I would think that by default makes Blogs journalism. Granted that G/F is one of the most horrific assualts on our rights as citizens that we have ever seen.
Blogs have their place. It will be up to individual bloggers to earn their credibility. They are starting off a handicap as it is. Popularity and frank discussion of what is written will determine who among them are journalist and hacks.
The big threat is using heavy handed bullshit laws like G/F to stifle even this form of written expression.
Jessica from Biting the Hand Fame (now a Turbine executive) and Raph Koster are two people's whose writing I enjoy a lot. However once they get on the other side of the system; managing, designing, and implementing the games; they just to seem to lose track of what they espoused earlier.
UO was very amazing when it came out. It was also very buggy and had some serious lag issues. Jokes of "step, step... lag... lag... lag" were common. Rollbacks and server downtimes were considered common events. Yet have games really progressed much since then? Technically yes but other than that I don't see it.
Why? Because these guys talk a better game than they actually implement. They manifest all the problems they rail about. Read BTH and then look at Jessica at Turbine. Pot meets kettle. Raph is really no different. What I found interesting about SWG were some of the same issues found in early UO.
Right now the MMOG scene seems to focus too much on forcing the player down a path with little allowed deviation. Worse too many are relying on PvP to solve the inability to stay ahead of their gaming populations. Look how many games on PCs are relying more on head to head to offer a challenge than the game itself. Consoles are starting to head this way. A recent story covered Privateer being brought back. An world of rich history many today will not connect because they don't know its WC roots. Yet it is a game with both freedom and a story. Starflight was a TBS of similar nature. Where are these games now?
I remember some great strategy games of days gone by that had serious AI lobotomies once they became multiplayer capable (civ and moo come to mind immediately). Are we that much better players or is no one putting the emphasis on better AI design when compared to art? I would think with all the progress of today's computers we could find a challenging game that doesn't require the AI to cheat. It is rare to find any strategy (RT/TB) that beats even games like Empire. Where are the designers now?
What surprised me was how much many open source programmers I have come across act very similar to those who code on major MMORPGs.
I keep expecting a booming voice "Who DARES approach the great and powerful wizard!"
Now this can be expected in some ways as it is easy to get overwhelmed by the popularity. Not in the ego inflating way but the ego crushing way. All the voices shouting at you makes it hard to discern the voices of reason from the voices of insanity (and boy are there many of the later)
You have to use a strawman argument to bring down the accomplishment of another? What in the HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Yes there are people living in misery. There will always be someone suffering. This does not mean we should not recognize that there are some people who will show us that there are goals worth risking ones life for. Goals that break free of the normal lives many of us lead. Perhaps one of those kids in a downtrodden environment will see this as something to aspire to? Do not say its impossible, we have a child of the segregated South where church bombings occured and where lynching was real who is now Secretary of State!
With your attitiude she should have just given up all hope and wallowed in despair.
Yes its unfortunate that not everyone is living a perfect life or at least a good life. Yet to take away dreams from these or people who are better off is far more damning.
Many of his adventures have a big chance in ending in a lethal failure. Yeah he has money, but he is living the dreams of many who do not and inspiring some of them to try to put themselves in the same position.
Your arguments validity ended the moment you compared other offerings to Yugo's. You did not read a single damn thing I wrote, you simply flew off the handle into a fanatic tizzy.
Apple is delivering good quality but I disagree on the price point. They are delivering the best quality THEY have offered at this price point. You are not buying a whole system here and this is my point. Everyone I suggested a mac mini too wants a COMPLETE system. At that point the mini is not appealing. Too many of these people do not want to reuse equipment let alone have to pick the stuff out.
To become the commodity that they are PCs had to become package deals. This is why I think Apple needs to bundle the Mini with pieces people expect. The geeks aren't going to care, they can still buy the box by itself. Yet the majority are going to skip right past it because it isn't a system OUT OF THE BOX.
If the Window's PCs were not delivering the experience people expects then why hasn't Apple already made a comeback? You want the reason, its because APPLE isn't delivering the expected experience. It gets hyped beyond what it can truly support. These very same people here its a godsend to computing yet most NEVER see the result they expected.
Geeks are fed up with the status quo, but guess what most focus that energy into building their own machines, they are not going to go out and buy an Apple. I can only think of one Linux person among the techies I know who even considered it. Most just laughed and say "why bother, I use linux".
Apple needs to deliver a complete system for $699 that the public can take home, plug it all in per a pull out sheet, and use immediately. None of this "do I need what cable" or "having to swap cables around because they don't know what a KVM is" and other such BS. The mini is a geek toy, it has no real appeal to the average "windows" PC user, let alone one frustrated by it. I know a lot of people who can put up with a whole helluva lot of frustration before spending $500 to get over it. The same people harp about the price of the mini yet spend a 100 or so on cable/satellite or their cell. Do you understand that? How do you get them to see a picture that isn't there?
Sorry but the mini-Mac isn't going to win over mom and dad. They will shop for a computer, see that they can get a e-machine/hp/compaq with printer, lcd, and keyboard/mouse for less than a mac-mini.
I wonder what they will buy?
Going the upgrade route? Same thing all over, they can get all these new things for a lower price.
Yes the Mac-Mini is neat, I am a geek, I think its neat too. I also think its $150 to much and would be much better in a bundle. That is where Apple is missing the boat. As a stand-alone device its cool for geeks, but not much of an interest for non-geeks.
Bundle the damn thing and get it out the door for $499 and they might have something. The claims of all the software it comes with is what makes it worthwhile fall short as most Windows PCs have suitable and similar products available. Combine that with what is available as freeware/open-source/etc and where is the advantage of the mac-mini?
