Perhaps movements towards this billing structure will lead to a greater appreciation for local mirrors of common data over P2P. If a college charged for bandwidth that left the campus network but not on the interal residence hall (for instance), then Joe Collegestudent might then begin to have a greater appreciation for the type of local caching that becomes available through the (possibly anonymous) peer-based file sharing systems.
I totally agree. Case in point: I have never seen an episode of either the Sopranos nor "24". At some point I figure I'll grab the DVD of the first season of the former, and hopefully they'll put out the entire series of the later.
I am not one to put enough effort even in being aware that "a new episode is airing this week!", let alone being near a TV to watch it at a specified time. If a media company puts out a product that is worth my time to view, then I am willing to pay for such a product. As long as I can see it when I have the time/desire to do so.
When reading these posts, it becomes clear that people just take the existence advertising for granted. Ads don't save us money, as the cash that goes to pay for those ads eventually comes from us (the consumer) anyway. I'd rather have the choice to pay for what media I deem worthy of funding. Versus paying an extra dollar for a pair of pants in order that Gap Co. can then go finance a teenie-bopper mini-series on the WB.
In the end, ads don't really buy us anything other than a loss of control over where our money goes. And in return, they propogate a horrible sense of materialism that... isn't worth getting into here.
With all the numbers being thrown around, what about the actual ramifications of companies not advertising on television? If television advertising was no longer worth the dollars spent, (and the viewers then needed to buy access to the media), then would that mean advertising budgets would be decreased?
If those budgets are decreased, then do companies need to charge as much for their products?
If companies charge less for their products, then we have more money to pay for access to media.
It would seem that a big reason that we can't really afford to pay for television is because we are spending such an insane amount of money on our sneakers.
Stop advertising of all forms, read Consumer Reports instead. Slash marketing budgets of all major companies, lower prices on retail products. Consumer has more personal wealth, consumer then gives said wealth to the Media company in exchange for hassle-free entertainment.
(this is obviously a very cheery outlook on modern economics. naturally, removing ads from television just means more ads in other places. or simply more profit for cooperations)
No way! Dubbing is retarted. You have to see the subtitled version in order to get the full effect. Evangelion is not complete unless you hear it the way it was meant to be heard.
Man, I don't know what Expo this guy was at, but he pegged it all wrong.
I seem to remember talking to the guy who actually did the Be port for quake III. Hmmm... IdSoftware is in charge of it? I don't think so. And I find it very hard to believe that anyone at the booth told him that, perhaps he misheard someone. Unlike most of the other booths, the Be people there were some of the most important parts of the company. There was no one there who would have told this guy that Id was doing the port.
I don't remember the guy's name off hand, but when I asked him about the Be port being multi threaded he said: "Yes, I just got the code from Id a week or two ago, I worked on it a bit and now the Be port is multithreaded"
Or something along those lines.
And the comment about the Word processing capabilities for the iToaster, Everyone there was more than willing to tell you about it. I didn't even need to ask, they just said: "yeah, it's running Gobe"
Over all I think the Be booth was the best one by far, and any comments otherwise are misinformed or just wrong. As for available software they told me that their PR department works faster than their engineers, so the signs up were a little to optimistic, (meaning, not everything listed is done being ported over).
Yes, the linux booth was rather sad. Redhat did a piss-poor job on that one.
And the Alpha Booth, what was wrong with the skit? I found it one of the best booths at the show, and was upset that it was on the bottom floor and not up with the bigger players. Unless IT managers become zombies when they go to these shows, (which isn't the case according to the ones I know), a company trying to make themselves seen and have fun at the same time is a good thing to do.
Now Viewsonics dancing birds, that was lame... but what are you going to do?
I always thought that a fractured market brought about competition. But I guess inthis circumstance I could see how I'd be wrong. I wonder how much of these problems they would have if they broke up Windows entirely. And had completly autonomous companies instead of this vague semi-broken up collective
I think we should stop focusing on his point about "putting food on the table". His point seemed to focus much more on the continued inovation in hardware more than anything else. And he's right. Sub $500 PC's are definitely going to take bites out of the computer industry's pocket. But is that? When you look at the general populace, why do they buy a computer? In most cases it's word processing, and web surfing. Do any of those people need machines faster than there are today? My answer would be: not yet. If Intel is worried that they won't be able to afford building their next processor, then they perhaps should first find a reason to build it in the first place. Besides heavy multi-media apps, (in most cases: games), there is little reason for Joe Shmoe to go out and spend the money this author claims they should be shelling out. Looking at what it available rightnow, I couldn't even recomend buying top of the line now: What I'm I going to use it for? How fast does my word processor really need to be? If the author were to mention some peice of software, proprietary or otherwise, that required a faster machine, then perhaps he would have a better point. Until then, he should shut the hell up. Being a writer for PC magazine, when was the last time he paid for his own computer anyway?
