It used to be a joke when/. would dupe a story, but it's gotten out of hand. What's it been, like, five dupes this *week?* C'mon, fucking seriously... put just the least little bit of effort into this? I know it's hard when you see a submission 1000x to remember if it made the cut or not, so when someone re-submits it a day later, you might go ahead and run it. So, either a) hire someone who's job it is is to *not* look at incoming stories and *only* read what gets posted online, so they won't have that cross-memory problem, or b) *write a fscking script!!!!!* (You have people there that can write scripts, right?) Just have it where, below the story submission box is a little box to put keywords into, and when you press 'submit' (or 'preview', right?) it does a quick check of the last 30 days worth of stories to see if it matches. Here's another idea--check the URL! If it's an identical match, there you go. If it's the same *domain*, it throws up a flag, or if whatever follows the last slash (startreklego.html) matches, you get a flag. (Might have to adjust that setting so it looks back one more slash if the final piece is index.*)
My point has always been "Monopolies are bad for competition."
Didn't you ever take Econ 1? Pure capitalism (i.e., competition) tends toward monopolies. In real-world competitions, there are never ties. Given enough time, one will always prevail over all others. Monopolies aren't inherently bad, but monopoly = power and power corrupts, so monopolists tend to make descisions that aren't in the best inteest of the populace. That's why we don't have pure capitalism--because we have a government that will step in if it feels it needs to. Remember, if men were angels, we wouldn't need government.
Monopolies tend to make companies lazy, which I think is your point, but then capitalism takes over--someone gets lazy, someone else innovates, the innovation usually involves efficiency so they can sell their product at a lower price, thus creating competition again. The problem comes when the monopolist uses his power to crush the new company, rather than competing fairly. Monopolies are bad for competition... but only for a little while. (State-sponsored monopolies, like the USPS or local utilities, are in the same boat--the gov't preventing true capitalism.)
For example, McDonalds is bigger than Burger King. If they wanted to (and were allowed to), McD's could put BK out of business in 6 months by selling everything on their menu for $0.05. That is what the government considers "unfair" and will step in to stop, which is why BK and McDs coexist, as they do. But if this were pure, unregulated, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners capitalism, Ronald would be wearing the King's crown. (Or, possibly, KFC, which was the biggest chain in the '70s.)
And anyone who says (you didn't, I'm just ranting now) that Apple is a monopoly is a) still bitter about Steve and OS 8 ending the clones or b) on crack. Yes, they have a monopoly on Macintoshes, the same way that Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs. Apple hardly has a monopoly on personal computers; certainly no more than Ford has a monopoly on cars.
And (I'm getting really way off here), take heart in knowing that monopolies don't last for forever. Examples:
IBM -> Microsoft
Iomega Bernoulli -> SyQuest -> Iomega Zip
Lotus 123 -> MS Excel
Fun story about that last one from a former MS emplyee and all-around pretty bright guy.
I personally like the idea of open-source, and I use a lot of open-source programs at home and work... But I also buy and use regular closed-source programs... The choice isn't whether or not the source is accessible, but if the tool fits my needs. [emphasis added]
Who is this freak of nature and how the hell did he wind up on slashdot?;-) Seriously, great piece. A lot was over my head, but what I understood was very good. Thanks!
He said advertisers had to respond to the ways technology had changed viewing habits, beginning with the remote control...
Right. It started with the channel changer. Advertisers have survived a few decades of remotes, first with the ability to change channels during an ad, later with the VCR-granted ability to fly through them. Not to mention the old standbys--going to the bathroom or getting a snack. Yet we still get breaks filled with 30-second commercials, 6 times an hour. I don't think tivos will change the face of TV that much, even when cable & sat providers start making them standard. I still know a whole lot more people with regular cable than digital cable.
But he noted that advertisers were also responding by trying to make their commercials more entertaining. "Advertising is becoming art," he said. "You don't need it, but it's fun to look at."
Eactly. Advertisers just need to use their brains and make good stuff. I'd rather watch the $CAR ad with the guy licking the door handle, or the one where the guy unplugs to fridge so the food will spoil and they have to go to $RESTAURANT, than half the shows on TV. Note to Madison Avenue: You need to go beyond "Sunday, Sunday, SUNDAY!"
