its UI in general isn't really that appealing to me. ... I don't have any definate percentages ... I think it would be more than generous ... most likely less ... So the facts can speak for themselves
What "facts"? Did I miss something in your original post? All I saw was your speculation and wild-assed guesses about what other people like, how many people use Opera, how many have downloaded it, how many have received it from friends, etc.
percantage of opera hits to a popular website
Since Opera identifies itself as Mozilla 3.0, 4.76, 5.0, IE 5, or Opera based on user choice, it's impossible to tell how many users hit popular websites with it. For someone who has "used Opera for large amounts of time", you sure don't seem to know much about it.
The reason there has never been that many security vulnerabilities reported with Opera is because almost no one uses it.
The Linux version alone has had over 1 million downloads. Since I blew holes in your assertion that web logs reveal the number of Opera users, you have no grounds whatsoever to claim that "almost no one uses it."
Further, security vulnerabilities are not based on popularity. Want proof? There is a CERT advisory about security vulnerabilities in Alcatel Speed Touch ADSL modems!
Not to mention Opera's ad based shareware idea isn't really gaining them that many users
Again, you are simply making this stuff up. You don't know how many people use the ad-supported version, how many use the registered version, whether registrations have gone up or down since the change, etc.
You are not in a position to judge. I am. I've used both extensively.
a small percentage of people prefer the opera UI
What percentage? Where did the figures come from? Who paid for the study? Or did you just pull that statement out of your a**?
and I've to see any real proof that its superior in any other area either.
Your loss, but I don't have the time to educate you. Can you honestly say that you have seen as many security vulnerabilities reported for Opera as for IE?
Consumer Protection Laws that are currently active don't protect the consumer at all.
I beg to differ. I think that laws against false and deceptive advertising help the consumer immensely. The laws regarding consumer credit are tremendously valuable. They guarantee that a consumer can see his/her credit history and dispute erroneous entries. Laws that require that manufacturers of food products accurately list ingredients not only help consumers, they saves lives (allergies). The Magnuson-Moss warranty act, that prevents a manufacturer from denying warranty claims when you use aftermarket products (e.g., a Fram oil filter in your GM car). Laws against bait-and-switch advertising help consumers. I could go on for pages, but I think you see my point.
Can you name ONE competitor to ANY of Microsoft's products that works decently enough, that is compatible across the board with the hardware that the average user has, that is easy to teach to the laymen, and that looks and feels good?
Yes. Opera 6 is a superior browser to IE 5.5. The UI is superior. The security is superior. When there is a rendering problem on a site, it is almost invariably due to some Microsoft "extension" to HTML that was put in to stifle competition.
How is selling a printer for $50 and cartridges for $30 colluding?
When all of the manufacturers get together and agree to do it, it's collusion. And I believe that is what happened.
If I come out with a $300 printer and $10 cartridges, will you buy it?
Not necessarily, but if it's $200, does not dry out the ink cartridges if unused for a week, and has reliability approaching my laser printer, sure I'll buy it. And so would many others. I'd even think about it at $300 if it had good paper handling, print quality, interface, etc.
The "Libertarian bullshit" about starting a company won't work well as long as we have all this government protection of "big business."
I said that consumers needed protection, not big business. I'll agree that we need a lot less corporate welfare.
But that does not mean that every time I am dissatisfied with a product sector that I should start a company. I don't want to go into competition with Canon, HP, Lexmark, and Epson. I just want an inkjet printer that does not use miniscule, expensive cartridges that are engineered to fail.
Yeah, he's testy, but he's right. I, too, am sick of the Libertarian bullshit of telling me to start a company every time that I voice a complaint about a product or service.
I'm sick of hearing about how the "free market" will fix everything. The only thing that the free market will guarantee is a lot of companies that are very efficient at generating profits. If the free market is so f****** wonderful, explain Microsoft!
I'd rather have consumer protection laws passed and enforced by a government with no stake in the transactions than have a bunch of big companies collude to cheat consumers.
Don't you worry about that evil old government. Enron is working for your best interests.
Tax avoidance through compliance with the code and regulations is just being smart.
