I wasn't clear on my warning about not wanting to chide you. I got your joke, but I realized also that that was exactly what a lot of people will do over this.
So... I apologize for making it sound like I was chiding you. I honestly didn't mean it that way. (Actually, your post brought up a Dilbert-esque image in my mind.:)
Not wanting to chide you overly much, but here goes.
Going to kick your cube wall accomplishes absolutely nothing. Unless, of course, you count wasting effort and time.
Instead, you should try to start some form of public awareness. People ask why nobody cares about this sort of stuff, when the answer is obvious. At large, nobody knows about this.
Instead, they see the people who are claiming that most of these corporations are evil as being a bunch of whiners who spend most of their days kicking cube walls.
I agree to an extent. However, the keeping of deprecated methods seems unnecessary. Especially after several versions. I would be happy if the deprecated methods were kept for a few versions.
Converting file formats to XML also sounds like a decent idea. Though, I believe this can pretty much be accomplished with JAXB already.
Did you not read what I said. Since you hadn't read the license prior to downloading the software, you have already violated it.
That is what makes that argument stupid. You are offering something on an ftp site *which allows anonymous logins* and then you expect people to know all the details of a license. The click through licenses work by basically allowing the download of the software, but not the running of it prior to reading the license.
I would think it would be suffecient to post the rules on the ftp message upon connect. Most places, however, simply say something such as "Have fun."
So... I know that things are automatically protected, but if I allowed anyone to view my lifes work in written form *anonymously* with an easily provided method to take a copy of it and sign saying please do so, I am pretty sure a case could be made that I was opening it up to public domain.
Now, if I made sure you read a notice before looking at it saying that it was in fact licensed, that problem is averted.
If everyone feels that that is a non-issue, so be it. It doesn't make it any less annoying and misleading to me.
My only question is about acknowledging the license. As things are now, some could claim ignorance that there was a notice. Very often, it is included in the package, but no reference is made to it in the acquiring of the package.
"click-through" licenses are often displayed before you download the software, thus ensuring that the user was aware of the license before being granted the product.
If I were to offer, via a virtually free distribution, a recipe for how to make [insert fancy item], is it reasonable to expect that the people I offer this to will know it is not in fact public domain?
I am not an overly large fan of "click-through"'s either, but I do think they could strengthen many licenses under which software are covered. Especially since they are clearly available BEFORE you should have agreed to them.
As an aside, I particularly dislike the idea that without that license I could not have downloaded it. If only because you have to download it before you could read the license. This is worse then the EULA, in my oppinion.
I would love to say that things are in fact getting worse as the years go on, however, I just don't know if I agree with that.
It is like the argument that games were better when we were younger. Or that music was better. People remember the highlights, but conveniently forget all of the crap. The same is probably true for the magazines, as well.
In addition, there was a lot less to cover back then. I would imagine that as a magazine tries to cover more and more topics, they almost without fail dilute all of the information.
As per the ads.... I'm not sure on that one. Ad content has definitely gone up, but so has cost of the business. Have subscription costs increased as much as the cost of business has? If not, how else are they supposed to offset the costs? I would think there are surely ways to do so, but why aren't they being used?
Re:Focus on gaming? My wish list
on
Ziff Davis Teeters
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Vapid, chauvenistic, and annoying.
Funny you would describe them that way, as that is exactly how you sounded.
Your first point, about hiring more women. Valid, but not. Take a look at ANY market survey and you will see that the vast majority of gamers are still male. Hell, have you actually read the gamespottings before? I believe a few were of the editors talking about how they married women who just don't play video games and the effect that has on their relationships.
The preview idea is equally short-sighted. They get the preview builds because they are going to be fair towards them. If they start ragging games for what they don't like, especially if the issues are to be addressed by the developers, then they are going to stop getting preview builds.
The competition angle is about the best you have. Unfortunately, the problem most likely is not due to any sort of monopoly, but rather to the fact that magazines are a tough sell. Tougher today then before, now that you can download all you want online. Hell, isn't this entire article about how they (Ziff) aren't even making money?
If you have any good constructive points to make, then by all means make them. But don't just start screaming you suck. And sure as hell don't resort to insulting comments about how the industry evidently doesn't get laid.
That is a valid point, but I am afraid I don't agree with you on this one. Web *Design* is all about HTML. Indeed, I would prefer it if most sites are all designed as skeletal html files before the developers start trying to work them out.
