the plot without dedicating months to it.
The gaming industry is larger now that ever, but most of the new growth simply isn't targeted at hardcore gamers. I bet that the number of games that ARE targeted at hardcore gamers has actually remained relatively constant...
Please remember that when "the government buys" something, it's really the taxpayers doing the buying. Government money isn't magi, you know.
Assuming the patent holder would want compensating a similar amount to what they;d make if they kept their patent, the over all cost would be the same. The only difference is that non-TV-owners, as well as people who only own one TV, would be subsidising TV owners and multiple-TV owners respectively.
If you think it's fair that people who don't own a TV should subsidise the viewing habits of those who do, then that's an argument you're going to need to make.
BT currently have an offer for wired-broadband customers. If you're on their "Unlimited" package, you pay a GBP10 one time fee and get a free mobile internet "dongle". You then get 1GB of free usage a month for the duration of your DSL contract, only paying for any extra usage above that.
GBP10 for 18 months of free occasional usage seems reasonable enough for the casual user. And if you're going to be a heavy user of mobile broadband, there are plenty of other contracts that can do you higher download limits for appropriate amounts more money.
Slashdot Mirror
If the computer retailer gave you a disk with Windows on it so that you can do a reinstall, smart money is that they also supply a disk with the rest of their bundled software on- including their browser of choice. If you downloaded/bought a copy of Windows yourself, you're probably smart enough to obtain a browser too. And you never know, we might even start seeing "free" browser CDs again, like the AOL days (I could do with some more coasters).
Not only that, but what's the betting that somewhere in the Euro version of Win7 there will be a big button saying "do you want to download the latest version of IE?". I wouldn't be surprised if they stick it in the "optional" basket on Windows Update and Automatic Updates, so you can grab it whenever.
Just because they're not bundling it ready-to-go with 100% of their installs anymore doesn't mean they won't still encourage you to use IE.
That's the free market for you.
And to be honest, as long as it breaks people's association that the internet = the big blue "e", it'll be worth it. For as long as people think that icon IS the internet, there can be no serious competition. At least once people are aware there are different browsers, they might be easier to sway when it comes to switching to a better product.
What's your point?
Cigar & cigarette uses the "-ette" suffix to mean "small".
Actor and actress uses the "-ess" suffix to mean "woman".
They're different suffixes entirely. "-ess" always means woman, "-ette" always means small. The former may be archaic and unpopular these days, but the meaning is still clear.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=-ess&gwp=13
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=-ette&gwp=13
More efficient how?
TFA suggests a method of collecting water, for free, from the air without requiring any additional energy input. You're suggesting they build a 200km pipe, plus desalination plant, to pump water across miles of hostile desert.
Assuming TFA's invention isn't very expensive (and if it's just brine and solar heaters, it shouldn't be), I fail to see how mass desalination and water transport is going to be "more efficient". Easier perhaps, but efficient it isn't.
The universe isn't imaginary- it is supposed to be this one, only long after humans left and "forgot" Earth. All planets in sci fi are imaginary, unless they're the 8 or so that we know about today. All aliens are imaginary creatures, and there are lots of aliens in sci fi.
All of the mystic powers seem outlandish today, but we've got to put the book in context. It was written in the early 60's, only a decade or so since DNA's role in heredity had been proven. Back then, the concept of "genetic memory" was actually pretty credible. Even the "seeing the future" device, which is pretty difficult to swallow, had a fairly firm grounding in early quantum theory, and would have found quite a few reputable supporters in the science community of the time, if only as a distantly unlikely possibility.
Just because it seems daft now, it doesn't mean it wasn't science. Science fiction in the 40's and 50's used to talk about Mars as anything from an inhabitable desert to a lush jungle planet teeming with life. It wasn't until the 60's that this was properly debunked, and now it seems ridiculous. But to them at the time, it seemed like proper science.
The same way you would on the Apple App Store?
You select "Games" from the categories along the side, and are given a list of programmes with a blurb-sized description and a popularity rating. If you search for "Bejeweled" or "Diamond Mine" in the main search box, Gweled (and two other clones) comes right up, as it mentions that it is similar to these games in its description.
I can't see how it could be any simpler, even on the Apple App Store.
That said, I'd be all for a central "App Store" style repository, perhaps web-based, with a simple UI. Anything that makes finding programmes easier gets my whole hearted support.
I agree. My last non-iPhone mobile phone seemed to be about the same in terms of upgrade terms, and I imagine all phones are the same.
My last phone was on a 12 month contract. At the end of each 12 month period, they'd offer me a discounted upgrade to a new handset (the discount would have been bigger if I were on a longer contract than 12 months) or various other incentives if I chose not to upgrade. If I had wanted a new handset before the end of my contract and without signing up to a new contract (essentially AT&T's requirement to receive their "new customer discount") I would have has to pay top whack.
Whining that a company won't give you a discount despite the fact they never ever promised to- my loathing for Apple fanatics is climbing to interesting new levels.