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I'd have to say that Linux is a rather succesful product. And seeing as it is mostly based on older commercial UNIX systems, I'd say it falls in the category of "follwer". blaize
What's the deal with this meaningless collection of triteness? All that to say: "Are lives are bceoming more involved with computers. Reality is becoming subjective." That's it, that's all he said. Who here needed to be told that? I noticed one of the first responses remarked that most of us are to used to reading O'Reilly ad tech print outs. There's a reason for that. Most of us are rather intelligent people who don't need things to be intensly explained to them. Nothing in this article was new, just putting to words something we already know. This is the first atricle of Richard's I've read, so I'm not going to say someting as extreme as "No more Richard!" (as opposed to Katz), but these meaningless articles of fluff are really beginning to get on my nerves.
I listen to the radio all the time, more so than mp3's for instance. Who has time to seek out new music all the time? Much better is to find a station with few commercials and good taste. This is the best way to be exposed to bands you otherwise wouldn't have heard of, and you can then look them up. It's normally a 50/50 thing with mp3's and the radio. Even better are college stations, more willing to try out new songs and none of the commercial breaks. Better still if they have a real audio server on a large bandwith connection. Full stereo pouring through a T3 is my idea of advancement in society.
And if lack of apps was even an issue, (which it really isn't if you're creative), then why not slap on a virtual machine via VMware. Stability of a linux server, with a win95 virtual to run your office suite. Still takes less than running NT on it's own, and gives you the best of both worlds.
Greed is NOT good. Greed is evil! While there is nothing wrong with wanting to create a useful product or provide a useful service by which both yourself and others may profit, greed in the sense of wanting to benefit yourself without regard for others is very, very, wrong.
When we say that man is motivated by Greed I think that either the definition of greed needs to be revamped, or you need to look at it a bit differently. We can say that greed is the desire to have everything we can lay our hands on, whether or not other people are harmed. But at the same time there is an emotional greed that must also be factored in. As a general rule, most people would like to have everything without denying others. We only hurt others if we can benifit from it. And as a second general rule most people would prefer to think of themselves as good. Our actions are determined by compromising between our greed for objects and our "greed" for emotional satisfaction. The problem lies in people who's greed is overbalanced on the side of possesions. A society based on purely helping others has no survival instinct and will crumble. A happy medium exists between helping others and helping yourself. Since it's obvious many people in this world are shallow and materialistic we need defined rules to enforce "goodness" onto everyone. (ie laws)
Greed does work, but only within a defined world regulated by fair regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps movements towards this billing structure will lead to a greater appreciation for local mirrors of common data over P2P. If a college charged for bandwidth that left the campus network but not on the interal residence hall (for instance), then Joe Collegestudent might then begin to have a greater appreciation for the type of local caching that becomes available through the (possibly anonymous) peer-based file sharing systems.
I am not one to put enough effort even in being aware that "a new episode is airing this week!", let alone being near a TV to watch it at a specified time. If a media company puts out a product that is worth my time to view, then I am willing to pay for such a product. As long as I can see it when I have the time/desire to do so.
When reading these posts, it becomes clear that people just take the existence advertising for granted. Ads don't save us money, as the cash that goes to pay for those ads eventually comes from us (the consumer) anyway. I'd rather have the choice to pay for what media I deem worthy of funding. Versus paying an extra dollar for a pair of pants in order that Gap Co. can then go finance a teenie-bopper mini-series on the WB.
In the end, ads don't really buy us anything other than a loss of control over where our money goes. And in return, they propogate a horrible sense of materialism that
If those budgets are decreased, then do companies need to charge as much for their products?
If companies charge less for their products, then we have more money to pay for access to media.
It would seem that a big reason that we can't really afford to pay for television is because we are spending such an insane amount of money on our sneakers.
Stop advertising of all forms, read Consumer Reports instead. Slash marketing budgets of all major companies, lower prices on retail products. Consumer has more personal wealth, consumer then gives said wealth to the Media company in exchange for hassle-free entertainment.
(this is obviously a very cheery outlook on modern economics. naturally, removing ads from television just means more ads in other places. or simply more profit for cooperations)
I *had* a 60GXP, then got a good deal on the 75, (and a boost from 20 to 30 GB). Sold the 60, used the 75 for four months, now I'm in the same boat.
No way! Dubbing is retarted. You have to see the subtitled version in order to get the full effect. Evangelion is not complete unless you hear it the way it was meant to be heard.
I personally like to use "hemos@slashdot.org". Hemos, correct that spelling or you'll be my spam filter! ;)
Man, I don't know what Expo this guy was at, but he pegged it all wrong.
I seem to remember talking to the guy who actually did the Be port for quake III. Hmmm... IdSoftware is in charge of it? I don't think so. And I find it very hard to believe that anyone at the booth told him that, perhaps he misheard someone. Unlike most of the other booths, the Be people there were some of the most important parts of the company. There was no one there who would have told this guy that Id was doing the port.
