Right, and when was the last time you could trust a company's privacy policy? After the crap that's been pulled with me, some company with the capability to track this kind of information won't have my trust. They should have opt-IN policies, not opt-out.
I won't buy a TIVO because I don't need yet another friggin' company recording every last thing I do. It's sickening. If some company would just come out with a decent product that sold on the product's nature (IE: letting you record or fast forward TV), then I would buy it. But they always throw in these crap terms that force you to let them track your usage, so they can make even more money off you, thus making your life even more miserable (because your damn mail box gets crammed full of junk mail trying to sell you crap that's "related" to what you watched on TV). No thanks. This is why I won't shop at Safeway and why I won't ever buy another Microsoft product.
What happened to the days when a company produced a product and just SOLD IT, instead of trying to profit off every single thing they possibly could? I don't see wal-mart trying to track what I buy, and they're doing great. I don't have to fill out a form to buy a Sony monitor. I don't have to plug my Nintendo into a phone line to get it to let me play games, why should I have to in order to watch TV?
It's all big frustrating mess, and I refuse to support companies that value me not for the money I spend on their products, but rather for the money they make off selling my information to 100 other companies, who in turn sell it to another 100 companies each.
Good, idea, however, it wasn't practical in that situation. I was living in an apartment in southern CA where I had a lease, no other internet access was available, and I had put off paying the bill for so long (trying to settle it BEFORE I sent them any money) that they were 2 days away from switching off my phone.
No phone, no internet access. No internet access, no job. No job, no money. I probably had enough in savings to live for a month or two, but by the time I got back online, the web site would have been in shambles. Also, does anyone know how long it takes to get a court to hear a case? I don't (never been to court...).
Fortunately, I live in a completely different state now. However, it's STILL QWEST! When I first got here, it was US WEST but they got bought out by Qwest... as soon as I heard the "privacy policy" I tried to opt out, but everyone knows the story of them not answering the phones + their site didn't work, so I cancelled the phone altogether (praise cable internet access! - and the nice thing, I had a choice to get DSL as well).
...please don't turn broadband internet access into the shambles that is the "modern" telephone system. People think Microsoft is a monopoly, but I'll tell you what, Qwest is the monopoly in this area. Most (if not all?) areas have a single telephone company that services everyone, so basically, if you have a problem with the company, you have absolutely no choice but to deal with their crap.
For instance, Qwest promised me 7cents a minute long distance, but when the bill came, it was $800 - they were charging me 25cents a minute because of a computer operator error on their part.
At the time I was working solely online, and I used the telephone lines to access the internet for my job - so guess, what? If I didn't pay them $800, they were going to switch off my phone (and thus completely removing my livelihood). Even after 6 months straight of talking to them on the phone once a week, they never gave me a credit. I was promised, at least a dozen times, that my account would be credited - but it never was. Turns out the "Customer Service Representatives" just put in a request for credit, and these secret guys in the back (that they wouldn't let me talk to, no matter how I begged) were in charge of actually issuing it. Well apparently they didn't agree with the CSR that kept promising me credits.
Anyway, I didn't mean for this to turn into a rant about Qwest, but the point is, don't give us this local monopoly crap that we have to deal with for phone, electricity, etc. Soon as we have that, we'll have them supporting only one operating system, overcharging, giving us crap "privacy policies" like Qwest's new one (they should call that an "anti-privacy policy").
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1014-201-7005495-0.htm l
All the talk about how MS is encouraging competition by giving the consumer a choice... but then when pressed, the guy tells the real story. Manufacturers are only allowed to sell PCs that give the user a choice, loading up Windows FIRST, then they have to choose otherwise...
NO DUH! Of course they'd accept that, because by the time the consumer has the option to switch to another pre-loaded OS, Windows is already on there... which means MS has already made their extra $130 on the price of the computer.
Furthermore, OEMs can only put their own icons on the desktop if they allow MS icons as well (IE: advertisements).
I don't get what they're so scared of... if MS really feels it has a quality product, it has nothing to fear. People will choose Windows at the outset and then people might actually feel good about it, as opposed to how it works now... even if you don't WANT windows on your new PC, you have to pay for it. Nobody likes being forced. Nobody likes being pushed around.
Then he goes on about how MS is going to offer choices of different OSs... oh right... yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.
It's obvious this guy thinks that installing Windows on every new PC is somehow a "right" of MS simply because they created it.
"Well, something we don't permit and the court said they understand was that the user interface can be replaced without the user deciding that's OK...We think the user should make that choice so we have a coherent Windows experience when it comes up."
Windows has to be on there first, MS makes their money, and obviously, if the choice is given by MS, whose product will they encourage?
The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth... Top that off with the fact that at my school and at the stores (all comps over 1.5ghz machines with 256+mb of ram) windows XP ran so sluggish... Most people don't notice/care, but I spend enough time on my computer that it would waste a significant amount of time waiting for My Computer, My Documents or IE 15-30 seconds per invocation... it will really add up, and I'm not willing to slow down, especially like that on those fast computers.
For example, NPD's sample does not reflect system sales at Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, and also the largest retail outlet for NINTENDO GAMECUBE.
Spurred by aggressive marketing campaigns that have plastered video game ads on everything from soda cans to late-night TV, sales of consoles, software and peripherals will surge 36% to $6.4 billion this year, according to estimates released Monday by NPDFunworld, a market research firm in Port Washington, N.Y.