And donating huge sums of money to Congressional campaigns to get these favorable loopholes is just good business? This just goes to show that something can be legal and still be unethical.
I submitted this story this time last night, and got rejected.
Damn! So close to fame, fortune, and the good life and then life deals you this horrid blow!
Seriously, there could be any number of reasons. The person who decided against running your story might be a different person than the one that ran the story today. Maybe the way that you wrote yours up was less in keeping with the Slashdot style (e.g., perhaps you did not include enough typos and misspellings). Don't sweat it. It's not like any of us remember who submitted the various stories we read here.
The argument should be that consumers and the electronics industry should not bear the cost of protecting the intellectual property of the RIAA and MPAA.
If you want alternative legislation, propose a consumer's bill of rights that guarantees consumers the right to copy multimedia files for their own use and that prohibits technology that would impinge on that ability.
I think it's dishonest to recommend anything other than that which best serves your employer's needs (whether it's open or closed-source.)
How is it "dishonest" for me to "prefer commercial software" and to not "look for ways to keep from paying other software engineers"?
Here's a wake-up call for you: Your employer is not looking out for your interests. They are looking out for theirs. They would love to see the bottom drop out of the programming market so that they could pay you half (or less) of what you earn now. If using open source software helped put a few more software engineers on the street, they'd be happy to use it.
Here's a hypothetical: Suppose you found open-source software that would eliminate your employer's need to keep you and four of your coworkers employed. Would it be "dishonest" not to recommend it?
If software engineers don't start considering the health of their profession, they are going to be in for a rude awakening.
Well, if the required functionality can be obtained for free, I prefer free.
I'm a software engineer, so I prefer to see software engineers paid to create software. I don't want to see the entire team that works on Microsoft Office get laid off. I don't want them out on the street competing for jobs and driving wages down (what happens when there are more workers than jobs for them to fill).
I use free software and am not violently opposed to it. I recognize that we can't all justify going out and purchasing lots of expensive packages for personal use. But when I specify a product for my company to buy, I prefer commercial software. I think it's hypocritical for a professional software engineer, paid to develop software, to look for ways to keep from paying other software engineers.
I agree with you completely. This constant push to come up with free alternatives to successful commercial packages is generally harmful to the software industry and those employed in it.
So many Slashdot readers want to make a career in software development yet many of them believe that all software should be free. I read some of the absurd counter-arguments to your well-reasoned post and they've got more holes in them than swiss cheese. The claim that significant numbers of companies will hire programmers to modify free GPL office suites is absurd. Companies don't modify word processors and spreadsheets. They use them. They don't want to be in a position where they would have to pay a programming staff to migrate customizations to each new version as it came out.
Similarly ridiculous is the the claim that there is a real and significant market for software engineers to modify GPL software in general. Most of us think it's cool when companies run Linux/BSD. How many of those companies are paying people to modify, say, KDE, Gnome, or Mozilla? (Note that I said "how many of those companies are" and not "is your company." One person posting a response that his company pays him to modify GPL software and 50 other posters saying "yeah, what he said" does not mean that there is a burgeoning market.)
One poster said:
the huge,overwhelming, vast majority of software engineers and developers do not work on mass-market software packages, but on custom and/or specialized software for internal corporate use.
This is wrong-headed on so many counts. First, what do you think it will do to salaries in general if a large percentage of developers of mass-market software find themselves unemployed -- and eyeing the same jobs you are interested in?
What a self-centered attitude! The people that write commercial software are fellow programmers and yet you don't care about them because they are in the minority. It reminds me of this verse by Pastor Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Those of us who are, or aspire to be, software engineers should be supporting all software engingeers -- not just those working in the exact same sub-field as ours.
Like the original poster, I don't have any desire to end up as a system administrator or someone doing phone support for Redhat. Because of that, I try to find good commercial products that meet my company's needs. While I feel that Microsoft Office is bloated with too many esoteric features, it is a very good office suite -- regardless of my distaste for Microsoft as a company. The creation of it has meant employment for many skilled software engineers. For that reason, I hope that it continues to enjoy commercial success and that any competitor that may someday supplant it is also a commercial software product.
