No no, I figured that was the case. I was just surprised to hear it. I literally know of NO ONE who uses it, yet EVERYONE I know uses AIM, I was surprised that it could be true that there are people for which the opposite is true. I had no idea MSN messenger had ANY popularity at ALL u ntil I read this thread. Even most BB websites I visit, you can enter an email address and an AIM name... occasionally a slot for MSN, but ALWAYS for AIM.
Like I said, not knocking it in any way, just very surprised.
Popular? Huge user base? Who uses MSN Messenger? I know no one, but my AIM buddy list has 150 people on it. I don't know where all this pro-MSN Messenger sentiment is coming from, but it must be a localized clique.
It has the largest fan-base, therefore the largest number of people contributing stories and comments about it? The "editor" of Slashdot is a big fan, and therefore he's allowd to put whatever the hell he wants up there, for starters?
Feel free to start your own gigantic website and link to whatever comics float your boat.
Remember when Google said they weren't going to become a portal, and while they have tons of innovation, their 'personalized home page' and email service are starting to feel just like that.
While kind of true, when you go to www.google.com it's still just a search engine, nothing else. The default state is not a portal, even though they do offer the service. It's a small distinction, but I think an important one.
Hohoho, hahaha, slashdot sure is on the cutting edge of jokes these days. I mean, joking about the one-button mouse! How creative! Someone remind me again why I still check this site?
He took some initial measurements in the article, and at its LOUDEST, which I assume means "best cooled", he measured his CPU at FIFTY-SEVEN degrees C. That's pretty warm - my AMD at home runs at mid-40's at full-load, with a stock heat sink. I mean, 57? Are A64's that warm?
This does not mean that their 'beta' email system is any better than anyone else's, that they are a benevolent company who love technology for it's own sake, that they are the future of the Internet, or indeed that they are trying to do anything other than maximise shareholder value by providing marketable web services.
While I mostly agree with what your'e saying with regards to google's benevolence, you CAN'T argue that when they do things, they do them pretty well. They DO have the most useful and least obtrusive search engine. Their email system has the best interface I'VE ever used for a web client, and it's lightening fast compared to all the other biggies (yahoo, hotmail). Their new map system is really fast and easy to use - missing a few features, not ready for primetime, but still faster and easier than mapquest or yahoo! maps.
The Slashdot community is acting like a bunch of little fan-boys--big surprise--but that doesn't mean that they're not at least in part correct. As long as google keeps doing things right, WHATEVER their motive (which is obviously to make money), peopel are gonna continue to love and praise them.
Here's a hint - don't keep a movie for that long. Any time you ask them, whether they tell you teh fine print or not, they say that it's so you can keep the movie a "couple extra days." When I rent a movie, tehy still say to me, "It's due back Monday". So I hear "it's due back Monday" and keep it for a MONTH past monday, and you're saying it's BLOCKBUSTER'S fault? A month is not a "copule extra days." Anyone with a brain NOT made of straw will figure there's some penalty for keeping the movie forever. And if you don't , the 30 fucking little cards and phone calls you get after the second week might tip you off.
Sweet Christ, you people overreact to everything. All I know is, I used to be terrified if I didn't get to Blockbuster by NOON on the third day that these mysterious charges would show up. Now I can be a day or even up to a WEEK late without ANY repurcussions. NO ONE needs more time than that. If you do, maybe you SHOULD buy the movie.
You're about 50 times more likely than that to be killed by an automobile. Outlaw those too. Retard. YOu're responsible for your own actions; the item you use is NOT.
Otherwise, I don't know what we're gonna cut our food with after your kind outlaws knives.
1. Video Out (how cool would an S-VIDEO port on there be). Hook up an S-VIDEO --> RCA adapter, and hook it into any TV, and play full screen. Oh how life would change.
I don't think the resolution would be even tolerable if you take an image designed for a 6 inch screen and threw it on something 5 times or more larger than that. These aren't DVDs, they know their screen size and they develop accordingly.
. Drop Memory Stick Duo and use Compact Flash. Lets face it... I'm a Clie owner myself. CF is the better of the two. It's price per MB is much cheaper. Not to mention you can buy them anywhere, and they are improving in capacity and speed.
People have been telling Sony to drop Memory Stick for YEARS. They'll never do it. THey're morons. It's almost the entire reason why I rarely if ever do business with that company.
I hate teh "slippery slope" argument as well. I don't particularly think that legislating cell phone use will LEAD to the other things being outlawed, merely that, as you said, where do you draw the line? Yes, I do think that dash-mounted TV/DVD systems should be outlawed, but to me that's an obvious contradiction to driving - visual senses are necessary, auditory not so much (the deaf are allowed to drive, right?). At the same time, both may prove to be on the same level of distraction, yes?