The idea has been given credibility because Mr. Davies, a native of Britain, produced ABC's landmark "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," the program that started the reality television craze in the United States and changed the face of prime time.
Reality shows got their biggest boost over a decade ago, when the lower production costs (fewer actors & writers needed) of reality shows helped launch Cops and America's Most Wanted around the time of a writers' strike. Besides, I'd say "Survivor" was a lot more of a "reality" show than WWTBAM, which is just a game show. What made Millionaire so big was the stakes--it's a lot neater to see someone win mil for Trivial Pursuit-type questions than watch some braniac get $20k on Jeopardy or $5k for playing hangman on Wheel of Fortune.
The only problem with the script is that it doesn't work too well when a computer calls your house (or worse, home, work, and your cell, like those pigfuckers at Florida Vacations have done to me *this week*, thankyouverymuch) and starts playing a recording.
Click here for my side of the story: I DON'T WANT TO FUCKING HEAR FROM YOU!!! Fucking goddamn marketing assholes, let me live in peace in my own house!!! (No sense mentioning I've been getting telemarketing calls at work *and* on my cell phone, pigfucking Florida Vacations assholes.)
The new 17" TiBook screen is exactly 100 DPI--14.4" wide and 9" high. Nice--you can work at 300 DPI in Photoshop, zoom out to 33%, and your work is shown life-size.
Wouldn't you think there's more room for a battery in a 15.4" screen TiBook than a 14.1" screen iBook? Or is the iBook thicker? Sorry, but I haven't brought my micrometer to the Apple store lately.
Here's why I'm willing to post as me (not AC) and say that I doubt this will come through:
It's internal configuration is based on a G4 and the bus config is simmilar to the powerbook.
Note that the G4 powerbook has 5 hrs battery life; the 14" G3 iBook is rated at 6 hrs. G4 is a bad way to go for tablet where battery life is key.
In fact there is only a single (enhanced) fire connector in the lower right corner, which connects to the power adapter.
No reason for them to go to the expense of combining power & firewire in this way. (Yes, I know FW ca carry power, but you don't want to run a whole computer off of it.) If anything, they'll keep the same interchangable power plug (works on current and old notebooks) they've used for years.
An optional seperate blue-tooth keyboard is available.
Again, I can't imagine them going with the expense of something like this (bluetooth on a keyboard) if they're trying to stay at all competitive.
At the desk, the tablet can be set in a lucite cradle with matching fire-wire plug, making it look a lot like a 14" apple studio display. On the go, just pluck it from the lucite base and go.
(Sounds nice. If they do make a tablet, this would be cool.)
There are no buttons at all on the device. The computer is turned on or brought out of sleep by placing your hand palm down on the screen.
Even Apple knows this is a bad way to go. Few, small, hidden buttons? Yes. No buttons, lay your palm on the screen? No.
This also serves as a biometric password based on finger lengths and palm shape (if enabled).
Doubtful for many reasons, not the least of which is that touchscreens assume there's only one point on the screen you want activated. Mush your hand on a touchscreen (I have one, 17" Mitsubishi CRT) or a Palm and see what happens.
The case is nominally white, but fiber optic LEDs allow the case to take on hues from red to blue.
Sounds good. And expensive. Pass. (And what exactly is a fiber-optic LED? The hallmark of a good troll--neat-sounding things that just don't quite make sense.)
I've heard the price point will be in the low $2000 range.
This is the killer. Everything listed above is doable, but putting it all on one device would be $4000. Even if Apple comes out with a stripped-down tablet, it'll be hard to match the lower-cost ones, like Compaq's $1699 offering. And Apple is hardly known for making low-cost stuff. I'll stake my good Slashdot name (har) on this one. They might do all this, but not at that price. It'll either have less features or be *way* over $2000. And if this guy is right, I'll buy one, because this would be an awesome unit at that price.
At least one of those two things--tablet or enhanced ipod/handheld--are what I think are most likely tomorrow as well. Apple has recently improved all their products--superdrive in the tibook, quartzextreme in the ibook (and man does that make a difference), powermacs up to 1.25 GHz, and the 17" imac. Speed-bumping the xserve would be nice but it's not a show-making announcement.