Did it ever occur to you that this device could really improve the quality of life for a handicapped person? Maybe you could start yucking it up about how great wheelchairs are for people too lazy to walk. Your sensitivity is truly impressive.
Washington, D.C. -- Republicans in Congress are pushing for a tax on thrift store purchases to fund the welfare system. Hypothesizing that many thrift store shoppers are impoverished and, hence, interested in the welfare system, Republicans proposing the legislation claim that it's far more fair than the current system of funding where taxes collected from "hard-working Americans" (like Kenneth Lay) fund these programs.
OK, I started things by getting a bit too personal, but you sure jumped in.
Kerry,
You figured out what you did that made me jump in and why I did so at a personal level.
The guy to whom you responded might be a talented, skilled programmer. Insulting him, and his employer, because his philosophy of programming and yours differ was out of line (in my view). But you seem like a decent fellow and recognize that your remarks were a bit over the line, so no harm done.
Unfortunately, many companies can get away with crap code, and I guess yours is one of them...
Or maybe he and his colleagues are more talented than you are. Perhaps the code you write at your best is equivalent to what they turn out when they are hung over after a weekend of binge drinking.
I've been an embedded systems engineer for over 20 years and I've seen lots of engineers who loudly proclaim that the code that they write is elegance itself. It usually is not. The best software engineers are often the quiet, modest ones who turn out clever, tight, well-documented code day in and day out. You don't seem like one of those guys...
Now if they gave you some options like manual record even if you nolonger have the service and set my clock options then people might not complain as much about the cost.
Or people might buy the boxes for less than TiVo's cost and never subscribe to the service. TiVo does not want the hardware to be useful to you if you don't buy their service. To them, the sole purpose of the hardware is to sell you the service.
One can hardly argue that the books are for childeren due to the use of Magic and Witchcraft.
The next thing you know, someone will be claiming that Halloween is for children. Oh yeah, it is.
Are you one of those born-again Christian nut cases that claim that these stories teach children satanism and that witchcraft is real? If so, please grow up and join the rest of us in the 21st century. If you actually believe in witchcraft, satan, and all of that other occult stupidity, I pity you.
Somewhere, someone got the twisted idea that child pornography was illegal because it is, to most viewers distasteful and offensive.
Child pornography was illegal because it relied on the exploitation and sexual abuse of children. Virtual child pornography, created wholly by computer, does not endanger children. In fact, I submit that it reduces the danger to children. I would much rather that a pedophile be sitting in front of his computer screen than prowling the streets around an elementary school.
Unfounded arguments that virtual child pornography will lead to pedophiles molesting more children are illogical. People don't normally view pornography and then seek out a victim. Men who buy Playboy Magazine do not normally view it and then go out to sexually assualt women. So it makes no sense to assume that a pedophile would view child pornography and then go out to sexually assault children.
I think that the Supreme Court took a step back from the brink here. We were on the virge of creating a whole class of victimless thought-crimes that would have had a stifling effect on free speech.
When you buy a cell phone, you can always drop service (assuming you ended or fufilled your contract and choose a new service provider).
That's actually not always true. Many cell phones now are married to the provider's network. In other words, company A's phones only work with company A's network. If you go to company B, you need to buy a new cell phone.
Also, unlike my cell phone company, TiVo did not lock me into a contract when I bought the hardware. But you didn't expect TiVo to subsidize the price of the unit and then let you buy service from someone else, did you?
The other PVR's seem to have no problems without charging for service.
They charge for the service up front, building the price into the unit. Just because it's not a line item on the receipt doesn't mean that you got it for free.
Tivo will have to do a lot more for me than what it currently does for $12.95 a month.
$12.95 just isn't that much money to most TiVo customers. It's not like it takes hours (or even an hour) of work to earn $13 each month. Having a unit that records every show that I ask for, watches for programming of the type that I like, and lets me enter a "wish list" of programs and movies to record at any time is easily worth $13/month to me.
Also I believe if you buy the lifetime plan it only gives life time service to that unit, so you're screwed if you upgrade.
That's because they lose money on hardware sales. They don't want you to pay $250 for a lifetime subscription and then lose $150 (wild-assed-guess) on each year when you upgrade to a new unit.