I see your point and agree on some level about driving, and how unsafe it is, and how people see and treat it. But this is, as usual, an education problem with people. This is what I think I'm trying to get at, and failing. You can outlaw cell phones, but there's ALWAYS soemthing else - waht needs to change is, as you say, society as a whole's general ATTITUDE towards driving, and attention to the road (which isnt' really going to happen, btw). How you do this, I don't know. Tougher driving tests? More strict enforcement of "reckless driving?" (too subjective, I know). I just don't know. Maybe cell phones are a step, but how many steps do we really need to take to affect any actual appreciable difference?
During a conversation on a phone you are missing all of the visual cues from the other person, as well as 50% to 60% of the audio quality at the very least. Filling in these language gaps takes much of your attention away from the road. Is this a good idea? Do you want other drivers doing the same thing?
No, it's definitely NOT a good idea. And I definitely see the point and have come around to see that this is a significant difference between a passenger and a cell phone...er... participant. But at the same time I just don't think it's quite to the point of being something that has to be litigated. I know it's a relatively arbitrary opinion on my part, and I respect the differing opinion as you and others have stated it. But I just can't see it being as severe of a distraction to warrant being completely outlawed. It's an overreaction, and a seemingly dangerous one.
What is more obvious is that some people are willing to ignore or distort these facts so that they can keep talking on their cell phones. It's 2005. Car phones haven't been a status symbol since the '80s. Give it up
Gee, big surprise, an arrogant shit on slashdot who thinks that everyone who doesnt' agree with them is just out to prove something.
Yeah, I pay 45 bucks a month not to keep in touch with my friends and ease my daily life, but just to prove to everyone that I'm "cool." Please. Every fourteen year old who can afford to get dressed in the morning has a cell phone, I'd say it's pretty obvious that they're not a "status symbol" anymore. Some of us actually have something to say to other people in the world, sometimes via the phone, and sometimes when we're not at home. If it really bothers you, go crawl back in the hole you came from. Troll.
I agree that it is no consolation to say "he is responsible for his actions." And I truly feel sorry for those who lose people to careless drivers. The fact remains that you cannot outlaw everything that is a distraction. DUI is not a distraction, it's a physical impairment.
Look, my point was you can't just outlaw everything tha'ts a distraction. There's a general law against driving recklessly. If someone is talking on a cell phone, and because of this, driving recklessly, they should be pulled over for driving recklessly. That's all.
It boggles my mind that the same community who gets outraged at every tiny little law that's passed that infringes on your right to be completely anonymous, no matter what the reason for that law, at the same time fights for these ridiculous limitations on our daily lives on a whim. It's hypocritical beyond belief.
In a free society, you are supposed to be allowed to do whatever you want UNTIL IT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OR SAFETY OF ANOTHER. The mere act of talking on a cell phone DOES NOT DO THIS. Driving recklessly does, and that is the crime.
I really do see where you're coming from. And honestly I find it hard to say this while saying that DUI should be illegal, which it obviously should, but I think tehre is a significant difference between being physically impaired, and engaging in an action which has been shown to cause "distraction." Because next comes you can't listen to the radio while driving. And then you can't smoke a cigarette while driving. And then you can't speak to passengers. And if you believe that all of those rights should be taken away, I will fight you to my bloody death.
... how people can say that handsfree systems don't help. If it's just having a conversation that impairs your driving, are we supposed to not speak with fellow passengers either? Maybe we should make it a law to have soundproof opaque padding between all vehicle compartments.
You're responsible for everything you do behind the wheel. We can't just outlaw everything that could possibly be a distraction while driving. If you smash into someone because you were talking on a cell phone, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE and will be punished accordingly. If you smash into someone because you were eating a burrito, it's the same thing. Can't outlaw burritos (yet).
My point is, reckless driving is an arrestable and punishable offense. If cell phone use is causing someone to drive recklessly, they should and will be punished, whether it's due to cell phone use or anythign else. This war against cell phones is just useless and silly.
I have to disagree with this. Starbucks is a marketing monster, but they also make a quality product. I'm sure a lot of people are predisposed to hate them no matter what they do due to their corporate policies, which is fine, but a lot of people who know and enjoy coffee do agree that Starbucks makes an above average cup. Comparing it to most of the local coffee places by me, I'd say they're up at the top - not the best, but up there.