I tried to see if my parents would want one, my mother does a lot of desktop publishing and was at one time told to use Quark by a print shop. Turns out the print shop was just as happy to take.PRN files from Windows because that is where the majority of their business was from.
I think what we have here with Intel is just a little stunt to show that people on x86 can think different too. There is nothing miraculous about the mac-mini or other similar systems other than "What in the hell took so long?" Why do I say that? Because I have dealth with thin-clients and variations for quite some time and they are essentially the same thing.
I don't need a Mac. I would not mind toying with one. However as a few friends of mine have also said the current Mac-mini is still too much.
When it drops to around $349 then I will jump. I know a few others that want a $299 price point. As it stands now its not truly a $499 machine either as you need a minimum of 512mb of ram to have a good system.
As for the extra circuts, look at the iPod Shuffle. The chipset it uses is capable of far more than they make use of. They probably just got a great deal on the chipset/board combination and left it alone.
If anything any costs associated with it are recouped by all the free advertising places like the Register and/. give it.
Actually I wonder what kind of contract Wal-Mart has with the major music labels? I would suspect that any increase in fee would first require voiding or extensive reworking of the contracts that are outstanding.
My concern, if the labels get an increase in their fee what is too stop these retailers silently increasing their "costs" behind the scene?
Frankly the labels get too much of a slice of the fee as it is. I would like to see how much is actually given to the artist per sale. I would suspect that a lot of older music gives less than a cent per sold song to the original artist.
Higher than 99 cents? Only if I can get it in the format and quality I want. Only if I have a permanent right to have the song at my disposal. Get near 1.99 and it they can kiss the business model good-bye - which may be what they are after so later down the road the can release their own services.
All this begs the question, if the per song fee increases what happens to the all-you-listen-to sites like Rhaposdy and Napster?
I don't watch TV, why would I want a TIVO?
on
Can TiVo be Saved?
·
· Score: 1
I am curious why you categorize this as a "hater"?
I do not watch TV, I do not have cable or satellite. I do watch DVDs for which I have a suitable TV for them.
I think TIVO is a nice technology but I have zero use for one. Best of luck to them. Don't classify those of us who do not watch TV as "haters"
This is what I don't understand. How can you sit back and trust your local or state government to deliver this service? They cannot even administer the e-rate program without lots of expensive fraud, usually due to corruption. In most cases the e-rate contract winners have a connection (usually relatives) with the local city/county administator.
While I think the telcoms are annoying and some really set out to block competition I find the idea of a government run wireless repugnant. If your lucky it might be good for a year. However someone will start digging and we will see all sorts of wasted money, nepotism, and rules that just crank the costs up quickly. Suddenly this low cost solution starts to cost more, but only for those of certain income brackets.
Wireless IS NOT REQUIRED TO LIVE. Sewer, Electricity, and Phone are. Cell, cable, broadband, and similar are not.
Who is going to pay for the access granted for free to designated "depressed / disenfranchised groups"? Who is going to provide them equiment? Who is going to manage it?
Sorry, at least with the businesses I have a choice. With a government entity there is usually no accountability. A government will fine and penalize an abusive corporation but they will NEVER do that to themselves.
Get over your selfishness, you do not deserve free broadband, especially when it has to come from someone else's income.
If I look on my XP machines using Add/Remove Programs I can find a slew of simple fixes. I connect my PCs at least once a month to get the latest XP updates.
SP2, like SP1, is the equivalent of a major upgrade. It contains all the previous fixes in one package. This makes it very simple for users as well as provides a convienent delivery method for those with slow connections (order a CD, it comes real quick)
I would suggest that we now have 3 versions of XP XP XP/SP1 XP/SP2
I have found that some bugs are fixed fast whereas others take their time coming out. However that seems the case with all OS. We have had cases shown here on/. where other presumably safe programs issued patches on problems they had known years.
Now, if only game providers would provide updates in such form or timely manner. I cannot beging to account for the number of buggy games that were shipped buggy and forever left that way.
It is not worth the paper it is written on. If a treaty's goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions and other pollution then why does it create system to buy or sell the right to pollute? That one part alone makes this treaty trash.
Worse two of the bigger economies, economies driven by industries that pollute heavyily, of China and India essentially immune to it?
Also, by 2012 when the treaty comes up for renewal what happens when no one meets their goals? Both Canada and Japan don't have real plans to meet the goals as neither do a few European countries. We all know the glacial pace of politics, are you really thinking they can do it?
This is nothing more than a song and dance treaty. It makes people feel good and gives them villains to put the blame on for increased pollution. It is not based on real science instead it is based on consensus.
The US will never sign the treaty because it does nothing to protect the environment worldwide. Worst case scenario is that it simply transfer pollution from one part of the world to another.
If you want to reduce pollution then come up with a system that applies fairly to ALL countries and get them ALL aboard. Hell, India and China have already expressed concern - as in they won't agree - with the proposed followup treaties in 2012.
Kyoto is politics at its worst. It was only written to score points in the internation cooties game.
It just shows the abuse that states have granted certain companies over their people. The same trick is used to govern the sale of alcohol. Worse that same abuse was used to confiscate alcohol stored in public resturaunt wine cellars here in Georgia. Yes, the state authority declared that such storage of wine that people purchased elsewhere and brought to Georgia was subject to tax and since it wasn't paid they confiscated. This does nothing to protect consumers, it is done to protect big money who has an interest in controlling the markets with artificially high pricing. They pad their pockets and the politicians who back them.
If people only understood the extent of how much certain items are overpriced because of these laws they would be marching in the streets. Yet people also do not bat an eye at land seizures for private interest I guess I should not be surprised at abuses like this getting a pass.