However, that is only one of the parts of web design. JavaScript can be used to make all sorts of tasks more manageable. Especially if you are working in a controlled environment and can use some of the more advanced features of the DOM. At this point, JavaScript can help integrate all sorts of solutions into a web based product. Like another poster said, JavaScript can help make possible some rather usefull solutions.
Note, though, that I fell into the same trap of using the wrong words. I said internet developement. There, you are right, using JS is risky. However, in an in-house solution, I prefer the developer to have knowledge of what can be done with JavaScript without having to resort to server side trips.
I own a copy of this book and have thus far fully appreciated having it.
Unfortunately, when most people hear the word JavaScript they immediately think of how annoying window.open() is. It is a shame, really, as a lot of interesting things can be done using JavaScript. Especially when combined with the DOM and all the options that opens up.
My question, then, is simple. How many people have noticed that true knowledge in JavaScript is severely lacking in many people who do web developement? I've met lots of people who claim to know JavaScript well, but they can barely write the examples provided in most books. I think that for a web developer, knowledge in client side scripting should be moved up on the priority notches. Am I alone in this?
In times past (oh, you know, 2 years ago.), it seemed eveyone I knew wanted a full sized tower. At the least, a mid tower was preferred.
Now, however, it seems things are hopefully turning around. It is quite encouraging to think that in the near future I can finally get rid of all of the crap that clutters my desk due to the computer. Pair this with a flat-panel monitor and you now have noticeably more room above and below your desk.
Now, I just need to find a way to consolidate all of my power and accessory cables. Those are probably the largest hassle when cleaning for me.
I guess my main question was more geared to what it will take to get them to adopt a standard. Can anyone think of a "killer app" that would convince AOL to move to support a standard.
Unfortunately, I can't think of anything. Outside of the IM market on the computer, I could see some uses in the phone market. I know I love the text messaging feature of cell phones for quick yes/no questions.
Unfortunately, I seem to be in the vast minority on this. Indeed, most of my friends get upset when I ask them something through text messaging.
Surely if we could get Verizon and some others to support a protocol that would allow easy receipt of messagees from computer IM uses of some kind, then that would provide incentive to support a standard. Or am I just being helplessly naive?
I realize that there are some functions performed differently on seperate chat programs, but what is really stopping them all from creating a standard interface for communicating? It seems like the main reason for limiting the audience is to lock people into your look and feel client, but what good does that really serve?
And, more importantly, how could we get these companies to actually adopt a standard? I realize there are probably some open source attempts, but unless a big company adopts them... I just don't see them taking off.
That is exactly where most people will attack this idea.
However, there is a fairly easy counter to this. (Bear in mind, however, that I do in fact agree with you.)
The counter is simple. You simply don't have a right to profit. Where are people given a right to profit from their labors? Especially when they are built upon contributions from others.
To give an example, you have EVERY right to do whatever you wish to the copy of linux you download. Even (or especially) under the terms of such licenses as the GPL. This freedom, of course, disappears when you try to distribute the changes.
So, with that in mind, just how much would it hurt to insure that in the future you own what you buy? And, just as important, what are you buying when you buy software? Afterall, isn't that the whole crux of the problem in computers? There is very little in the way of tangible property, right?
I guess that was my misunderstanding from the article, then.
Yes, getting better technology to these people is surely a "good" thing. However, the article was about getting technology to the poor farmers and such. The article sounded to me as if they were trying to create a market for a really cheap computer.
Instead, I think if you want to provide a cheap computer to a market, it should be to a market that wants and needs computers but that can not afford them. This would fit in with what you said.
My using of a farmer as an example was because the article did. I do not think of the world as a barren wasteland outside of the USA. That is just silly. But I also do not think that a farmer will automatically farm better with a computer. That takes knowledge and opportunity, as you pointed out. Neither are provided magically by a computer.
Does that make sense? It is when I see people trying to fabricate a market by which computers can solve a problem that irritate me.
I believe I came accross as sounding too harsh against the people we are supposedly trying to help.
My harshness is instead towards many of the people that think computers are a solution to the problems of the world.
As per your examples. I guess I should not have said more usefull "technologies." Instead, I should have just said more usefull aid. I don't look at computers by themselves as an automatic enabler. It is like the old saying "give someone a fish, you've fed them for the day. Teach them to fish, you've fed them forever." Now, there are obviously holes in the analogy, but I still believe we should be doing more to help then just dumping computers on them.
I guess I am basically saying, giving a computer to someone does not make them better at what they were doing. Instead, educating someone at what they were doing can work wonders.