As for cost, if you don't get a latte or other "complicated" drink, a simple cup of coffee at Starbucks is reasonably priced. Of course, not many people just get a coffee there, which is why they make so much money, but...
Does the Whitehouse know that GPS is essential to timing many things such as the power grid?
Geez, I'll bet the United States Government is not aware of that!! Good thing they have you here to remind them, or they'd forget silly little things like that all the time.
Here is one day (Wednesday's) schedule from the Spike TV website:
MacGyver Seven Days (??) Star Trek : DS9 Star Trek : DS9 Star Trek : TNG Star Trek : TNG MacGyver Real TV (aka whacky shit caught on tape) Real TV Maximum Exposure (??) World's Wildest Police Videos CSI x2 MXC x4
Now, none of this is going to win any "Fine Living Channel" awards or change the world, but aside from Real TV and the Police Video garbage, what's really so "STOOOOPID" about that lineup? The whole before noon schedule seems like a geek wet dream, between the classic "MacGyver" and Star Trek. Then you have "Real TV" and the Police Videos, both of which I'm guessing are just "Cops" under a different name -- not my cup of tea either, but obviously popular enough. Then you have CSI, which while not the most scientifically accurate show is certainly not "a travesty of programming for men with moronic tastes". And then you have MXC, which is like a poor man's "America's Funniest Home Videos," is it not? Watching people hurt themselves? Low-brow humor to be sure, but Jesus Christ man, lighten up.
At the very most, you could say that 25% of that list is "moronic" or sophomoric or "Maxim-esque" or whatever derogatory term you want to use, the rest seems like pretty normal programming. I mean, I have some friends who are nerds, others who like sports, and then you have the frat boys. I'd say those are the major "guy" demographics, and they seem pretty evenly covered by SpikeTV, the self-professed "channel for guys." They may have missed the boat by not providing programming for arrogant cynics, but, c'est la vie, at least you have your "Fine Living Channel" and "GQ."
Slashdot Mirror
No no, I figured that was the case. I was just surprised to hear it. I literally know of NO ONE who uses it, yet EVERYONE I know uses AIM, I was surprised that it could be true that there are people for which the opposite is true. I had no idea MSN messenger had ANY popularity at ALL u ntil I read this thread. Even most BB websites I visit, you can enter an email address and an AIM name... occasionally a slot for MSN, but ALWAYS for AIM.
Like I said, not knocking it in any way, just very surprised.
Popular? Huge user base? Who uses MSN Messenger? I know no one, but my AIM buddy list has 150 people on it. I don't know where all this pro-MSN Messenger sentiment is coming from, but it must be a localized clique.
It has the largest fan-base, therefore the largest number of people contributing stories and comments about it? The "editor" of Slashdot is a big fan, and therefore he's allowd to put whatever the hell he wants up there, for starters?
Feel free to start your own gigantic website and link to whatever comics float your boat.
Is that supposed to be rooster? Or do the local sports teams have living, breathing team lineups laying around?
Now we can get false, useless information faster and easier!
I think my horoscope is usually more accurate (and specific) than my local weather forecast.
So, how does it get into your house, by magic? I presume that it still has to come in through your phone line, right?
Right, but there's no PHONE NUMBER associated with it, so no one can CALL YOU. It's amazing what them newfangled switching stations can do these days.
If that's your idea of magic I have some beans to sell you too.
Most areas are now rolling out "naked DSL," which means you don't need phone service to get it.
Remember when Google said they weren't going to become a portal, and while they have tons of innovation, their 'personalized home page' and email service are starting to feel just like that.
While kind of true, when you go to www.google.com it's still just a search engine, nothing else. The default state is not a portal, even though they do offer the service. It's a small distinction, but I think an important one.
UPC numbers,
Look at how fast they fulfilled your request!
UPC codes example search: "073333531084"
I think that IS the punchline.
Hohoho, hahaha, slashdot sure is on the cutting edge of jokes these days. I mean, joking about the one-button mouse! How creative! Someone remind me again why I still check this site?
He took some initial measurements in the article, and at its LOUDEST, which I assume means "best cooled", he measured his CPU at FIFTY-SEVEN degrees C. That's pretty warm - my AMD at home runs at mid-40's at full-load, with a stock heat sink. I mean, 57? Are A64's that warm?
This does not mean that their 'beta' email system is any better than anyone else's, that they are a benevolent company who love technology for it's own sake, that they are the future of the Internet, or indeed that they are trying to do anything other than maximise shareholder value by providing marketable web services.