Sorry but I cannot help but laugh at all uninformed and generally anti-US/anti-Bush comments posted here.
First the whole treaty is a joke. When you do not include the two most powerful up and coming economic engines (China and India) your just blowing smoke. Worse this treaty only lasts to 2012 when it has to be renewed or replaced. Both China and India have said "NO". Of course the US and a few other countries also say NO.
What the Kyoto treaty will do is shift polluting jobs from one area of the world to another. The idea of trading pollution credits is the only example needed to show how flawed this "treaty" is.
If your intent is to reduce greenhouse gases and such then why leave in such a huge backdoor? Simple money. Certain countries with imploding or decreasing economies can sell their credits for cold hard cash.
My prediction. By 2012 we will have found that most signees never met any of their goals. We will see countries like China and India spewing as much if more greenhouse gases than Europe or the US. We will also see them telling all of us to bugger off.
Look at is this way, the US (led by California) and Europe cannot even agree on what car pollution is acceptable and which is not. Hence Europe favors use of diesel in cars by an amazing percentage more than the US. In fact it is nearly impossible to get diesels past California's regulatory system. If scientist who back California's approach are correct then the European scientist are wrong. They cannot both be right can they? Perhaps they are. Just the fail to agree to each others conclusions. I used this as an example of while the treaty is flawed. There really isn't a set standard except that certain western economies must be handicapped by rules that will not be used on "developing counties". This effectively transfers pollution from our backyard to theirs. Again, where is the savings? Where is the protection? Transferring the harm does nothing to solve the problem.
I really applaud his obvious patience. After reading the questions and his anwsers it seemed that the pettiness was very one sided. It got to be a little silly when it came to the portions about malware/spyware/etc
As for the part about the TCO when looking at malware, virus, and trojans, too many people here ignore one major fact.
If you get enough people to use a product your going to have a large number of idiots in that group. It works this way in any large group of unrelated people (unrelated by trade/social group/etc). An example I like to use is a MMORPG. You can find many people who are great to play with but at the same time you are constantly having to deal with the effects the idiots and the exploiters have on your enviroment.
Simply put, with the widespread availability of Windows you are going to have many people who are too stupid to own a computer let alone use it.
I found the portions explaining integration versus interoperability a little light. While Martin made good in his replies I don't think the questions were phrased well enough to get the response that was hoped for.
The EULA comparison to cars was where I found Rob being truly petty. Apples and Oranges. Exceptions have to be made. When you sell something commercially you pretty much have to exclude yourself from claiming what it can do as someone will attempt to extend that meaning into realms it does not belong. This works the same in cars. That Jeep might imply by the fact it has 4-wheel drive that it would work in situations without roads. Yet I guarantee that the manufacturer has all sorts of warnings about how that isn't true. Again, people as well as corporations must protect themselves from idiots. Can we truly blame a corporation that doesn't try or are we to blame them for the fact they didn't try hard enough?
It does not give you rights over another entity. If you signed a confidentiality agreement and violated it a company has the right to find out that you did. If someone else is making use of this information I feel the company has a right to compel them to reveal their source.
People do not readily understand the 1st, let alone the 2nd. The key thrust of the Consititution and Bill of Rights is to limit what the Government can do to us. It is not granting us rights it is protecting our rights.
You can also end up having paid for music you no longer like. If you never end your subscription you really don't lose out. I have over 1800+ songs in iTunes most of which are from CDs. I have another hundred or so CDs I still haven't ripped. What is the value of those songs to me? About nothing. Actually they are not worth a dime to me as I don't listen to them, let alone rememeber them. Value is all in the application and in some cases the immediate only matters.
Also with Apple, if you lose your music due to HDD crash, fire, theft, etc you may not be able to get it back. They authorized me to redownload my songs ONE time (I lost a weeks worth of purchases due to a crash - I was able to get a few back that I had already transfered to my iPod - but not all). So where is my value should I lose all my purchases and iPod in a house fire? Talk with iTunes and see their policy. I still cannot unauthorize my original HDD/PC because they won't let me. The only way I fully recovered was that I did have a back up of a major portion of my purchased music on DVD.
Key to keeping iTunes worth your investment - back up purchased songs on multiple media types and don't keep them all in one place! Otherwise you can lose your entire investment.
I am not saying it will but the story submitted missed out on the fact that people already pay reoccuring charges to access to stuff that they can get free elsewhere.
Examples: Cell Phones : The amounts people dump on these is stupendous.
XM/Sirius : Can't get reception unless you pay.
Cable/Satellite : Same again. Sure you can get it another way but your paying for a package.
This type of service will do fine for those out there who want music for the house, many people overlook this application, or just want to stay current on their "mp3 player" without buying music they may not play again next month.
My problem is that I like to make MP3 CDs for my car. With iTunes I have to burn all my purchased music to audio CD format and rip it back overlaying the purchased version otherwise iTunes will not let me write the song to CD (no AAC to MP3 direct conversion allowed - I am curious if they don't block burn to CD - rip back one day).
If a car MP3 player played DRM protected music I think services like Napster will take off like wildfire. The key to success is to open many ways to play this music your purchased. A portable MP3 player should be able to be defined as "my car" just as much as "my RIO" (fwiw I used to have an iPod - but it DIED! - I may get another one day)
So... Where is Apple in all of this? I am not sure, but preventing other players from synching up with the iPod is still a major flaw. It might not hurt them now but like the mid 80s proved superior items only go so far. Competitors will find the key to taking you down and you will get buried unless you act. Apple lost a good thing before and they seem to be on track to eventually do it again.