However I have a problem with a company that offers a "service" but not really a service but an over priced gimmick to sell hardware.
Since they lose money on each TiVo box that they sell, using the service to entice people to buy the box doesn't make much sense, does it? So much for your "ton of business sense."
I would have a problem if there was an alternative to the TIVO service, but their isnt, so they are linking a hardware product to a service that is not necessary.
Your "logic" is so screwed up, I'll just have to break it down via a list.
1. If the service is not necessary, why would you want an alternative?
2. If the service is just an "overpriced gimmick" that is "not necessary", why would that convince someone to buy the hardware?
3. Since the TiVo box can do little without the service, how is the service not necessary?
4. Since they sell the box at a loss and don't require that you purchase the service, why don't people just all buy the box and never subscribe to the service -- if the service is "unnecessary", "overpriced", and a "gimmick"?
A perfect analogy to this would be to claim that cell phone providers are selling you a service that is just an overpriced gimmick so that they can convince you to buy a $200 Nokia phone from them for $.01.
I'm becoming very concerned with many companies these days not being satified with making a sale. And instead feel that they are entitled to a monthy cut of your income.
So you think TiVo should sell you the box at a loss and then provide you access to their TiVo guide services via a dial-up modem link at no charge for the rest of your life?
but I get pissed when companies get the attitude that once you are their customer, they can do whatever they want (raise prices
Yes, they can raise prices. You can choose to cancel the service if the prices get too high, but it's their service and they can charge what they want for it.
It is astounding how many people on Slashdot lack the business abilities necessary to run a lemonade stand.
your glee at the thought of "kicking the shit" out of people with addictions might be understandable.
Where did you get "glee" from that? I said that they needed someone to do that if they spent more than a few hours a week playing the game.
But since you've been around so long, and learned so little in that time, you're pretty pathetic.
Just what makes you so smug in your belief that I am wrong or that I have learned "so little"? And what expertise do you have in curing people of computer game "addition"? We are talking about people here who have lost their jobs, spouses, and friends to play computer games. Did you think that you were just going to sit down and reason with them? Did you envision them saying "You're right. I do play EverQuest too much. Let me uninstall that right now..."?
Intervention for addicts is sometimes required. Sadism is not.
Please stop being melodramatic. I didn't suggest that people beat them with coat hangers, burn them with torches, or otherwise torture them. I used a colloquialism. In fact, I went on to say "They need someone who will walk up to their computer, push them away from it, kill their imaginary character, give away all of the imaginary crap that they've amassed in the game, and unplug their Internet connection."
That hardly puts me in the same category with the Marquis de Sade and Jeff Dahmer.
P.S. I went to your web site and and I find it disappointing that someone with whom I share so much would choose to be so condescending and self-righteous at our first meeting.
your glee at the thought of "kicking the shit" out of people with addictions might be understandable.
Where did you get "glee" from that? I said that they needed someone to do that if they spent more than a few hours a week playing the game.
But since you've been around so long, and learned so little in that time, you're pretty pathetic.
And just what makes you so smug in your belief that I am wrong or that I have learned "so little"? What makes you the expert on interventions when it comes to computer game addiction? Do you think that quietly reasoning with people that have lost their jobs and abandoned their families to play computer games will "cure" them?
Intervention for addicts is sometimes required. Sadism is not.
Please stop being melodramatic. I didn't suggest that people beat them with coat hangers, burn them with torches, or otherwise torture them. I used a colloquialism. In fact, I went on to say They need someone who will walk up to their computer, push them away from it, kill their imaginary character, give away all of the imaginary crap that they've amassed in the game, and unplug their Internet connection.
That hardly puts me in the same category with the Marquis de Sade and Jeff Dahmer.
P.S. I went to your web site and I find it disappointing that someone with whom I share political views would introduce himself in the way that you did.
Slashdot Mirror
its UI in general isn't really that appealing to me.
...
I don't have any definate percentages
...
I think it would be more than generous
...
most likely less
...