Here here. I don't blog, because it has never interested me. I don't use social networking sites either, seeing as most of my friends don't. But I don't see them as inherently bad if they're used right.
If you treat a blog as just something for your friends and family, or as essentially a non-private diary, that's fine. If you're using a blog as a get-rich-quick scheme or are just whoring for attention, it's not fine; but then you're probably an obnoxious pillock in everything else you do too, so that isn't really the blog's fault.
If you treat a social networking site as just a way of communicating with variable groups of people (and that's something Facebook can do better than phone calls or emails), that's fine. If you're using it to install 300 apps about turning people into zombies, or stalking your friends/girlfriends/relatives, it's not fine; but then you're probably not someone I'd like in real life either, so you can't blame the website for that.
I'm still trying to figure out a legitimate use for Twitter though. Twitter seems to be up there with herpes as something desirable and fun to try with my friends.
Presumably T-Mobile would, and they would be lightning fast to debunk it if it was an obvious hoax.
Lack of denial means either it is real or it is a fairly convincing hoax.
Actually, T-Mobile's main parent company is German, not American, and has a large global presence. Not that that changes what you're saying- it just means that jurisdiction is even less of a problem since T-Mobile exists all over the place.
According to the Wikipedia link above, China Mobile grabs the number one spot (shocking). Vodafone, a UK company, has the number two spot, presumably because of an Indian presence. T-Mobile, a German company, is 8th. The highest US company is Verizon, at number 14, AT&T at 15.
Intelligence doesn't have to be measured in physical inventions (but I likely think it would manifest that way). Maybe the squids have the most awesome philosophy, stories, poems, songs, dance whatever.
Intelligence species don't necessarily have to care about other species - humans can't put on a good chemi-lumescent light show for beans, and maybe that makes us look F-ing retarded and boring to them - get the idea?
While all true, there is an important rider here. If we're talking to an alien, we know that they MUST be an alien capable of building large radio transmitter/receivers. That means that they'll also need some sort of civilization for which that makes sense- a civilization to which large radio arrays seem like a good idea. It also means we know that they're able to communicate in data signal form- whether their idea of "natural speech" involves bioluminescence or scent or whatever doesn't matter, because we'd only be talking to them via data messages.
This does two things. For one, it removes any communications problems based on differing anatomies. And for two, it means that we're dealing with an intelligence of the type and inclination to build civilizations with space radios. That gives us a huge amount of common ground with the "aliens" already, seeing as that's what we have too.
Same can't be said of squids. Even if they were of the most fantastic intelligence, the fact they've never used it in the above ways shows how different we are from squids. The same could be true of creatures on other planets, but they're not the ones we're going to be talking with, is it...?
Overall, it is likely it will be more intelligent than us.
Says who?
Not saying they wouldn't be, but what evidence makes it "likely"?
So far, in all of humanity's history, the most intelligent and capable animal we've ever discovered has been humans. There are billions of species, and there have been billions of years of history on this planet, but so far the only evidence of anything like "advanced" intelligence has been from homo sapiens and its close relatives.
Bearing in mind that TFA is talking about making contact with aliens by broadcast over very long distance (say, spotting signs of life on a distant planet and beaming a response their way), there is no good reason to assume that the creatures on the other end are automatically more intelligent, higher beings. They might be, but that's just guessing. And note that simply having been around longer doesn't denote higher intelligence- 21st century technology knocks Ancient Greek tech into a cocked hat, but I'm not about to claim that we're all far more intelligent than Socrates, Aristotle and Plato.
I still don't buy the squid analogy. Squid haven't proved themselves intelligent enough to, say, build and operate an interstellar radio transmitter, nor the will to do much else other than eat fish and swim about. If we accept that the only aliens we'll ever be talking to are those that have figured out wireless communication and space telescopes, that gives us at least some common ground which they'll be sharing with us.
I do realise that. That was the point of my post.
GGP said "I don't and wouldn't own a TV, there is NOTHING (sic) in terms of programming, they give away nothing of value (in terms of content), and I mostly watch stuff on PC". The point of my reply is that the cast majority of the viewing that he watches "on his PC" was probably TV programming- meaning there is stuff on TV he wants to watch.
I then agreed with him, though, that TV is an outmoded pain in the ass, and that new technology should make this better. If, of course, we ever get internet TV working properly (which brings us back to the whole point of this article).
Incidentally, WinCE is already being sold on netbooks. Pretty rarely, but it still happens. http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=257308&source=1
The rarity is probably more down to the rarity of ARM netbooks than anything else. WinCE is a pile of poo as is, but if the market for it was there then I'm sure MS would pour the money into it.
Still not sure why you'd pick it over the alternatives, though.
MS already has an ARM OS, and it'd be relatively easy for them to make any of their OS's the base for a new ARM OS.
The reason they don't pursue it with gusto is because Windows on ARM lacks the one thing that makes Window worth using: the extensive software library. No programmes compiled to run on i86 Windows will run on ARM Windows.