But remember, NPD doesn't track sales from Wal-Mart (which just happens to be the GameCube's number 1 retailer). I wonder if the CSFB gets some of their numbers from NPD?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and when was the last time you could trust a company's privacy policy? After the crap that's been pulled with me, some company with the capability to track this kind of information won't have my trust. They should have opt-IN policies, not opt-out.
Yeah, but once you have one, it doesn't matter whether you skip their commercials. They're advertising to the people that don't already have one.
I won't buy a TIVO because I don't need yet another friggin' company recording every last thing I do. It's sickening. If some company would just come out with a decent product that sold on the product's nature (IE: letting you record or fast forward TV), then I would buy it. But they always throw in these crap terms that force you to let them track your usage, so they can make even more money off you, thus making your life even more miserable (because your damn mail box gets crammed full of junk mail trying to sell you crap that's "related" to what you watched on TV). No thanks. This is why I won't shop at Safeway and why I won't ever buy another Microsoft product.
What happened to the days when a company produced a product and just SOLD IT, instead of trying to profit off every single thing they possibly could? I don't see wal-mart trying to track what I buy, and they're doing great. I don't have to fill out a form to buy a Sony monitor. I don't have to plug my Nintendo into a phone line to get it to let me play games, why should I have to in order to watch TV?
It's all big frustrating mess, and I refuse to support companies that value me not for the money I spend on their products, but rather for the money they make off selling my information to 100 other companies, who in turn sell it to another 100 companies each.
Good, idea, however, it wasn't practical in that situation. I was living in an apartment in southern CA where I had a lease, no other internet access was available, and I had put off paying the bill for so long (trying to settle it BEFORE I sent them any money) that they were 2 days away from switching off my phone.
No phone, no internet access. No internet access, no job. No job, no money. I probably had enough in savings to live for a month or two, but by the time I got back online, the web site would have been in shambles. Also, does anyone know how long it takes to get a court to hear a case? I don't (never been to court...).
Fortunately, I live in a completely different state now. However, it's STILL QWEST! When I first got here, it was US WEST but they got bought out by Qwest... as soon as I heard the "privacy policy" I tried to opt out, but everyone knows the story of them not answering the phones + their site didn't work, so I cancelled the phone altogether (praise cable internet access! - and the nice thing, I had a choice to get DSL as well).
...please don't turn broadband internet access into the shambles that is the "modern" telephone system. People think Microsoft is a monopoly, but I'll tell you what, Qwest is the monopoly in this area. Most (if not all?) areas have a single telephone company that services everyone, so basically, if you have a problem with the company, you have absolutely no choice but to deal with their crap.
For instance, Qwest promised me 7cents a minute long distance, but when the bill came, it was $800 - they were charging me 25cents a minute because of a computer operator error on their part.
At the time I was working solely online, and I used the telephone lines to access the internet for my job - so guess, what? If I didn't pay them $800, they were going to switch off my phone (and thus completely removing my livelihood). Even after 6 months straight of talking to them on the phone once a week, they never gave me a credit. I was promised, at least a dozen times, that my account would be credited - but it never was. Turns out the "Customer Service Representatives" just put in a request for credit, and these secret guys in the back (that they wouldn't let me talk to, no matter how I begged) were in charge of actually issuing it. Well apparently they didn't agree with the CSR that kept promising me credits.
Anyway, I didn't mean for this to turn into a rant about Qwest, but the point is, don't give us this local monopoly crap that we have to deal with for phone, electricity, etc. Soon as we have that, we'll have them supporting only one operating system, overcharging, giving us crap "privacy policies" like Qwest's new one (they should call that an "anti-privacy policy").
Don't all Linux distros claim to be "not just another Linux distro?"
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1014-201-7005495-0.htm l
All the talk about how MS is encouraging competition by giving the consumer a choice... but then when pressed, the guy tells the real story. Manufacturers are only allowed to sell PCs that give the user a choice, loading up Windows FIRST, then they have to choose otherwise...
NO DUH! Of course they'd accept that, because by the time the consumer has the option to switch to another pre-loaded OS, Windows is already on there... which means MS has already made their extra $130 on the price of the computer.
Furthermore, OEMs can only put their own icons on the desktop if they allow MS icons as well (IE: advertisements).
I don't get what they're so scared of... if MS really feels it has a quality product, it has nothing to fear. People will choose Windows at the outset and then people might actually feel good about it, as opposed to how it works now... even if you don't WANT windows on your new PC, you have to pay for it. Nobody likes being forced. Nobody likes being pushed around.
Then he goes on about how MS is going to offer choices of different OSs... oh right... yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.
It's obvious this guy thinks that installing Windows on every new PC is somehow a "right" of MS simply because they created it.
"Well, something we don't permit and the court said they understand was that the user interface can be replaced without the user deciding that's OK...We think the user should make that choice so we have a coherent Windows experience when it comes up."
Windows has to be on there first, MS makes their money, and obviously, if the choice is given by MS, whose product will they encourage?
The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth... Top that off with the fact that at my school and at the stores (all comps over 1.5ghz machines with 256+mb of ram) windows XP ran so sluggish... Most people don't notice/care, but I spend enough time on my computer that it would waste a significant amount of time waiting for My Computer, My Documents or IE 15-30 seconds per invocation... it will really add up, and I'm not willing to slow down, especially like that on those fast computers.