So the facts can speak for themselves
What "facts"? Did I miss something in your original post? All I saw was your speculation and wild-assed guesses about what other people like, how many people use Opera, how many have downloaded it, how many have received it from friends, etc.
percantage of opera hits to a popular website
Since Opera identifies itself as Mozilla 3.0, 4.76, 5.0, IE 5, or Opera based on user choice, it's impossible to tell how many users hit popular websites with it. For someone who has
"used Opera for large amounts of time", you sure don't seem to know much about it.
The reason there has never been that many security vulnerabilities reported with Opera is because almost no one uses it.
The Linux version alone has had over 1 million downloads. Since I blew holes in your assertion that web logs reveal the number of Opera users, you have no grounds whatsoever to claim that "almost no one uses it."
Further, security vulnerabilities are not based on popularity. Want proof? There is a CERT advisory about security vulnerabilities in Alcatel Speed Touch ADSL modems!
Not to mention Opera's ad based shareware idea isn't really gaining them that many users
Again, you are simply making this stuff up. You don't know how many people use the ad-supported version, how many use the registered version, whether registrations have gone up or down since the change, etc.
This is just a complete waste of time.
nope sorry.
You are not in a position to judge. I am. I've used both extensively.
a small percentage of people prefer the opera UI
What percentage? Where did the figures come from? Who paid for the study? Or did you just pull that statement out of your a**?
and I've to see any real proof that its superior in any other area either.
Your loss, but I don't have the time to educate you. Can you honestly say that you have seen as many security vulnerabilities reported for Opera as for IE?
Consumer Protection Laws that are currently active don't protect the consumer at all.
I beg to differ. I think that laws against false and deceptive advertising help the consumer immensely. The laws regarding consumer credit are tremendously valuable. They guarantee that a consumer can see his/her credit history and dispute erroneous entries. Laws that require that manufacturers of food products accurately list ingredients not only help consumers, they saves lives (allergies). The Magnuson-Moss warranty act, that prevents a manufacturer from denying warranty claims when you use aftermarket products (e.g., a Fram oil filter in your GM car). Laws against bait-and-switch advertising help consumers. I could go on for pages, but I think you see my point.
Can you name ONE competitor to ANY of Microsoft's products that works decently enough, that is compatible across the board with the hardware that the average user has, that is easy to teach to the laymen, and that looks and feels good?
Yes. Opera 6 is a superior browser to IE 5.5. The UI is superior. The security is superior. When there is a rendering problem on a site, it is almost invariably due to some Microsoft "extension" to HTML that was put in to stifle competition.
How is selling a printer for $50 and cartridges for $30 colluding?
When all of the manufacturers get together and agree to do it, it's collusion. And I believe that is what happened.
If I come out with a $300 printer and $10 cartridges, will you buy it?
Not necessarily, but if it's $200, does not dry out the ink cartridges if unused for a week, and has reliability approaching my laser printer, sure I'll buy it. And so would many others. I'd even think about it at $300 if it had good paper handling, print quality, interface, etc.
The "Libertarian bullshit" about starting a company won't work well as long as we have all this government protection of "big business."
I said that consumers needed protection, not big business. I'll agree that we need a lot less corporate welfare.
But that does not mean that every time I am dissatisfied with a product sector that I should start a company. I don't want to go into competition with Canon, HP, Lexmark, and Epson. I just want an inkjet printer that does not use miniscule, expensive cartridges that are engineered to fail.
Yeah, he's testy, but he's right. I, too, am sick of the Libertarian bullshit of telling me to start a company every time that I voice a complaint about a product or service.
I'm sick of hearing about how the "free market" will fix everything. The only thing that the free market will guarantee is a lot of companies that are very efficient at generating profits. If the free market is so f****** wonderful, explain Microsoft!
I'd rather have consumer protection laws passed and enforced by a government with no stake in the transactions than have a bunch of big companies collude to cheat consumers.
Don't you worry about that evil old government. Enron is working for your best interests.
Tax avoidance through compliance with the code and regulations is just being smart.
And donating huge sums of money to Congressional campaigns to get these favorable loopholes is just good business? This just goes to show that something can be legal and still be unethical.
I submitted this story this time last night, and got rejected.
Damn! So close to fame, fortune, and the good life and then life deals you this horrid blow!