I was at EPCOT in Orlando on New Year's Eve and there were two salespeople (selling little flowers or glowing necklaces or whatever) on them. Pretty neat, but I didn't even bother to ask them if I could ride one.:-)
I'll be happy with the original episodes, since I missed half of them thanks to FOX pre-empting it every chance they got. Now only was that bad enough, but they'd let the fucking post-game show overrun it!
The Simpsons sucks enough now that I can almost completely stop watching Fox. It's occasionally good, like the Halloween shows and the recent Tales from the Public Domain, so I'll keep tuning in to the long-running suckfest just to catch the occasional gem, just like I did with Married... with Children for its last 5 or 7 years.
Save your mod points, I'm just venting. But misery loves company, so reply & chime in!:-)
"The image quality is just luscious, and if you can forget about the nearly ten thousand dollar (CDN) price tag for a moment, there is virtually no downside to this display."
So, I guess that's around US$6000-7000? How does that compare to Gateway's
$3000 42" Plasma screen? It might be better, but is it twice as good? I checked one out briefly at the local cow store and it looked comparable to the plasmas I've been drooling over for years at the local high-end AV place.
Even more annoying to me is when you go to a site for information about a product, click on the "products" link, and are made to choose between "home", "small business", and "enterprise".
Luckily, no large companies do this *cough*DELL*cough*
I agree--if Disney as we know it came into existence today, they'd have a hard time being the next Disney. Luckily, they've got a hundred-year head start.
...all they have to do is create several dozen movies that are regarded as classics for generations, open a couple theme parks, buy a handful of movie and television companies... They should be done by Q2 2003.
I'm too lazy to click any of the book links, and I'm sure many people here have the same question anyway, so I'll post: does the book show variables the old way (just ask for $whatever and it pulls the value out of the air from POST, GET, etc.) or the new (4.2+) way where you need to say $_GET['whatever'] or $_POST['whatever']?
...fuck. I have been with them since they were just Telocity and have thoroughly enjoyed being with a provider which not only specifically allowed me to run a server but supplied me with a static IP as well. The static IP is negligable, thanks to dyndns.org, but I hope my new provider is as serever-friendly as DTV was. Bummer. I had a bit of trouble with my connection ever since the beginning and it finally went away last month. Crap. Oh well. Such is life.
Long, long ago, there used to be umbrella repair shops. Pfft, yeah, right, umbrella repair, uh-huh. What's next, you're gonna tell me people used to get their shoes repaired, too? Go smoke some more crack, we've got important things to discuss here.
1) your own life (that thief would fire if he saw you pulling out a gun, and frankly I won't blame him) True, if someone else has a gun, it's a bad time to start thinking about drawing yours.
2) the guy's life He has a gun! He has already decided that my car is worth more than my life. Don't I have the right to disagree?
3) the lives of the people standing in the vicinity (you really believe you can aim right at the guy and avoid any and all bystanders in the split second you get to aim ??? no way) A guy is leaning in your car window. You don't need to aim, you just put the barrel into his chest and pull the trigger. And don't give me any crap about it going through--well-designed hollowpoints (or, better, glasers and magsafes) transfer 100% of their energy to the target and stay inside.
Partly true, but what would robbers do if they *knew* that *every* house, car, and person was armed? Probably look for a new line of work.
I said 'partly' because guns are different from cameras. Both have a deterrent value, yes, but if someone breaks into your house, what does a camera do? It lets you record the robbery (or rape, or murder, or both; of course, that depends on them not stealing the tapes) and possibly use that as evidence. Result: the crime still happened. A gun, on the other hand, is *still* useful even if someone *does* decide to commit the crime. If someone decides to ignore a camera and rob, rape, kill, or all-of-the-above you, he'll probably get away with it. If someone decides to ignore a gun and rob, rape, kill, or all-of-the-above you, you stnad a much better chance.
Joe:...[T]he words are all... spelled and capitalized correctly. I think all the links work.
Roblimo: Whatever... It's a little different from our usual style...