While I mostly agree with what your'e saying with regards to google's benevolence, you CAN'T argue that when they do things, they do them pretty well. They DO have the most useful and least obtrusive search engine. Their email system has the best interface I'VE ever used for a web client, and it's lightening fast compared to all the other biggies (yahoo, hotmail). Their new map system is really fast and easy to use - missing a few features, not ready for primetime, but still faster and easier than mapquest or yahoo! maps.
The Slashdot community is acting like a bunch of little fan-boys--big surprise--but that doesn't mean that they're not at least in part correct. As long as google keeps doing things right, WHATEVER their motive (which is obviously to make money), peopel are gonna continue to love and praise them.
Please be sarcastic... please be sarcastic....
Here's a hint - don't keep a movie for that long. Any time you ask them, whether they tell you teh fine print or not, they say that it's so you can keep the movie a "couple extra days." When I rent a movie, tehy still say to me, "It's due back Monday". So I hear "it's due back Monday" and keep it for a MONTH past monday, and you're saying it's BLOCKBUSTER'S fault? A month is not a "copule extra days." Anyone with a brain NOT made of straw will figure there's some penalty for keeping the movie forever. And if you don't , the 30 fucking little cards and phone calls you get after the second week might tip you off.
Sweet Christ, you people overreact to everything. All I know is, I used to be terrified if I didn't get to Blockbuster by NOON on the third day that these mysterious charges would show up. Now I can be a day or even up to a WEEK late without ANY repurcussions. NO ONE needs more time than that. If you do, maybe you SHOULD buy the movie.
Of course, posted anonymously.
You're about 50 times more likely than that to be killed by an automobile. Outlaw those too. Retard. YOu're responsible for your own actions; the item you use is NOT.
Otherwise, I don't know what we're gonna cut our food with after your kind outlaws knives.
1. Video Out (how cool would an S-VIDEO port on there be). Hook up an S-VIDEO --> RCA adapter, and hook it into any TV, and play full screen. Oh how life would change.
I don't think the resolution would be even tolerable if you take an image designed for a 6 inch screen and threw it on something 5 times or more larger than that. These aren't DVDs, they know their screen size and they develop accordingly.
. Drop Memory Stick Duo and use Compact Flash. Lets face it... I'm a Clie owner myself. CF is the better of the two. It's price per MB is much cheaper. Not to mention you can buy them anywhere, and they are improving in capacity and speed.
People have been telling Sony to drop Memory Stick for YEARS. They'll never do it. THey're morons. It's almost the entire reason why I rarely if ever do business with that company.
I hate teh "slippery slope" argument as well. I don't particularly think that legislating cell phone use will LEAD to the other things being outlawed, merely that, as you said, where do you draw the line? Yes, I do think that dash-mounted TV/DVD systems should be outlawed, but to me that's an obvious contradiction to driving - visual senses are necessary, auditory not so much (the deaf are allowed to drive, right?). At the same time, both may prove to be on the same level of distraction, yes?
I see your point and agree on some level about driving, and how unsafe it is, and how people see and treat it. But this is, as usual, an education problem with people. This is what I think I'm trying to get at, and failing. You can outlaw cell phones, but there's ALWAYS soemthing else - waht needs to change is, as you say, society as a whole's general ATTITUDE towards driving, and attention to the road (which isnt' really going to happen, btw). How you do this, I don't know. Tougher driving tests? More strict enforcement of "reckless driving?" (too subjective, I know). I just don't know. Maybe cell phones are a step, but how many steps do we really need to take to affect any actual appreciable difference?
During a conversation on a phone you are missing all of the visual cues from the other person, as well as 50% to 60% of the audio quality at the very least. Filling in these language gaps takes much of your attention away from the road. Is this a good idea? Do you want other drivers doing the same thing?
No, it's definitely NOT a good idea. And I definitely see the point and have come around to see that this is a significant difference between a passenger and a cell phone...er... participant. But at the same time I just don't think it's quite to the point of being something that has to be litigated. I know it's a relatively arbitrary opinion on my part, and I respect the differing opinion as you and others have stated it. But I just can't see it being as severe of a distraction to warrant being completely outlawed. It's an overreaction, and a seemingly dangerous one.
What is more obvious is that some people are willing to ignore or distort these facts so that they can keep talking on their cell phones. It's 2005. Car phones haven't been a status symbol since the '80s. Give it up
Gee, big surprise, an arrogant shit on slashdot who thinks that everyone who doesnt' agree with them is just out to prove something.