Seriously, there could be any number of reasons. The person who decided against running your story might be a different person than the one that ran the story today. Maybe the way that you wrote yours up was less in keeping with the Slashdot style (e.g., perhaps you did not include enough typos and misspellings). Don't sweat it. It's not like any of us remember who submitted the various stories we read here.
the intellectual property of the RIAA and MPAA.
I should have said "the intellectual property of RIAA and MPAA members."
I have to learn to either read more carefully before I post or not read again after I post...
The argument should be that consumers and the electronics industry should not bear the cost of protecting the intellectual property of the RIAA and MPAA.
If you want alternative legislation, propose a consumer's bill of rights that guarantees consumers the right to copy multimedia files for their own use and that prohibits technology that would impinge on that ability.
I think it's dishonest to recommend anything other than that which best serves your employer's needs (whether it's open or closed-source.)
How is it "dishonest" for me to "prefer commercial software" and to not "look for ways to keep from paying other software engineers"?
Here's a wake-up call for you: Your employer is not looking out for your interests. They are looking out for theirs. They would love to see the bottom drop out of the programming market so that they could pay you half (or less) of what you earn now. If using open source software helped put a few more software engineers on the street, they'd be happy to use it.
Here's a hypothetical: Suppose you found open-source software that would eliminate your employer's need to keep you and four of your coworkers employed. Would it be "dishonest" not to recommend it?
If software engineers don't start considering the health of their profession, they are going to be in for a rude awakening.
Well, if the required functionality can be obtained for free, I prefer free.
I'm a software engineer, so I prefer to see software engineers paid to create software. I don't want to see the entire team that works on Microsoft Office get laid off. I don't want them out on the street competing for jobs and driving wages down (what happens when there are more workers than jobs for them to fill).
I use free software and am not violently opposed to it. I recognize that we can't all justify going out and purchasing lots of expensive packages for personal use. But when I specify a product for my company to buy, I prefer commercial software. I think it's hypocritical for a professional software engineer, paid to develop software, to look for ways to keep from paying other software engineers.
I agree with you completely. This constant push to come up with free alternatives to successful commercial packages is generally harmful to the software industry and those employed in it.
So many Slashdot readers want to make a career in software development yet many of them believe that all software should be free. I read some of the absurd counter-arguments to your well-reasoned post and they've got more holes in them than swiss cheese. The claim that significant numbers of companies will hire programmers to modify free GPL office suites is absurd. Companies don't modify word processors and spreadsheets. They use them. They don't want to be in a position where they would have to pay a programming staff to migrate customizations to each new version as it came out.
Similarly ridiculous is the the claim that there is a real and significant market for software engineers to modify GPL software in general. Most of us think it's cool when companies run Linux/BSD. How many of those companies are paying people to modify, say, KDE, Gnome, or Mozilla? (Note that I said "how many of those companies are" and not "is your company." One person posting a response that his company pays him to modify GPL software and 50 other posters saying "yeah, what he said" does not mean that there is a burgeoning market.)
One poster said:
the huge,overwhelming, vast majority of software engineers and developers do not work on mass-market software packages, but on custom and/or specialized software for internal corporate use.
This is wrong-headed on so many counts. First, what do you think it will do to salaries in general if a large percentage of developers of mass-market software find themselves unemployed -- and eyeing the same jobs you are interested in?
What a self-centered attitude! The people that write commercial software are fellow programmers and yet you don't care about them because they are in the minority. It reminds me of this verse by Pastor Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Those of us who are, or aspire to be, software engineers should be supporting all software engingeers -- not just those working in the exact same sub-field as ours.
Like the original poster, I don't have any desire to end up as a system administrator or someone doing phone support for Redhat. Because of that, I try to find good commercial products that meet my company's needs. While I feel that Microsoft Office is bloated with too many esoteric features, it is a very good office suite -- regardless of my distaste for Microsoft as a company. The creation of it has meant employment for many skilled software engineers. For that reason, I hope that it continues to enjoy commercial success and that any competitor that may someday supplant it is also a commercial software product.
Definitely worth a look for us truly lazy folks.
Did it ever occur to you that this device could really improve the quality of life for a handicapped person? Maybe you could start yucking it up about how great wheelchairs are for people too lazy to walk. Your sensitivity is truly impressive.