Also, as an aside, I like the idea of recycling old computers. Provided they honestly have a use for them. I know that for many small "burger flipping" like places of work, a computer is just added baggage on running business. Does a small store honestly need the "flexibility" given by computers?
In that vein, you need to make sure that you provide some way to get support to the musician. I'm all for downloading music, but I would like to think that I will be able to get more from an artist I like in the future.
So... I think intelligence needs to be done in what is linked as well. A quick idea would be to have a section of "what you could hear in town this week." A section where one can see all of the bands which will be playing live that week and give them a try.
Then, you could have categorical pages, of course, but you need to find some way of encouraging support. Note, I don't think it should be required, but incentive should be given to provide easy support to the artists.
Interestingly enough, I think the venues could do well to get together and provide sites of this nature. Perhaps allow them to download clips of shows played in a venue. Perhaps to show what the lighting and overall look of a place are. This could encourage more attendees which could help to bring more revenues.
I wasn't trying to promote stereotypes. I apologize if it sounded that way. Instead, I think I was just roughly saying what you did in your last paragraph. We shouldn't be trying to give them computers because we think they are the solution to all problems. Instead, we should give them what they need.
Now, if it turns out that that is a computer, so be it. But, I am tired of seeing the computer touted as the solution to world hunger.
That is the standard response, so I was expecting it. However, I don't really feel that you have to have the software for sale, per se.
Instead, we should look to include a nice set of manuals, books, etc that come packaged with a copy of the latest version of a program. A perfect example could be StarOffice. They could buy a copy of the book, which would *hopefully* have a very good rundown on how to get the software up and running and how to use it from there.
This would allow a nice shelf of software for people to purchase. Note, I don't really think it is about the software; rather, I believe it is all in the appearance of software. Most of us know there are plenty of applications available for linux. The average user at Walmart, however...
While I can certainly understand the desire to get technology "to the people," I do have to wonder about the uses.
It is nice to think that a farmer could use such a device to get prices on equipment and such from around the world, however, what good will it do them? They still will probably be forced to buy what is easily provided.
Instead, this seems like a case where people are just hoping that a computer can magically fix so many problems. I don't understand it, how exactly is the computer supposed to be the answer that solves world poverty?
Should we not instead look to get more usefull technology to these farmers and other poor nations? Technologies that can in fact help them lead healthier more productive lives? Hell, a simple education could probably work wonders for many of them.
I know that for most people here, finding software for linux is no problem. However, I can't help but feel that not having a "linux" section in the software is going to hurt the sales of these machines. Especially when the customers are going to find out that the vast majority of the software you can buy will probably not work with these machines.
How long until we have a good sized shelf to sit next to these machines with software that can be loaded on them without trouble?
I actually tagged along with some friends who went to see it Friday. It was not included!!! I was horrified. We waited till after the credits to see if they simply moved them. Nope, they simply left it off.
That is almost unforgiveable. I wonder how many people didn't see it.
Say what you will for this movie. The short that preceded it was absolutely hilarious.
I believe I laughed more for those few minutes then I have at many full length movies.
I don't want to start too many spoilers on a root thread, so instead of listing the appearances, I'll just ask. Who all did people notice that they think may have been missed. I'll look for them next time.:)
I would think one of the major differences in the movie versus music debate would be that you can rent movies.
Sure, this doesn't mean any difference at all to the high tech computer user who would be willing to download anything. However, for the average layman who isn't sure about a movie, it can be picked up for rent at the local video store for relatively cheap. Especially if you go in with a few friends for a cheap night of entertainment.
Compare this with music CD's. If you aren't sure about an album, you have very limited choices. You can buy it and hope it isn't horrible, you can not buy it, and finally, you can download it. In all cases, the price is either non existant, or at least 14 dollars (US).
Maybe I just don't get the quote, but why is it said that Speilberg is known for heavy branding due to Back to the Future? He didn't direct that.
I understand that it is now just accepted to hate the guy, but that seems to be going out of the way a bit. Unless, of course, I am missing something. (Most probably)
What if you are wishing to cut/copy and paste something besides text? Is there a good app for accomplishing this yet? If so, please provide a link, as I am interested in trying it out.
Though, to be honest, since I stopped having to write crappy reports for classes, I've lost most of the need to copy and paste weird stuff between apps. (And they were mostly pictures, so there were alternative ways, but the good old copy paste was by far the quickest.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't clear on my warning about not wanting to chide you. I got your joke, but I realized also that that was exactly what a lot of people will do over this.