Why else would anyone pick Windows over the competition, if not for the almost universal compatibility and endless back catalogue? Windows on ARM would be competing on a level playing field- not something MS are particularly wanting to devote themselves to.
Usability of XP is a lot more than just having it.
For one, security. Security threats march forever onward, and are kept at bay in the long run by MS patching up the various breaches. When they stop doing that, XP stops being useful to anyone who desires a secure computing environment (eg, national governments).
For two, new licences. Large organisations are forever gradually replacing hardware, reformatting old hardware, and generally altering their computing setup gradually over time. If MS will no longer license you to install their OS, you'll be forced to replace it with something else (see GP).
For three, compatibility. If MS is pushing an OS that has fundamental difference in the way it interacts with hardware, drivers and the like will be different. The more pressure MS puts on obsoleting XP, the less likely it is to be compatible with new hardware, software and APIs.
None of this applies to your car. The only thing your car needs to interact with is fuel (still available 40 years on) and spares (still, you guessed it, available 40 years on). A well maintained 1960s car is exactly as useful now as it was when it was made, capable of all of the exact same things. The same can't be said of an obsoleted OS.
AFAIK, all of the content on Hulu was made for original broadcast on TV. Of all the things on the torrent circuit, too, most of it was probably on TV the first time around. If you watch any professionally made video, odds are it was originally either a TV or cinema show the first time around.
TV over the airwaves/cable is 70 year old technology, and hasn't changed fundamentally at all in that time (just got higher quality and more plentiful). Its big draw back is the scheduling, being forced to wait until a given time to watch what you want, and not being able to pick what is shown. But the vast VAST majority of content available on any medium today will have passed through TV at some point.
Honourable exception is YouTube and similar made-by-anyone sites. Perfectly valid video content, but sometimes you just plain need programming by professional, funded film makers.
No one forces you to stop using 1960s muscle cars. If you owned one, you can continue to own it forever. You can also legally maintain and service it, and it is compatible with still-available fuels.
Taking away XP is a little different. Whole countries rely on Windows to function. If you pulled the Windows rug out from under Russia (or anyone else) it'd be a train wreck. Without major (MAJOR) hardware upgrades, Vista isn't an option for your average East European lesser-government-agency-office. And refusing to license, support, or open-source (thus allowing self-support) XP when there is no easy alternative is essentially leaving Vista as the only option.
If you were a national government, and you were being told "Pay billions in licensing and hardware upgrades for no reason OR ELSE" by a monopoly company, you'd be reaching for the anti-trust box too.
Like I said: "Little known".
I'm not implying that you can't use it to mean old if you want. Just that the proper usage is as the book is using it- so lets not rip into the book for using the term correctly.
I don't really understand the hostility (not really from parent, but from this whole thread).
Cisco is a hardware manufacturer/provider/rebrander/supporter/whatever it is they do with hardware. Rackmounts are hardware. Cisco is big. What's to stop them entering into a new market? It isn't like they're trying to broach a monopoly or anything here- the market in question is relatively healthy.
If they want to try their hands at a new product, hats off to them. They're big enough, rich enough and influential enough that they might do well, or then again they might not. That's the market for you.
Little known fact- vintage does not mean old.
In wine, vintage is just the term for the age of a wine. There is a 2000 vintage, a 2008 vintage, a 2009 vintage...every year is a vintage. When wine has a really good year, people say things like "2002 was a good vintage for French merlot" or something similar.
When people use it in common speech, what they really mean is "good vintage". A "vintage game" is just a sort of metaphor for "really notably good game". Nothing says it has to be old too.
Most companies quite rightly realise that the majority of the people who would like to buy entertainment in all it's various forms are not people you'd consider part of the "hardcore gamer" subculture.
The vast majority of the population want games they can pick up and play easily (eg Wii Sports, Smash Bros, Wario Warez, and most other Wii games), or plot-driven games where they an actually complete the plot without dedicating months to it.
The gaming industry is larger now that ever, but most of the new growth simply isn't targeted at hardcore gamers. I bet that the number of games that ARE targeted at hardcore gamers has actually remained relatively constant...
Please remember that when "the government buys" something, it's really the taxpayers doing the buying. Government money isn't magi, you know.
Assuming the patent holder would want compensating a similar amount to what they;d make if they kept their patent, the over all cost would be the same. The only difference is that non-TV-owners, as well as people who only own one TV, would be subsidising TV owners and multiple-TV owners respectively.
If you think it's fair that people who don't own a TV should subsidise the viewing habits of those who do, then that's an argument you're going to need to make.
BT currently have an offer for wired-broadband customers. If you're on their "Unlimited" package, you pay a GBP10 one time fee and get a free mobile internet "dongle". You then get 1GB of free usage a month for the duration of your DSL contract, only paying for any extra usage above that.
GBP10 for 18 months of free occasional usage seems reasonable enough for the casual user. And if you're going to be a heavy user of mobile broadband, there are plenty of other contracts that can do you higher download limits for appropriate amounts more money.