Somehow, seeing Priscilla rip off her jersey at the end of a match just won't be the same as seeing Brandi Chastain do it.
On the other hand, Priscilla could play the part of "Ally McBeal" if they ever revive that series...
Washington, D.C. -- Republicans in Congress are pushing for a tax on thrift store purchases to fund the welfare system. Hypothesizing that many thrift store shoppers are impoverished and, hence, interested in the welfare system, Republicans proposing the legislation claim that it's far more fair than the current system of funding where taxes collected from "hard-working Americans" (like Kenneth Lay) fund these programs.
OK, I started things by getting a bit too personal, but you sure jumped in.
Kerry,
You figured out what you did that made me jump in and why I did so at a personal level.
The guy to whom you responded might be a talented, skilled programmer. Insulting him, and his employer, because his philosophy of programming and yours differ was out of line (in my view). But you seem like a decent fellow and recognize that your remarks were a bit over the line, so no harm done.
Peace.
Unfortunately, many companies can get away with crap code, and I guess yours is one of them...
Or maybe he and his colleagues are more talented than you are. Perhaps the code you write at your best is equivalent to what they turn out when they are hung over after a weekend of binge drinking.
I've been an embedded systems engineer for over 20 years and I've seen lots of engineers who loudly proclaim that the code that they write is elegance itself. It usually is not. The best software engineers are often the quiet, modest ones who turn out clever, tight, well-documented code day in and day out. You don't seem like one of those guys...
Now if they gave you some options like manual record even if you nolonger have the service and set my clock options then people might not complain as much about the cost.
Or people might buy the boxes for less than TiVo's cost and never subscribe to the service. TiVo does not want the hardware to be useful to you if you don't buy their service. To them, the sole purpose of the hardware is to sell you the service.
One can hardly argue that the books are for childeren due to the use of Magic and Witchcraft.
The next thing you know, someone will be claiming that Halloween is for children. Oh yeah, it is.
Are you one of those born-again Christian nut cases that claim that these stories teach children satanism and that witchcraft is real? If so, please grow up and join the rest of us in the 21st century. If you actually believe in witchcraft, satan, and all of that other occult stupidity, I pity you.
Somewhere, someone got the twisted idea that child pornography was illegal because it is, to most viewers distasteful and offensive.
Child pornography was illegal because it relied on the exploitation and sexual abuse of children. Virtual child pornography, created wholly by computer, does not endanger children. In fact, I submit that it reduces the danger to children. I would much rather that a pedophile be sitting in front of his computer screen than prowling the streets around an elementary school.
Unfounded arguments that virtual child pornography will lead to pedophiles molesting more children are illogical. People don't normally view pornography and then seek out a victim. Men who buy Playboy Magazine do not normally view it and then go out to sexually assualt women. So it makes no sense to assume that a pedophile would view child pornography and then go out to sexually assault children.
I think that the Supreme Court took a step back from the brink here. We were on the virge of creating a whole class of victimless thought-crimes that would have had a stifling effect on free speech.
When you buy a cell phone, you can always drop service (assuming you ended or fufilled your contract and choose a new service provider).
That's actually not always true. Many cell phones now are married to the provider's network. In other words, company A's phones only work with company A's network. If you go to company B, you need to buy a new cell phone.
Also, unlike my cell phone company, TiVo did not lock me into a contract when I bought the hardware. But you didn't expect TiVo to subsidize the price of the unit and then let you buy service from someone else, did you?
The other PVR's seem to have no problems without charging for service.
They charge for the service up front, building the price into the unit. Just because it's not a line item on the receipt doesn't mean that you got it for free.
Tivo will have to do a lot more for me than what it currently does for $12.95 a month.
$12.95 just isn't that much money to most TiVo customers. It's not like it takes hours (or even an hour) of work to earn $13 each month. Having a unit that records every show that I ask for, watches for programming of the type that I like, and lets me enter a "wish list" of programs and movies to record at any time is easily worth $13/month to me.
Also I believe if you buy the lifetime plan it only gives life time service to that unit, so you're screwed if you upgrade.