Yeah, I pay 45 bucks a month not to keep in touch with my friends and ease my daily life, but just to prove to everyone that I'm "cool." Please. Every fourteen year old who can afford to get dressed in the morning has a cell phone, I'd say it's pretty obvious that they're not a "status symbol" anymore. Some of us actually have something to say to other people in the world, sometimes via the phone, and sometimes when we're not at home. If it really bothers you, go crawl back in the hole you came from. Troll.
I agree that it is no consolation to say "he is responsible for his actions." And I truly feel sorry for those who lose people to careless drivers. The fact remains that you cannot outlaw everything that is a distraction. DUI is not a distraction, it's a physical impairment.
Look, my point was you can't just outlaw everything tha'ts a distraction. There's a general law against driving recklessly. If someone is talking on a cell phone, and because of this, driving recklessly, they should be pulled over for driving recklessly. That's all.
It boggles my mind that the same community who gets outraged at every tiny little law that's passed that infringes on your right to be completely anonymous, no matter what the reason for that law, at the same time fights for these ridiculous limitations on our daily lives on a whim. It's hypocritical beyond belief.
In a free society, you are supposed to be allowed to do whatever you want UNTIL IT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OR SAFETY OF ANOTHER. The mere act of talking on a cell phone DOES NOT DO THIS. Driving recklessly does, and that is the crime.
I really do see where you're coming from. And honestly I find it hard to say this while saying that DUI should be illegal, which it obviously should, but I think tehre is a significant difference between being physically impaired, and engaging in an action which has been shown to cause "distraction." Because next comes you can't listen to the radio while driving. And then you can't smoke a cigarette while driving. And then you can't speak to passengers. And if you believe that all of those rights should be taken away, I will fight you to my bloody death.
... how people can say that handsfree systems don't help. If it's just having a conversation that impairs your driving, are we supposed to not speak with fellow passengers either? Maybe we should make it a law to have soundproof opaque padding between all vehicle compartments.
You're responsible for everything you do behind the wheel. We can't just outlaw everything that could possibly be a distraction while driving. If you smash into someone because you were talking on a cell phone, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE and will be punished accordingly. If you smash into someone because you were eating a burrito, it's the same thing. Can't outlaw burritos (yet).
My point is, reckless driving is an arrestable and punishable offense. If cell phone use is causing someone to drive recklessly, they should and will be punished, whether it's due to cell phone use or anythign else. This war against cell phones is just useless and silly.
I have to disagree with this. Starbucks is a marketing monster, but they also make a quality product. I'm sure a lot of people are predisposed to hate them no matter what they do due to their corporate policies, which is fine, but a lot of people who know and enjoy coffee do agree that Starbucks makes an above average cup. Comparing it to most of the local coffee places by me, I'd say they're up at the top - not the best, but up there.
As for cost, if you don't get a latte or other "complicated" drink, a simple cup of coffee at Starbucks is reasonably priced. Of course, not many people just get a coffee there, which is why they make so much money, but...
Does the Whitehouse know that GPS is essential to timing many things such as the power grid?
Geez, I'll bet the United States Government is not aware of that!! Good thing they have you here to remind them, or they'd forget silly little things like that all the time.
Dude, get the f over yourself.
:
Here is one day (Wednesday's) schedule from the Spike TV website
MacGyver
Seven Days (??)
Star Trek : DS9
Star Trek : DS9
Star Trek : TNG
Star Trek : TNG
MacGyver
Real TV (aka whacky shit caught on tape)
Real TV
Maximum Exposure (??)
World's Wildest Police Videos
CSI x2
MXC x4
Now, none of this is going to win any "Fine Living Channel" awards or change the world, but aside from Real TV and the Police Video garbage, what's really so "STOOOOPID" about that lineup? The whole before noon schedule seems like a geek wet dream, between the classic "MacGyver" and Star Trek. Then you have "Real TV" and the Police Videos, both of which I'm guessing are just "Cops" under a different name -- not my cup of tea either, but obviously popular enough. Then you have CSI, which while not the most scientifically accurate show is certainly not "a travesty of programming for men with moronic tastes". And then you have MXC, which is like a poor man's "America's Funniest Home Videos," is it not? Watching people hurt themselves? Low-brow humor to be sure, but Jesus Christ man, lighten up.
At the very most, you could say that 25% of that list is "moronic" or sophomoric or "Maxim-esque" or whatever derogatory term you want to use, the rest seems like pretty normal programming. I mean, I have some friends who are nerds, others who like sports, and then you have the frat boys. I'd say those are the major "guy" demographics, and they seem pretty evenly covered by SpikeTV, the self-professed "channel for guys." They may have missed the boat by not providing programming for arrogant cynics, but, c'est la vie, at least you have your "Fine Living Channel" and "GQ."