Slashdot Mirror
It used to be a joke when /. would dupe a story, but it's gotten out of hand. What's it been, like, five dupes this *week?* C'mon, fucking seriously... put just the least little bit of effort into this? I know it's hard when you see a submission 1000x to remember if it made the cut or not, so when someone re-submits it a day later, you might go ahead and run it. So, either a) hire someone who's job it is is to *not* look at incoming stories and *only* read what gets posted online, so they won't have that cross-memory problem, or b) *write a fscking script!!!!!* (You have people there that can write scripts, right?) Just have it where, below the story submission box is a little box to put keywords into, and when you press 'submit' (or 'preview', right?) it does a quick check of the last 30 days worth of stories to see if it matches. Here's another idea--check the URL! If it's an identical match, there you go. If it's the same *domain*, it throws up a flag, or if whatever follows the last slash (startreklego.html) matches, you get a flag. (Might have to adjust that setting so it looks back one more slash if the final piece is index.*)
My point has always been "Monopolies are bad for competition."
Didn't you ever take Econ 1? Pure capitalism (i.e., competition) tends toward monopolies. In real-world competitions, there are never ties. Given enough time, one will always prevail over all others. Monopolies aren't inherently bad, but monopoly = power and power corrupts, so monopolists tend to make descisions that aren't in the best inteest of the populace. That's why we don't have pure capitalism--because we have a government that will step in if it feels it needs to. Remember, if men were angels, we wouldn't need government.
Monopolies tend to make companies lazy, which I think is your point, but then capitalism takes over--someone gets lazy, someone else innovates, the innovation usually involves efficiency so they can sell their product at a lower price, thus creating competition again. The problem comes when the monopolist uses his power to crush the new company, rather than competing fairly. Monopolies are bad for competition... but only for a little while. (State-sponsored monopolies, like the USPS or local utilities, are in the same boat--the gov't preventing true capitalism.)
For example, McDonalds is bigger than Burger King. If they wanted to (and were allowed to), McD's could put BK out of business in 6 months by selling everything on their menu for $0.05. That is what the government considers "unfair" and will step in to stop, which is why BK and McDs coexist, as they do. But if this were pure, unregulated, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners capitalism, Ronald would be wearing the King's crown. (Or, possibly, KFC, which was the biggest chain in the '70s.)
And anyone who says (you didn't, I'm just ranting now) that Apple is a monopoly is a) still bitter about Steve and OS 8 ending the clones or b) on crack. Yes, they have a monopoly on Macintoshes, the same way that Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs. Apple hardly has a monopoly on personal computers; certainly no more than Ford has a monopoly on cars.
And (I'm getting really way off here), take heart in knowing that monopolies don't last for forever. Examples:
IBM -> Microsoft
Iomega Bernoulli -> SyQuest -> Iomega Zip
Lotus 123 -> MS Excel
Fun story about that last one from a former MS emplyee and all-around pretty bright guy.
I personally like the idea of open-source, and I use a lot of open-source programs at home and work... But I also buy and use regular closed-source programs... The choice isn't whether or not the source is accessible, but if the tool fits my needs. [emphasis added]
;-) Seriously, great piece. A lot was over my head, but what I understood was very good. Thanks!
Who is this freak of nature and how the hell did he wind up on slashdot?
He said advertisers had to respond to the ways technology had changed viewing habits, beginning with the remote control...
Right. It started with the channel changer. Advertisers have survived a few decades of remotes, first with the ability to change channels during an ad, later with the VCR-granted ability to fly through them. Not to mention the old standbys--going to the bathroom or getting a snack. Yet we still get breaks filled with 30-second commercials, 6 times an hour. I don't think tivos will change the face of TV that much, even when cable & sat providers start making them standard. I still know a whole lot more people with regular cable than digital cable.
But he noted that advertisers were also responding by trying to make their commercials more entertaining. "Advertising is becoming art," he said. "You don't need it, but it's fun to look at."
Eactly. Advertisers just need to use their brains and make good stuff. I'd rather watch the $CAR ad with the guy licking the door handle, or the one where the guy unplugs to fridge so the food will spoil and they have to go to $RESTAURANT, than half the shows on TV. Note to Madison Avenue: You need to go beyond "Sunday, Sunday, SUNDAY!"
The idea has been given credibility because Mr. Davies, a native of Britain, produced ABC's landmark "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," the program that started the reality television craze in the United States and changed the face of prime time.