I post the same reply nearly every time it comes up. The local governments have no business getting into providing internet service let alone WIRELESS internet service.
I read what he had to say and I call BULLSHIT. It is the same politically correct crap they use all the time to slip more government programs. The routine is to use words like underserved, monopoly, and eventually "redlining". They claim that cable companies, telcos, and similar don't provide service to those who cannot afford it or will even use it yet at the same time they claim there is a need!
This is a vote buying scheme with little difference from how senior centers, libraries, and even police precincts are placed.
Here is what will happen. The contracts will be awarded to those companies who can show they adhere to some contrived quota system of workers. Being in philly this might require union workers, specific health benefits, living wage, or even political affliation. These types of companies are usually nothing more that shells held by friends of the mayor or similar placed people (see Atlanta airport for examples of a big city nepotism).
The contract gets awarded. It delivers inferior service requiring even more consultation by people who just happen to be friends of the same people who authorized it or screwed it up.
So eventually it mostly works. We then find out that most of the target people don't have the equipment to use it. So we buy it for them, to include pc and router from "approved companies". We then have to provide training for those who "did not win lifes lottery" of course by those who meet the nepotism requirements.
Then we stuff the administration of the whole shebang by favorites and such.
So we will end up with an overpriced solution that is staffed by people who have no business touching a net. We will pay to stuff pcs and equipment in homes where the people really won't get the true benefit.
I'd rather let a corporation do it, at least they can be held truly accountable. The government will just make your life miserable if you complain or such.
It has been common throughout history. The most notable European version was Germany twice going on romps through the countryside.
Yes I know its PC to blame America, but America didn't invent the concept of "Might makes Right".
Actually DirectX is the key to windows gaming..
on
The State of Linux Gaming
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That large ass complicated API is many times better than having to futz with APIs provided by multiple vendors. It also reduces if not eliminates the worries that they may have bad versins of all of these independant APIs. It also provides you with several known levels of feature support.
In other words it is LESS COMPLEX to deal with.
On a side note, your entire comment is very hostile to the current game development community and its standards and you wonder why this platform is ignored? Your type are the ones they notice and guess what, they don't want'em.
The difference is that your examples are basic requirements to have a good clean infrastructure. Wireless Internet is a luxury and not employed by many.
If the government provides this service how long before they will have to subsidize the equipment to those who cannot afford it? Pretty soon you end up with little groups of people who get the equipment and service for free because they are classified as one type of minority or another. This is what happens to government programs that are not required to sustain life. They become vote buying schemes.
While I love the idea of cheap wireless I do not want the government controlling it. Unlike private corporations governments have incredible methods of ignoring laws and worse writing new ones that control access and content. They also are very good at pushing an agenda with such services.
So while the article may be FUD this is one area that local governments do not need to stepping into. There is no clear need to provide this service as there is no majority that needs it or has the equipment to use it.
Do not allow the government to expand simply because it convienences you. The more it convienences your the more control it will eventually exert over you. Pretty soon you will find you will only have to access to what they want you to and when they want you to.
No, I do not need tinfoil hat. I just believe in small and non-intrusive government. I also believe that they should only provide the services that are required. They are not here to provide luxuries.
There is a problem with Social Security.
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I am not going to read any of the posts here because I can summarize them very quickly.
"Bush is Liar"
Simply put there is so much Bush-Hate that too many people posting on/. allow it to cloud their judgement. Remember most of the problems Bush explained were brought up in the campaign by both sides at different times.
The key issue here seems to be the words "Trust Fund". There is no such as a trust fund. The current beneficiaries are paid from the general fund. This "run out of money" issues that some claim will not occur until 2042 is what happens when we cannot tax our way out of it.
The Social Security problem is two fold. First there are too many drains on the money. It pays for things that it should never have and to people who should never qualify. The second is that it is on the backs of twisted and failing tax system.
There is no guarantee written anywhere that you will receive benefits. The worst part is that most Americans don't realize that not only do they pay 6.2% of their income to this scheme but their employer does as well. This means that you are paying 13.4% of your income into a plan you have no guarantee of receiving payment from. If you die before you can withdraw none of your survivors benefit. If this were a private organization it would be shut down immediately as it violates so many laws its not funny. If you read the tax laws you would be surprised at the fact that even if you hit max payments with one employer the moment you switch employers you start all over on the deduction count.
The proposal to allow younger tax payers to devote a portion of their SS payments into private accounts puts some of the responsibility back to those who will benefit. There is no plan for 100% privatization. There is no plan to deny benefits promised to those who receive them. The key issue is to provide some means for younger Americans to realize a retirement and should they fail to live to collect it something to pass on to their survivors. The government will still abscond with the majority of the money.
What assails my senses is the fact that so many people just don't care. they argue that the time of failure is too far away to matter. These same people freak out over issues like running out of oil in 50+ years but don't bat an eye on Social Security reform.
Face it, Social Security is really Politician Job Security. They don't care how they end up paying the benefits they just want to make sure you rely on them to do so. When you get old and gray and need the money they will frighten you that someone trying to fix the system is really out to steal it from you. They rely on your GREED and LAZINESS to promote the system as it is and too keep it as it is.
It is your money you are tossing down the rat hole. Speak up! I loose over $9,000 dollars a year to this non-investment. If I die before I can collect nothing will come of my "investment" for my family. Do you really want to tell your kids 20 years down the road that they are Shit Out of Luck because you didn't want to act simply because you could not get over yourself?
GROW UP. It is not going away. I fully expect reform to be part of the political discussion in 08 and beyond. Will you support it then? Or will you let it drag on till your collecting and just comment "its their problem, not mine".