That's because they lose money on hardware sales. They don't want you to pay $250 for a lifetime subscription and then lose $150 (wild-assed-guess) on each year when you upgrade to a new unit.
I have a ton of business sense.
No, you don't, as you are about to demonstrate...
However I have a problem with a company that offers a "service" but not really a service but an over priced gimmick to sell hardware.
Since they lose money on each TiVo box that they sell, using the service to entice people to buy the box doesn't make much sense, does it? So much for your "ton of business sense."
I would have a problem if there was an alternative to the TIVO service, but their isnt, so they are linking a hardware product to a service that is not necessary.
Your "logic" is so screwed up, I'll just have to break it down via a list.
1. If the service is not necessary, why would you want an alternative?
2. If the service is just an "overpriced gimmick" that is "not necessary", why would that convince someone to buy the hardware?
3. Since the TiVo box can do little without the service, how is the service not necessary?
4. Since they sell the box at a loss and don't require that you purchase the service, why don't people just all buy the box and never subscribe to the service -- if the service is "unnecessary", "overpriced", and a "gimmick"?
A perfect analogy to this would be to claim that cell phone providers are selling you a service that is just an overpriced gimmick so that they can convince you to buy a $200 Nokia phone from them for $.01.
I'm becoming very concerned with many companies these days not being satified with making a sale. And instead feel that they are entitled to a monthy cut of your income.
So you think TiVo should sell you the box at a loss and then provide you access to their TiVo guide services via a dial-up modem link at no charge for the rest of your life?
but I get pissed when companies get the attitude that once you are their customer, they can do whatever they want (raise prices
Yes, they can raise prices. You can choose to cancel the service if the prices get too high, but it's their service and they can charge what they want for it.
It is astounding how many people on Slashdot lack the business abilities necessary to run a lemonade stand.
I got a timeout after the initial submission and tried to recreate it only to discover the original had been processed after all.
your glee at the thought of "kicking the shit" out of people with addictions might be understandable.
Where did you get "glee" from that? I said that they needed someone to do that if they spent more than a few hours a week playing the game.
But since you've been around so long, and learned so little in that time, you're pretty pathetic.
Just what makes you so smug in your belief that I am wrong or that I have learned "so little"? And what expertise do you have in curing people of computer game "addition"? We are talking about people here who have lost their jobs, spouses, and friends to play computer games. Did you think that you were just going to sit down and reason with them? Did you envision them saying "You're right. I do play EverQuest too much. Let me uninstall that right now..."?
Intervention for addicts is sometimes required. Sadism is not.
Please stop being melodramatic. I didn't suggest that people beat them with coat hangers, burn them with torches, or otherwise torture them. I used a colloquialism. In fact, I went on to say "They need someone who will walk up to their computer, push them away from it, kill their imaginary character, give away all of the imaginary crap that they've amassed in the game, and unplug their Internet connection."
That hardly puts me in the same category with the Marquis de Sade and Jeff Dahmer.
P.S. I went to your web site and and I find it disappointing that someone with whom I share so much would choose to be so condescending and self-righteous at our first meeting.
your glee at the thought of "kicking the shit" out of people with addictions might be understandable.
Where did you get "glee" from that? I said that they needed someone to do that if they spent more than a few hours a week playing the game.
But since you've been around so long, and learned so little in that time, you're pretty pathetic.
And just what makes you so smug in your belief that I am wrong or that I have learned "so little"? What makes you the expert on interventions when it comes to computer game addiction? Do you think that quietly reasoning with people that have lost their jobs and abandoned their families to play computer games will "cure" them?
Intervention for addicts is sometimes required. Sadism is not.
Please stop being melodramatic. I didn't suggest that people beat them with coat hangers, burn them with torches, or otherwise torture them. I used a colloquialism. In fact, I went on to say They need someone who will walk up to their computer, push them away from it, kill their imaginary character, give away all of the imaginary crap that they've amassed in the game, and unplug their Internet connection.
That hardly puts me in the same category with the Marquis de Sade and Jeff Dahmer.
P.S. I went to your web site and I find it disappointing that someone with whom I share political views would introduce himself in the way that you did.