Reality shows got their biggest boost over a decade ago, when the lower production costs (fewer actors & writers needed) of reality shows helped launch Cops and America's Most Wanted around the time of a writers' strike. Besides, I'd say "Survivor" was a lot more of a "reality" show than WWTBAM, which is just a game show. What made Millionaire so big was the stakes--it's a lot neater to see someone win mil for Trivial Pursuit-type questions than watch some braniac get $20k on Jeopardy or $5k for playing hangman on Wheel of Fortune.
The only problem with the script is that it doesn't work too well when a computer calls your house (or worse, home, work, and your cell, like those pigfuckers at Florida Vacations have done to me *this week*, thankyouverymuch) and starts playing a recording.
Click here for the DMA's side of the story.
Click here for my side of the story: I DON'T WANT TO FUCKING HEAR FROM YOU!!! Fucking goddamn marketing assholes, let me live in peace in my own house!!! (No sense mentioning I've been getting telemarketing calls at work *and* on my cell phone, pigfucking Florida Vacations assholes.)
The new 17" TiBook screen is exactly 100 DPI--14.4" wide and 9" high. Nice--you can work at 300 DPI in Photoshop, zoom out to 33%, and your work is shown life-size.
Wouldn't you think there's more room for a battery in a 15.4" screen TiBook than a 14.1" screen iBook? Or is the iBook thicker? Sorry, but I haven't brought my micrometer to the Apple store lately.
Here's why I'm willing to post as me (not AC) and say that I doubt this will come through:
It's internal configuration is based on a G4 and the bus config is simmilar to the powerbook.
Note that the G4 powerbook has 5 hrs battery life; the 14" G3 iBook is rated at 6 hrs. G4 is a bad way to go for tablet where battery life is key.
In fact there is only a single (enhanced) fire connector in the lower right corner, which connects to the power adapter.
No reason for them to go to the expense of combining power & firewire in this way. (Yes, I know FW ca carry power, but you don't want to run a whole computer off of it.) If anything, they'll keep the same interchangable power plug (works on current and old notebooks) they've used for years.
An optional seperate blue-tooth keyboard is available.
Again, I can't imagine them going with the expense of something like this (bluetooth on a keyboard) if they're trying to stay at all competitive.
At the desk, the tablet can be set in a lucite cradle with matching fire-wire plug, making it look a lot like a 14" apple studio display. On the go, just pluck it from the lucite base and go.
(Sounds nice. If they do make a tablet, this would be cool.)
There are no buttons at all on the device. The computer is turned on or brought out of sleep by placing your hand palm down on the screen.
Even Apple knows this is a bad way to go. Few, small, hidden buttons? Yes. No buttons, lay your palm on the screen? No.
This also serves as a biometric password based on finger lengths and palm shape (if enabled).
Doubtful for many reasons, not the least of which is that touchscreens assume there's only one point on the screen you want activated. Mush your hand on a touchscreen (I have one, 17" Mitsubishi CRT) or a Palm and see what happens.
The case is nominally white, but fiber optic LEDs allow the case to take on hues from red to blue.
Sounds good. And expensive. Pass. (And what exactly is a fiber-optic LED? The hallmark of a good troll--neat-sounding things that just don't quite make sense.)
I've heard the price point will be in the low $2000 range.
This is the killer. Everything listed above is doable, but putting it all on one device would be $4000. Even if Apple comes out with a stripped-down tablet, it'll be hard to match the lower-cost ones, like Compaq's $1699 offering. And Apple is hardly known for making low-cost stuff. I'll stake my good Slashdot name (har) on this one. They might do all this, but not at that price. It'll either have less features or be *way* over $2000. And if this guy is right, I'll buy one, because this would be an awesome unit at that price.
A great concept,... but they are too expensive, except for the affluent.
That never stopped Apple before. *cough*Cube*cough* (not to mention the $10k TAM.)
At least one of those two things--tablet or enhanced ipod/handheld--are what I think are most likely tomorrow as well. Apple has recently improved all their products--superdrive in the tibook, quartzextreme in the ibook (and man does that make a difference), powermacs up to 1.25 GHz, and the 17" imac. Speed-bumping the xserve would be nice but it's not a show-making announcement.