:)
So... I apologize for making it sound like I was chiding you. I honestly didn't mean it that way. (Actually, your post brought up a Dilbert-esque image in my mind.
Not wanting to chide you overly much, but here goes.
Going to kick your cube wall accomplishes absolutely nothing. Unless, of course, you count wasting effort and time.
Instead, you should try to start some form of public awareness. People ask why nobody cares about this sort of stuff, when the answer is obvious. At large, nobody knows about this.
Instead, they see the people who are claiming that most of these corporations are evil as being a bunch of whiners who spend most of their days kicking cube walls.
I agree to an extent. However, the keeping of deprecated methods seems unnecessary. Especially after several versions. I would be happy if the deprecated methods were kept for a few versions.
Converting file formats to XML also sounds like a decent idea. Though, I believe this can pretty much be accomplished with JAXB already.
Did you not read what I said. Since you hadn't read the license prior to downloading the software, you have already violated it.
That is what makes that argument stupid. You are offering something on an ftp site *which allows anonymous logins* and then you expect people to know all the details of a license. The click through licenses work by basically allowing the download of the software, but not the running of it prior to reading the license.
I would think it would be suffecient to post the rules on the ftp message upon connect. Most places, however, simply say something such as "Have fun."
So... I know that things are automatically protected, but if I allowed anyone to view my lifes work in written form *anonymously* with an easily provided method to take a copy of it and sign saying please do so, I am pretty sure a case could be made that I was opening it up to public domain.
Now, if I made sure you read a notice before looking at it saying that it was in fact licensed, that problem is averted.
If everyone feels that that is a non-issue, so be it. It doesn't make it any less annoying and misleading to me.
My only question is about acknowledging the license. As things are now, some could claim ignorance that there was a notice. Very often, it is included in the package, but no reference is made to it in the acquiring of the package.
"click-through" licenses are often displayed before you download the software, thus ensuring that the user was aware of the license before being granted the product.
If I were to offer, via a virtually free distribution, a recipe for how to make [insert fancy item], is it reasonable to expect that the people I offer this to will know it is not in fact public domain?
I am not an overly large fan of "click-through"'s either, but I do think they could strengthen many licenses under which software are covered. Especially since they are clearly available BEFORE you should have agreed to them.
As an aside, I particularly dislike the idea that without that license I could not have downloaded it. If only because you have to download it before you could read the license. This is worse then the EULA, in my oppinion.
I would love to say that things are in fact getting worse as the years go on, however, I just don't know if I agree with that.
It is like the argument that games were better when we were younger. Or that music was better. People remember the highlights, but conveniently forget all of the crap. The same is probably true for the magazines, as well.
In addition, there was a lot less to cover back then. I would imagine that as a magazine tries to cover more and more topics, they almost without fail dilute all of the information.
As per the ads.... I'm not sure on that one. Ad content has definitely gone up, but so has cost of the business. Have subscription costs increased as much as the cost of business has? If not, how else are they supposed to offset the costs? I would think there are surely ways to do so, but why aren't they being used?
Vapid, chauvenistic, and annoying.
Funny you would describe them that way, as that is exactly how you sounded.
Your first point, about hiring more women. Valid, but not. Take a look at ANY market survey and you will see that the vast majority of gamers are still male. Hell, have you actually read the gamespottings before? I believe a few were of the editors talking about how they married women who just don't play video games and the effect that has on their relationships.
The preview idea is equally short-sighted. They get the preview builds because they are going to be fair towards them. If they start ragging games for what they don't like, especially if the issues are to be addressed by the developers, then they are going to stop getting preview builds.
The competition angle is about the best you have. Unfortunately, the problem most likely is not due to any sort of monopoly, but rather to the fact that magazines are a tough sell. Tougher today then before, now that you can download all you want online. Hell, isn't this entire article about how they (Ziff) aren't even making money?
If you have any good constructive points to make, then by all means make them. But don't just start screaming you suck. And sure as hell don't resort to insulting comments about how the industry evidently doesn't get laid.
That is a valid point, but I am afraid I don't agree with you on this one. Web *Design* is all about HTML. Indeed, I would prefer it if most sites are all designed as skeletal html files before the developers start trying to work them out.
However, that is only one of the parts of web design. JavaScript can be used to make all sorts of tasks more manageable. Especially if you are working in a controlled environment and can use some of the more advanced features of the DOM. At this point, JavaScript can help integrate all sorts of solutions into a web based product. Like another poster said, JavaScript can help make possible some rather usefull solutions.