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that by default makes Blogs journalism. Granted that G/F is one of the most horrific assualts on our rights as citizens that we have ever seen.
Blogs have their place. It will be up to individual bloggers to earn their credibility. They are starting off a handicap as it is. Popularity and frank discussion of what is written will determine who among them are journalist and hacks.
The big threat is using heavy handed bullshit laws like G/F to stifle even this form of written expression.
Jessica from Biting the Hand Fame (now a Turbine executive) and Raph Koster are two people's whose writing I enjoy a lot. However once they get on the other side of the system; managing, designing, and implementing the games; they just to seem to lose track of what they espoused earlier.
UO was very amazing when it came out. It was also very buggy and had some serious lag issues. Jokes of "step, step... lag... lag... lag" were common. Rollbacks and server downtimes were considered common events. Yet have games really progressed much since then? Technically yes but other than that I don't see it.
Why? Because these guys talk a better game than they actually implement. They manifest all the problems they rail about. Read BTH and then look at Jessica at Turbine. Pot meets kettle. Raph is really no different. What I found interesting about SWG were some of the same issues found in early UO.
Right now the MMOG scene seems to focus too much on forcing the player down a path with little allowed deviation. Worse too many are relying on PvP to solve the inability to stay ahead of their gaming populations. Look how many games on PCs are relying more on head to head to offer a challenge than the game itself. Consoles are starting to head this way. A recent story covered Privateer being brought back. An world of rich history many today will not connect because they don't know its WC roots. Yet it is a game with both freedom and a story. Starflight was a TBS of similar nature. Where are these games now?
I remember some great strategy games of days gone by that had serious AI lobotomies once they became multiplayer capable (civ and moo come to mind immediately). Are we that much better players or is no one putting the emphasis on better AI design when compared to art? I would think with all the progress of today's computers we could find a challenging game that doesn't require the AI to cheat. It is rare to find any strategy (RT/TB) that beats even games like Empire. Where are the designers now?
End of my rant.
I don't think most Americans would notice the difference, other than hold times and chants.
What surprised me was how much many open source programmers I have come across act very similar to those who code on major MMORPGs.
I keep expecting a booming voice "Who DARES approach the great and powerful wizard!"
Now this can be expected in some ways as it is easy to get overwhelmed by the popularity. Not in the ego inflating way but the ego crushing way. All the voices shouting at you makes it hard to discern the voices of reason from the voices of insanity (and boy are there many of the later)
You have to use a strawman argument to bring down the accomplishment of another? What in the HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Yes there are people living in misery. There will always be someone suffering. This does not mean we should not recognize that there are some people who will show us that there are goals worth risking ones life for. Goals that break free of the normal lives many of us lead. Perhaps one of those kids in a downtrodden environment will see this as something to aspire to? Do not say its impossible, we have a child of the segregated South where church bombings occured and where lynching was real who is now Secretary of State!
With your attitiude she should have just given up all hope and wallowed in despair.
Yes its unfortunate that not everyone is living a perfect life or at least a good life. Yet to take away dreams from these or people who are better off is far more damning.
Many of his adventures have a big chance in ending in a lethal failure. Yeah he has money, but he is living the dreams of many who do not and inspiring some of them to try to put themselves in the same position.
Losers rarely want to do what winners have to do.
Your arguments validity ended the moment you compared other offerings to Yugo's. You did not read a single damn thing I wrote, you simply flew off the handle into a fanatic tizzy.
Apple is delivering good quality but I disagree on the price point. They are delivering the best quality THEY have offered at this price point. You are not buying a whole system here and this is my point. Everyone I suggested a mac mini too wants a COMPLETE system. At that point the mini is not appealing. Too many of these people do not want to reuse equipment let alone have to pick the stuff out.
To become the commodity that they are PCs had to become package deals. This is why I think Apple needs to bundle the Mini with pieces people expect. The geeks aren't going to care, they can still buy the box by itself. Yet the majority are going to skip right past it because it isn't a system OUT OF THE BOX.
If the Window's PCs were not delivering the experience people expects then why hasn't Apple already made a comeback? You want the reason, its because APPLE isn't delivering the expected experience. It gets hyped beyond what it can truly support. These very same people here its a godsend to computing yet most NEVER see the result they expected.
Geeks are fed up with the status quo, but guess what most focus that energy into building their own machines, they are not going to go out and buy an Apple. I can only think of one Linux person among the techies I know who even considered it. Most just laughed and say "why bother, I use linux".
Apple needs to deliver a complete system for $699 that the public can take home, plug it all in per a pull out sheet, and use immediately. None of this "do I need what cable" or "having to swap cables around because they don't know what a KVM is" and other such BS. The mini is a geek toy, it has no real appeal to the average "windows" PC user, let alone one frustrated by it. I know a lot of people who can put up with a whole helluva lot of frustration before spending $500 to get over it. The same people harp about the price of the mini yet spend a 100 or so on cable/satellite or their cell. Do you understand that? How do you get them to see a picture that isn't there?
Sorry but the mini-Mac isn't going to win over mom and dad. They will shop for a computer, see that they can get a e-machine/hp/compaq with printer, lcd, and keyboard/mouse for less than a mac-mini.
.PRN files from Windows because that is where the majority of their business was from.
I wonder what they will buy?
Going the upgrade route? Same thing all over, they can get all these new things for a lower price.
Yes the Mac-Mini is neat, I am a geek, I think its neat too. I also think its $150 to much and would be much better in a bundle. That is where Apple is missing the boat. As a stand-alone device its cool for geeks, but not much of an interest for non-geeks.