I was at EPCOT in Orlando on New Year's Eve and there were two salespeople (selling little flowers or glowing necklaces or whatever) on them. Pretty neat, but I didn't even bother to ask them if I could ride one. :-)
I'll be happy with the original episodes, since I missed half of them thanks to FOX pre-empting it every chance they got. Now only was that bad enough, but they'd let the fucking post-game show overrun it!
:-)
The Simpsons sucks enough now that I can almost completely stop watching Fox. It's occasionally good, like the Halloween shows and the recent Tales from the Public Domain, so I'll keep tuning in to the long-running suckfest just to catch the occasional gem, just like I did with Married... with Children for its last 5 or 7 years.
Save your mod points, I'm just venting. But misery loves company, so reply & chime in!
PS--hooray, Cartoon Network!
"The image quality is just luscious, and if you can forget about the nearly ten thousand dollar (CDN) price tag for a moment, there is virtually no downside to this display."
So, I guess that's around US$6000-7000? How does that compare to Gateway's $3000 42" Plasma screen? It might be better, but is it twice as good? I checked one out briefly at the local cow store and it looked comparable to the plasmas I've been drooling over for years at the local high-end AV place.
Even more annoying to me is when you go to a site for information about a product, click on the "products" link, and are made to choose between "home", "small business", and "enterprise".
Luckily, no large companies do this *cough*DELL*cough*
I agree--if Disney as we know it came into existence today, they'd have a hard time being the next Disney. Luckily, they've got a hundred-year head start.
thanks!
...all they have to do is create several dozen movies that are regarded as classics for generations, open a couple theme parks, buy a handful of movie and television companies... They should be done by Q2 2003.
I'm too lazy to click any of the book links, and I'm sure many people here have the same question anyway, so I'll post: does the book show variables the old way (just ask for $whatever and it pulls the value out of the air from POST, GET, etc.) or the new (4.2+) way where you need to say $_GET['whatever'] or $_POST['whatever']?
...fuck. I have been with them since they were just Telocity and have thoroughly enjoyed being with a provider which not only specifically allowed me to run a server but supplied me with a static IP as well. The static IP is negligable, thanks to dyndns.org, but I hope my new provider is as serever-friendly as DTV was. Bummer. I had a bit of trouble with my connection ever since the beginning and it finally went away last month. Crap. Oh well. Such is life.
Long, long ago, there used to be umbrella repair shops.
Pfft, yeah, right, umbrella repair, uh-huh. What's next, you're gonna tell me people used to get their shoes repaired, too? Go smoke some more crack, we've got important things to discuss here.
1) your own life (that thief would fire if he saw you pulling out a gun, and frankly I won't blame him)
True, if someone else has a gun, it's a bad time to start thinking about drawing yours.
2) the guy's life
He has a gun! He has already decided that my car is worth more than my life. Don't I have the right to disagree?
3) the lives of the people standing in the vicinity (you really believe you can aim right at the guy and avoid any and all bystanders in the split second you get to aim ??? no way)
A guy is leaning in your car window. You don't need to aim, you just put the barrel into his chest and pull the trigger. And don't give me any crap about it going through--well-designed hollowpoints (or, better, glasers and magsafes) transfer 100% of their energy to the target and stay inside.
Partly true, but what would robbers do if they *knew* that *every* house, car, and person was armed? Probably look for a new line of work.
I said 'partly' because guns are different from cameras. Both have a deterrent value, yes, but if someone breaks into your house, what does a camera do? It lets you record the robbery (or rape, or murder, or both; of course, that depends on them not stealing the tapes) and possibly use that as evidence. Result: the crime still happened. A gun, on the other hand, is *still* useful even if someone *does* decide to commit the crime. If someone decides to ignore a camera and rob, rape, kill, or all-of-the-above you, he'll probably get away with it. If someone decides to ignore a gun and rob, rape, kill, or all-of-the-above you, you stnad a much better chance.
Joe: ...[T]he words are all... spelled and capitalized correctly. I think all the links work.
:-)
Roblimo: Whatever... It's a little different from our usual style...
Couldn't've said it better myself.