Note, though, that I fell into the same trap of using the wrong words. I said internet developement. There, you are right, using JS is risky. However, in an in-house solution, I prefer the developer to have knowledge of what can be done with JavaScript without having to resort to server side trips.
I own a copy of this book and have thus far fully appreciated having it.
Unfortunately, when most people hear the word JavaScript they immediately think of how annoying window.open() is. It is a shame, really, as a lot of interesting things can be done using JavaScript. Especially when combined with the DOM and all the options that opens up.
My question, then, is simple. How many people have noticed that true knowledge in JavaScript is severely lacking in many people who do web developement? I've met lots of people who claim to know JavaScript well, but they can barely write the examples provided in most books. I think that for a web developer, knowledge in client side scripting should be moved up on the priority notches. Am I alone in this?
In times past (oh, you know, 2 years ago.), it seemed eveyone I knew wanted a full sized tower. At the least, a mid tower was preferred.
Now, however, it seems things are hopefully turning around. It is quite encouraging to think that in the near future I can finally get rid of all of the crap that clutters my desk due to the computer. Pair this with a flat-panel monitor and you now have noticeably more room above and below your desk.
Now, I just need to find a way to consolidate all of my power and accessory cables. Those are probably the largest hassle when cleaning for me.
This comes as no surprise.
I guess my main question was more geared to what it will take to get them to adopt a standard. Can anyone think of a "killer app" that would convince AOL to move to support a standard.
Unfortunately, I can't think of anything. Outside of the IM market on the computer, I could see some uses in the phone market. I know I love the text messaging feature of cell phones for quick yes/no questions.
Unfortunately, I seem to be in the vast minority on this. Indeed, most of my friends get upset when I ask them something through text messaging.
Surely if we could get Verizon and some others to support a protocol that would allow easy receipt of messagees from computer IM uses of some kind, then that would provide incentive to support a standard. Or am I just being helplessly naive?
-josh
I realize that there are some functions performed differently on seperate chat programs, but what is really stopping them all from creating a standard interface for communicating? It seems like the main reason for limiting the audience is to lock people into your look and feel client, but what good does that really serve?
And, more importantly, how could we get these companies to actually adopt a standard? I realize there are probably some open source attempts, but unless a big company adopts them... I just don't see them taking off.
-josh
That is exactly where most people will attack this idea.
However, there is a fairly easy counter to this. (Bear in mind, however, that I do in fact agree with you.)
The counter is simple. You simply don't have a right to profit. Where are people given a right to profit from their labors? Especially when they are built upon contributions from others.
To give an example, you have EVERY right to do whatever you wish to the copy of linux you download. Even (or especially) under the terms of such licenses as the GPL. This freedom, of course, disappears when you try to distribute the changes.
So, with that in mind, just how much would it hurt to insure that in the future you own what you buy? And, just as important, what are you buying when you buy software? Afterall, isn't that the whole crux of the problem in computers? There is very little in the way of tangible property, right?
-josh
I guess that was my misunderstanding from the article, then.
Yes, getting better technology to these people is surely a "good" thing. However, the article was about getting technology to the poor farmers and such. The article sounded to me as if they were trying to create a market for a really cheap computer.
Instead, I think if you want to provide a cheap computer to a market, it should be to a market that wants and needs computers but that can not afford them. This would fit in with what you said.
My using of a farmer as an example was because the article did. I do not think of the world as a barren wasteland outside of the USA. That is just silly. But I also do not think that a farmer will automatically farm better with a computer. That takes knowledge and opportunity, as you pointed out. Neither are provided magically by a computer.
Does that make sense? It is when I see people trying to fabricate a market by which computers can solve a problem that irritate me.
-josh
I believe I came accross as sounding too harsh against the people we are supposedly trying to help.
My harshness is instead towards many of the people that think computers are a solution to the problems of the world.
As per your examples. I guess I should not have said more usefull "technologies." Instead, I should have just said more usefull aid. I don't look at computers by themselves as an automatic enabler. It is like the old saying "give someone a fish, you've fed them for the day. Teach them to fish, you've fed them forever." Now, there are obviously holes in the analogy, but I still believe we should be doing more to help then just dumping computers on them.
I guess I am basically saying, giving a computer to someone does not make them better at what they were doing. Instead, educating someone at what they were doing can work wonders.