Bundle the damn thing and get it out the door for $499 and they might have something. The claims of all the software it comes with is what makes it worthwhile fall short as most Windows PCs have suitable and similar products available. Combine that with what is available as freeware/open-source/etc and where is the advantage of the mac-mini?
I tried to see if my parents would want one, my mother does a lot of desktop publishing and was at one time told to use Quark by a print shop. Turns out the print shop was just as happy to take
I think what we have here with Intel is just a little stunt to show that people on x86 can think different too. There is nothing miraculous about the mac-mini or other similar systems other than "What in the hell took so long?" Why do I say that? Because I have dealth with thin-clients and variations for quite some time and they are essentially the same thing.
I don't need a Mac. I would not mind toying with one. However as a few friends of mine have also said the current Mac-mini is still too much.
/. give it.
When it drops to around $349 then I will jump. I know a few others that want a $299 price point. As it stands now its not truly a $499 machine either as you need a minimum of 512mb of ram to have a good system.
As for the extra circuts, look at the iPod Shuffle. The chipset it uses is capable of far more than they make use of. They probably just got a great deal on the chipset/board combination and left it alone.
If anything any costs associated with it are recouped by all the free advertising places like the Register and
Actually I wonder what kind of contract Wal-Mart has with the major music labels? I would suspect that any increase in fee would first require voiding or extensive reworking of the contracts that are outstanding.
My concern, if the labels get an increase in their fee what is too stop these retailers silently increasing their "costs" behind the scene?
Frankly the labels get too much of a slice of the fee as it is. I would like to see how much is actually given to the artist per sale. I would suspect that a lot of older music gives less than a cent per sold song to the original artist.
Higher than 99 cents? Only if I can get it in the format and quality I want. Only if I have a permanent right to have the song at my disposal. Get near 1.99 and it they can kiss the business model good-bye - which may be what they are after so later down the road the can release their own services.
All this begs the question, if the per song fee increases what happens to the all-you-listen-to sites like Rhaposdy and Napster?
I am curious why you categorize this as a "hater"?
I do not watch TV, I do not have cable or satellite. I do watch DVDs for which I have a suitable TV for them.
I think TIVO is a nice technology but I have zero use for one. Best of luck to them. Don't classify those of us who do not watch TV as "haters"
This is what I don't understand. How can you sit back and trust your local or state government to deliver this service? They cannot even administer the e-rate program without lots of expensive fraud, usually due to corruption. In most cases the e-rate contract winners have a connection (usually relatives) with the local city/county administator.
While I think the telcoms are annoying and some really set out to block competition I find the idea of a government run wireless repugnant. If your lucky it might be good for a year. However someone will start digging and we will see all sorts of wasted money, nepotism, and rules that just crank the costs up quickly. Suddenly this low cost solution starts to cost more, but only for those of certain income brackets.
Wireless IS NOT REQUIRED TO LIVE. Sewer, Electricity, and Phone are. Cell, cable, broadband, and similar are not.
Who is going to pay for the access granted for free to designated "depressed / disenfranchised groups"? Who is going to provide them equiment? Who is going to manage it?
Sorry, at least with the businesses I have a choice. With a government entity there is usually no accountability. A government will fine and penalize an abusive corporation but they will NEVER do that to themselves.
Get over your selfishness, you do not deserve free broadband, especially when it has to come from someone else's income.
If I look on my XP machines using Add/Remove Programs I can find a slew of simple fixes. I connect my PCs at least once a month to get the latest XP updates.
/. where other presumably safe programs issued patches on problems they had known years.
SP2, like SP1, is the equivalent of a major upgrade. It contains all the previous fixes in one package. This makes it very simple for users as well as provides a convienent delivery method for those with slow connections (order a CD, it comes real quick)
I would suggest that we now have 3 versions of XP
XP
XP/SP1
XP/SP2
I have found that some bugs are fixed fast whereas others take their time coming out. However that seems the case with all OS. We have had cases shown here on
Now, if only game providers would provide updates in such form or timely manner. I cannot beging to account for the number of buggy games that were shipped buggy and forever left that way.
It is not worth the paper it is written on. If a treaty's goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions and other pollution then why does it create system to buy or sell the right to pollute? That one part alone makes this treaty trash.
Worse two of the bigger economies, economies driven by industries that pollute heavyily, of China and India essentially immune to it?
Also, by 2012 when the treaty comes up for renewal what happens when no one meets their goals? Both Canada and Japan don't have real plans to meet the goals as neither do a few European countries. We all know the glacial pace of politics, are you really thinking they can do it?
This is nothing more than a song and dance treaty. It makes people feel good and gives them villains to put the blame on for increased pollution. It is not based on real science instead it is based on consensus.
The US will never sign the treaty because it does nothing to protect the environment worldwide. Worst case scenario is that it simply transfer pollution from one part of the world to another.
If you want to reduce pollution then come up with a system that applies fairly to ALL countries and get them ALL aboard. Hell, India and China have already expressed concern - as in they won't agree - with the proposed followup treaties in 2012.
Kyoto is politics at its worst. It was only written to score points in the internation cooties game.
It just shows the abuse that states have granted certain companies over their people. The same trick is used to govern the sale of alcohol. Worse that same abuse was used to confiscate alcohol stored in public resturaunt wine cellars here in Georgia. Yes, the state authority declared that such storage of wine that people purchased elsewhere and brought to Georgia was subject to tax and since it wasn't paid they confiscated. This does nothing to protect consumers, it is done to protect big money who has an interest in controlling the markets with artificially high pricing. They pad their pockets and the politicians who back them.