I don't remember the guy's name off hand, but when I asked him about the Be port being multi threaded he said:
"Yes, I just got the code from Id a week or two ago, I worked on it a bit and now the Be port is multithreaded"
Or something along those lines.
And the comment about the Word processing capabilities for the iToaster, Everyone there was more than willing to tell you about it. I didn't even need to ask, they just said: "yeah, it's running Gobe"
Over all I think the Be booth was the best one by far, and any comments otherwise are misinformed or just wrong. As for available software they told me that their PR department works faster than their engineers, so the signs up were a little to optimistic, (meaning, not everything listed is done being ported over).
Yes, the linux booth was rather sad. Redhat did a piss-poor job on that one.
And the Alpha Booth, what was wrong with the skit? I found it one of the best booths at the show, and was upset that it was on the bottom floor and not up with the bigger players. Unless IT managers become zombies when they go to these shows, (which isn't the case according to the ones I know), a company trying to make themselves seen and have fun at the same time is a good thing to do.
Now Viewsonics dancing birds, that was lame... but what are you going to do?
I always thought that a fractured market brought about competition. But I guess inthis circumstance I could see how I'd be wrong. I wonder how much of these problems they would have if they broke up Windows entirely. And had completly autonomous companies instead of this vague semi-broken up collective
I think we should stop focusing on his point about "putting food on the table". His point seemed to focus much more on the continued inovation in hardware more than anything else.
And he's right. Sub $500 PC's are definitely going to take bites out of the computer industry's pocket. But is that?
When you look at the general populace, why do they buy a computer? In most cases it's word processing, and web surfing. Do any of those people need machines faster than there are today?
My answer would be: not yet.
If Intel is worried that they won't be able to afford building their next processor, then they perhaps should first find a reason to build it in the first place. Besides heavy multi-media apps, (in most cases: games), there is little reason for Joe Shmoe to go out and spend the money this author claims they should be shelling out.
Looking at what it available rightnow, I couldn't even recomend buying top of the line now: What I'm I going to use it for? How fast does my word processor really need to be? If the author were to mention some peice of software, proprietary or otherwise, that required a faster machine, then perhaps he would have a better point. Until then, he should shut the hell up. Being a writer for PC magazine, when was the last time he paid for his own computer anyway?
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I'd have to say that Linux is a rather succesful product. And seeing as it is mostly based on older commercial UNIX systems, I'd say it falls in the category of "follwer".
blaize
What's the deal with this meaningless collection of triteness? All that to say: "Are lives are bceoming more involved with computers. Reality is becoming subjective." That's it, that's all he said. Who here needed to be told that? I noticed one of the first responses remarked that most of us are to used to reading O'Reilly ad tech print outs. There's a reason for that. Most of us are rather intelligent people who don't need things to be intensly explained to them. Nothing in this article was new, just putting to words something we already know.
This is the first atricle of Richard's I've read, so I'm not going to say someting as extreme as "No more Richard!" (as opposed to Katz), but these meaningless articles of fluff are really beginning to get on my nerves.
I listen to the radio all the time, more so than mp3's for instance. Who has time to seek out new music all the time? Much better is to find a station with few commercials and good taste. This is the best way to be exposed to bands you otherwise wouldn't have heard of, and you can then look them up. It's normally a 50/50 thing with mp3's and the radio. Even better are college stations, more willing to try out new songs and none of the commercial breaks. Better still if they have a real audio server on a large bandwith connection. Full stereo pouring through a T3 is my idea of advancement in society.
And if lack of apps was even an issue, (which it really isn't if you're creative), then why not slap on a virtual machine via VMware.
Stability of a linux server, with a win95 virtual to run your office suite. Still takes less than running NT on it's own, and gives you the best of both worlds.
Yeah, I forwarded out the link to every non-slashdot reader I knew. This has to be one of the best non-biased articles I've read in quite awhile.
Very nice.
Greed is NOT good. Greed is evil! While there is nothing wrong with wanting to create a useful product or provide a useful service by which both yourself and others may profit, greed in the sense of wanting to benefit yourself without regard for others is very, very, wrong.
When we say that man is motivated by Greed I think that either the definition of greed needs to be revamped, or you need to look at it a bit differently. We can say that greed is the desire to have everything we can lay our hands on, whether or not other people are harmed. But at the same time there is an emotional greed that must also be factored in. As a general rule, most people would like to have everything without denying others. We only hurt others if we can benifit from it. And as a second general rule most people would prefer to think of themselves as good. Our actions are determined by compromising between our greed for objects and our "greed" for emotional satisfaction. The problem lies in people who's greed is overbalanced on the side of possesions. A society based on purely helping others has no survival instinct and will crumble. A happy medium exists between helping others and helping yourself. Since it's obvious many people in this world are shallow and materialistic we need defined rules to enforce "goodness" onto everyone. (ie laws)
Greed does work, but only within a defined world regulated by fair regulations.
What this has to do with IP I've forgotten......