Also, as an aside, I like the idea of recycling old computers. Provided they honestly have a use for them. I know that for many small "burger flipping" like places of work, a computer is just added baggage on running business. Does a small store honestly need the "flexibility" given by computers?
-josh
In that vein, you need to make sure that you provide some way to get support to the musician. I'm all for downloading music, but I would like to think that I will be able to get more from an artist I like in the future.
So... I think intelligence needs to be done in what is linked as well. A quick idea would be to have a section of "what you could hear in town this week." A section where one can see all of the bands which will be playing live that week and give them a try.
Then, you could have categorical pages, of course, but you need to find some way of encouraging support. Note, I don't think it should be required, but incentive should be given to provide easy support to the artists.
Interestingly enough, I think the venues could do well to get together and provide sites of this nature. Perhaps allow them to download clips of shows played in a venue. Perhaps to show what the lighting and overall look of a place are. This could encourage more attendees which could help to bring more revenues.
I wasn't trying to promote stereotypes. I apologize if it sounded that way. Instead, I think I was just roughly saying what you did in your last paragraph. We shouldn't be trying to give them computers because we think they are the solution to all problems. Instead, we should give them what they need.
Now, if it turns out that that is a computer, so be it. But, I am tired of seeing the computer touted as the solution to world hunger.
-josh
That is the standard response, so I was expecting it. However, I don't really feel that you have to have the software for sale, per se.
Instead, we should look to include a nice set of manuals, books, etc that come packaged with a copy of the latest version of a program. A perfect example could be StarOffice. They could buy a copy of the book, which would *hopefully* have a very good rundown on how to get the software up and running and how to use it from there.
This would allow a nice shelf of software for people to purchase. Note, I don't really think it is about the software; rather, I believe it is all in the appearance of software. Most of us know there are plenty of applications available for linux. The average user at Walmart, however...
While I can certainly understand the desire to get technology "to the people," I do have to wonder about the uses.
It is nice to think that a farmer could use such a device to get prices on equipment and such from around the world, however, what good will it do them? They still will probably be forced to buy what is easily provided.
Instead, this seems like a case where people are just hoping that a computer can magically fix so many problems. I don't understand it, how exactly is the computer supposed to be the answer that solves world poverty?
Should we not instead look to get more usefull technology to these farmers and other poor nations? Technologies that can in fact help them lead healthier more productive lives? Hell, a simple education could probably work wonders for many of them.
-josh
I know that for most people here, finding software for linux is no problem. However, I can't help but feel that not having a "linux" section in the software is going to hurt the sales of these machines. Especially when the customers are going to find out that the vast majority of the software you can buy will probably not work with these machines.
How long until we have a good sized shelf to sit next to these machines with software that can be loaded on them without trouble?
-josh
I actually tagged along with some friends who went to see it Friday. It was not included!!! I was horrified. We waited till after the credits to see if they simply moved them. Nope, they simply left it off.
That is almost unforgiveable. I wonder how many people didn't see it.
Say what you will for this movie. The short that preceded it was absolutely hilarious.
:)
I believe I laughed more for those few minutes then I have at many full length movies.
I don't want to start too many spoilers on a root thread, so instead of listing the appearances, I'll just ask. Who all did people notice that they think may have been missed. I'll look for them next time.
I would think one of the major differences in the movie versus music debate would be that you can rent movies.
Sure, this doesn't mean any difference at all to the high tech computer user who would be willing to download anything. However, for the average layman who isn't sure about a movie, it can be picked up for rent at the local video store for relatively cheap. Especially if you go in with a few friends for a cheap night of entertainment.
Compare this with music CD's. If you aren't sure about an album, you have very limited choices. You can buy it and hope it isn't horrible, you can not buy it, and finally, you can download it. In all cases, the price is either non existant, or at least 14 dollars (US).
Maybe I just don't get the quote, but why is it said that Speilberg is known for heavy branding due to Back to the Future? He didn't direct that.
I understand that it is now just accepted to hate the guy, but that seems to be going out of the way a bit. Unless, of course, I am missing something. (Most probably)
What if you are wishing to cut/copy and paste something besides text? Is there a good app for accomplishing this yet? If so, please provide a link, as I am interested in trying it out.
:)
Though, to be honest, since I stopped having to write crappy reports for classes, I've lost most of the need to copy and paste weird stuff between apps. (And they were mostly pictures, so there were alternative ways, but the good old copy paste was by far the quickest.
-josh