If people only understood the extent of how much certain items are overpriced because of these laws they would be marching in the streets. Yet people also do not bat an eye at land seizures for private interest I guess I should not be surprised at abuses like this getting a pass.
Sorry but I cannot help but laugh at all uninformed and generally anti-US/anti-Bush comments posted here.
First the whole treaty is a joke. When you do not include the two most powerful up and coming economic engines (China and India) your just blowing smoke. Worse this treaty only lasts to 2012 when it has to be renewed or replaced. Both China and India have said "NO". Of course the US and a few other countries also say NO.
What the Kyoto treaty will do is shift polluting jobs from one area of the world to another. The idea of trading pollution credits is the only example needed to show how flawed this "treaty" is.
If your intent is to reduce greenhouse gases and such then why leave in such a huge backdoor? Simple money. Certain countries with imploding or decreasing economies can sell their credits for cold hard cash.
My prediction. By 2012 we will have found that most signees never met any of their goals. We will see countries like China and India spewing as much if more greenhouse gases than Europe or the US. We will also see them telling all of us to bugger off.
Look at is this way, the US (led by California) and Europe cannot even agree on what car pollution is acceptable and which is not. Hence Europe favors use of diesel in cars by an amazing percentage more than the US. In fact it is nearly impossible to get diesels past California's regulatory system. If scientist who back California's approach are correct then the European scientist are wrong. They cannot both be right can they? Perhaps they are. Just the fail to agree to each others conclusions. I used this as an example of while the treaty is flawed. There really isn't a set standard except that certain western economies must be handicapped by rules that will not be used on "developing counties". This effectively transfers pollution from our backyard to theirs. Again, where is the savings? Where is the protection? Transferring the harm does nothing to solve the problem.
I really applaud his obvious patience. After reading the questions and his anwsers it seemed that the pettiness was very one sided. It got to be a little silly when it came to the portions about malware/spyware/etc
As for the part about the TCO when looking at malware, virus, and trojans, too many people here ignore one major fact.
If you get enough people to use a product your going to have a large number of idiots in that group. It works this way in any large group of unrelated people (unrelated by trade/social group/etc). An example I like to use is a MMORPG. You can find many people who are great to play with but at the same time you are constantly having to deal with the effects the idiots and the exploiters have on your enviroment.
Simply put, with the widespread availability of Windows you are going to have many people who are too stupid to own a computer let alone use it.
I found the portions explaining integration versus interoperability a little light. While Martin made good in his replies I don't think the questions were phrased well enough to get the response that was hoped for.
The EULA comparison to cars was where I found Rob being truly petty. Apples and Oranges. Exceptions have to be made. When you sell something commercially you pretty much have to exclude yourself from claiming what it can do as someone will attempt to extend that meaning into realms it does not belong. This works the same in cars. That Jeep might imply by the fact it has 4-wheel drive that it would work in situations without roads. Yet I guarantee that the manufacturer has all sorts of warnings about how that isn't true. Again, people as well as corporations must protect themselves from idiots. Can we truly blame a corporation that doesn't try or are we to blame them for the fact they didn't try hard enough?
It does not give you rights over another entity. If you signed a confidentiality agreement and violated it a company has the right to find out that you did. If someone else is making use of this information I feel the company has a right to compel them to reveal their source.
People do not readily understand the 1st, let alone the 2nd. The key thrust of the Consititution and Bill of Rights is to limit what the Government can do to us. It is not granting us rights it is protecting our rights.
As such it does not apply here.
You can also end up having paid for music you no longer like. If you never end your subscription you really don't lose out. I have over 1800+ songs in iTunes most of which are from CDs. I have another hundred or so CDs I still haven't ripped. What is the value of those songs to me? About nothing. Actually they are not worth a dime to me as I don't listen to them, let alone rememeber them. Value is all in the application and in some cases the immediate only matters.
Also with Apple, if you lose your music due to HDD crash, fire, theft, etc you may not be able to get it back. They authorized me to redownload my songs ONE time (I lost a weeks worth of purchases due to a crash - I was able to get a few back that I had already transfered to my iPod - but not all). So where is my value should I lose all my purchases and iPod in a house fire? Talk with iTunes and see their policy. I still cannot unauthorize my original HDD/PC because they won't let me. The only way I fully recovered was that I did have a back up of a major portion of my purchased music on DVD.
Key to keeping iTunes worth your investment - back up purchased songs on multiple media types and don't keep them all in one place! Otherwise you can lose your entire investment.
I am not saying it will but the story submitted missed out on the fact that people already pay reoccuring charges to access to stuff that they can get free elsewhere.
Examples:
Cell Phones : The amounts people dump on these is stupendous.
XM/Sirius : Can't get reception unless you pay.
Cable/Satellite : Same again. Sure you can get it another way but your paying for a package.
This type of service will do fine for those out there who want music for the house, many people overlook this application, or just want to stay current on their "mp3 player" without buying music they may not play again next month.
My problem is that I like to make MP3 CDs for my car. With iTunes I have to burn all my purchased music to audio CD format and rip it back overlaying the purchased version otherwise iTunes will not let me write the song to CD (no AAC to MP3 direct conversion allowed - I am curious if they don't block burn to CD - rip back one day).
If a car MP3 player played DRM protected music I think services like Napster will take off like wildfire. The key to success is to open many ways to play this music your purchased. A portable MP3 player should be able to be defined as "my car" just as much as "my RIO" (fwiw I used to have an iPod - but it DIED! - I may get another one day)
So... Where is Apple in all of this? I am not sure, but preventing other players from synching up with the iPod is still a major flaw. It might not hurt them now but like the mid 80s proved superior items only go so far. Competitors will find the key to taking you down and you will get buried unless you act. Apple lost a good thing before and they seem to be on track to eventually do it again.
I post the same reply nearly every time it comes up. The local governments have no business getting into providing internet service let alone WIRELESS internet service.
I read what he had to say and I call BULLSHIT. It is the same politically correct crap they use all the time to slip more government programs. The routine is to use words like underserved, monopoly, and eventually "redlining". They claim that cable companies, telcos, and similar don't provide service to those who cannot afford it or will even use it yet at the same time they claim there is a need!
This is a vote buying scheme with little difference from how senior centers, libraries, and even police precincts are placed.
Here is what will happen. The contracts will be awarded to those companies who can show they adhere to some contrived quota system of workers. Being in philly this might require union workers, specific health benefits, living wage, or even political affliation. These types of companies are usually nothing more that shells held by friends of the mayor or similar placed people (see Atlanta airport for examples of a big city nepotism).
The contract gets awarded. It delivers inferior service requiring even more consultation by people who just happen to be friends of the same people who authorized it or screwed it up.
So eventually it mostly works. We then find out that most of the target people don't have the equipment to use it. So we buy it for them, to include pc and router from "approved companies". We then have to provide training for those who "did not win lifes lottery" of course by those who meet the nepotism requirements.
Then we stuff the administration of the whole shebang by favorites and such.
So we will end up with an overpriced solution that is staffed by people who have no business touching a net. We will pay to stuff pcs and equipment in homes where the people really won't get the true benefit.
I'd rather let a corporation do it, at least they can be held truly accountable. The government will just make your life miserable if you complain or such.
It has been common throughout history. The most notable European version was Germany twice going on romps through the countryside.
Yes I know its PC to blame America, but America didn't invent the concept of "Might makes Right".
That large ass complicated API is many times better than having to futz with APIs provided by multiple vendors. It also reduces if not eliminates the worries that they may have bad versins of all of these independant APIs. It also provides you with several known levels of feature support.
In other words it is LESS COMPLEX to deal with.
On a side note, your entire comment is very hostile to the current game development community and its standards and you wonder why this platform is ignored? Your type are the ones they notice and guess what, they don't want'em.
The difference is that your examples are basic requirements to have a good clean infrastructure. Wireless Internet is a luxury and not employed by many.
If the government provides this service how long before they will have to subsidize the equipment to those who cannot afford it? Pretty soon you end up with little groups of people who get the equipment and service for free because they are classified as one type of minority or another. This is what happens to government programs that are not required to sustain life. They become vote buying schemes.
While I love the idea of cheap wireless I do not want the government controlling it. Unlike private corporations governments have incredible methods of ignoring laws and worse writing new ones that control access and content. They also are very good at pushing an agenda with such services.
So while the article may be FUD this is one area that local governments do not need to stepping into. There is no clear need to provide this service as there is no majority that needs it or has the equipment to use it.
Do not allow the government to expand simply because it convienences you. The more it convienences your the more control it will eventually exert over you. Pretty soon you will find you will only have to access to what they want you to and when they want you to.
No, I do not need tinfoil hat. I just believe in small and non-intrusive government. I also believe that they should only provide the services that are required. They are not here to provide luxuries.
I am not going to read any of the posts here because I can summarize them very quickly.
/. allow it to cloud their judgement. Remember most of the problems Bush explained were brought up in the campaign by both sides at different times.
"Bush is Liar"
Simply put there is so much Bush-Hate that too many people posting on
The key issue here seems to be the words "Trust Fund". There is no such as a trust fund. The current beneficiaries are paid from the general fund. This "run out of money" issues that some claim will not occur until 2042 is what happens when we cannot tax our way out of it.
The Social Security problem is two fold. First there are too many drains on the money. It pays for things that it should never have and to people who should never qualify. The second is that it is on the backs of twisted and failing tax system.
There is no guarantee written anywhere that you will receive benefits. The worst part is that most Americans don't realize that not only do they pay 6.2% of their income to this scheme but their employer does as well. This means that you are paying 13.4% of your income into a plan you have no guarantee of receiving payment from. If you die before you can withdraw none of your survivors benefit. If this were a private organization it would be shut down immediately as it violates so many laws its not funny. If you read the tax laws you would be surprised at the fact that even if you hit max payments with one employer the moment you switch employers you start all over on the deduction count.
The proposal to allow younger tax payers to devote a portion of their SS payments into private accounts puts some of the responsibility back to those who will benefit. There is no plan for 100% privatization. There is no plan to deny benefits promised to those who receive them. The key issue is to provide some means for younger Americans to realize a retirement and should they fail to live to collect it something to pass on to their survivors. The government will still abscond with the majority of the money.
What assails my senses is the fact that so many people just don't care. they argue that the time of failure is too far away to matter. These same people freak out over issues like running out of oil in 50+ years but don't bat an eye on Social Security reform.
Face it, Social Security is really Politician Job Security. They don't care how they end up paying the benefits they just want to make sure you rely on them to do so. When you get old and gray and need the money they will frighten you that someone trying to fix the system is really out to steal it from you. They rely on your GREED and LAZINESS to promote the system as it is and too keep it as it is.
It is your money you are tossing down the rat hole. Speak up! I loose over $9,000 dollars a year to this non-investment. If I die before I can collect nothing will come of my "investment" for my family. Do you really want to tell your kids 20 years down the road that they are Shit Out of Luck because you didn't want to act simply because you could not get over yourself?
GROW UP. It is not going away. I fully expect reform to be part of the political discussion in 08 and beyond. Will you support it then? Or will you let it drag on till your collecting and just comment "its their problem, not mine".