Steve wouldn't want the job unless he could be president number 0.
For those of you that don't know, when Apple got round to issuing employee numbers, Steve Jobs was pretty peeved that he couldn't be employee number 1 as Steve Wozniak had already nabbed that priviledge for himself. Unable to convince Wozniak to change, Jobs took employee number 0 rather than be stuck behind Wozniak with the employee number 2 tag.
It's possibly illegal, but I don't see the problem. They can't tell how many people watch X show (unless you have the box), and you presumably still see the ads. Who cares?
The people who care are the broadcasters and the people responsible for the original programming, both of whom are deprived of potential revenue.
If Channel XYZ is being streamed over the internet then there is no incentive to viewers to subscribe to XYZ. (Most people won't pay for something that they can get for free, irrespective of whether it's legitimately free or not.)
Additionally, a drop in subscribers means a drop in measureable viewers. As advertising revenues are closely tied to viewing figures (because the more people watching a given ad, the more it's worth to the advertiser) fewer viewers means less income that way too.
So, unauthorised internet streams hurt a TV channel by depriving it of both subscription (assuming it's not a free to air channel) and ad revenue.
Similarly, if a programme is freely available online then fewer people will watch it on TV or buy it on VHS or DVD. The reduced TV audience will mean a less valuable product in terms of TV rights (programme makers sell their shows to the channels and, again, the value of a show will increase if it attracts more viewers) and the VHS and DVD sales will take a hit as fewer people buy the programmes on those media because they can get it for free elsewhere.
Please note, I'm not attaching any morality to unauthorised internet streaming. I'm just trying to explain (for the benefit of this AC and others who may wonder) why it hurts broacasters and the original content creators.
(Personally, I do believe that such streaming is wrong, for the reasons outlined. At the end of the day, if something costs x and you don't want to pay that price for it then that's your choice. But just because you think it's only worth x/2 or whatever that doesn't give you the right to take it for nothing. Regardless of whether it's legal or not, it sure isn't morally right.
That's my personal view and, frankly, I know it's one that a small minority of/. readers will never be able to understand. Well, at least until it's their income that's being hit - then they'll be crying blue murder.)
What we'd hear from some (in)famous brains of our time:
George W. Bush's brain: I must remember to chew my pretzels. Bomb Iraq. I must remember to chew my pretzels. Bomb Iraq. I must remember to chew my pretzels. Bomb Iraq.
Tony Blair's brain: I must do whatever Dubya says cos Dubya's a smart man and he obviously knows what he's doing. Now where's my leash?
Saddam Hussein's brain: I didn't have anything to do with that attack. Why's George picking on me all of a sudden?
Osama Bin Laden's brain: Boy, am I glad that George's forgotten about me!
Bill Gates's brain: With all these wars to worry about I think the Government's forgotten about me. Time to pull out those plans for world domination again.
Pamela Anderson's brain: Gee, My boobs are looking kinda small. Time to call the surgeon again.
Britney Spear's brain: Damn that Christina's dirty. I wish I was.
Justin Timberlake's brain: Damn, I wish I was Michael Jackson. I'd love to be in his shoes.
Michael Jackson's brain: Damn, I wish I was with Justin Timberlake. I'd love to be in his trousers.
Slashdot editor's brain: Hmmm, yet another duplicate story/obvious hoax/shameless plug for a "me too" product. Now where's that "post" button gone?
Damn this is a recent repeat. Not even any more info either. I'm sure all of us would like to examine this browser just to see if it is true.
More info: http://radio.weblogs.com/0103966/2003/01/14.html Even has every media player: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/ 2003/01/13/190872 http://www.esatbtyoungscientist .com/
Uh-oh. It's deja vu all over again. Someone call Yogi Berra...
OK, I'm not a luddite, I understand that progress is a Good Thing (TM) but am I the only one getting dizzy at the speed at which the hard disk drive industry seems to be moving?
In the last five years, typical hard disk drive sizes have increased more than ten-fold, transfer speeds have shot up too and prices have come right down.
The net effect of all these factors is that HDDs have now become commodities and many manufacturers - put off by both the shrinking profit margins available and the high investment costs of developing the next generation of drives - have left the business.
There are now only four major players left, and all of them are doing whatever they can to maintain profitability. Cranking up volume only works so far - there are only so many customers out there, especially in today's economy - so manufacturers have looked to cut costs elsewhere.
Two critical areas that seem to have taken a major hit are quality control and warranties. More and more drives (and in some cases, entire drive families) seem to be failing at every given opportunity. Meanwhile, the length for which they're covered has shrunk back from (typically) three years to the minimum one.
Sure, at the high-end, speed will always be appreciated, but how many of us run render farms? The market is near-saturated (not everyone needs 200GB or even 20GB, because not everyone is a MP3/MPEG/whatever addict) and that situation isn't going to change any time soon.
I would be much happier with an industry that still has some real competition and offers customers reliable, well-supported products in five years time than one that has breakneck-speed products from top to bottom but which break down every five minutes.
For 99% of users, data integrity is the holy grail and everything else comes a distant second. I wish manufacturers would remember that.
Why don't I have a right to pass on what's mine to somebody else? Should my worldly possessions both material and etherial become public domain or the property of the state when I die? Where does that line end, with my personal copyrights (whether I'm an author, artist or innovator), or does it extend to everything I own, including the clothes on my back? I ask because you don't seem to make any distinction.
I laugh at your "devine right of kings" argument. Are you suggesting that US culture (I assume you're American, you're post seems to suggest it) is based upon the rejection of inheritance? That each generation inherits nothing from the previous one?
That's just plain laughable. Look at who owns what in your society. 1% of the people own 50% of the wealth. Old money rules, in business and in politics. Do you think that George W. Bush would be your president if it wasn't given everything on a platter by his daddy (and his daddy's daddy and his daddy's grandaddy)?
Sheesh.
The American War of Independence was about taxation, not about inheritance, or even representation. When you celebrate on the 4th July you're raising a glass to a bunch of fat, middle-aged men who didn't want to pay their taxes. Not coincidentally, it's those same middle-aged men (metaphorically-speaking) that are screwing you now.
Now for the euros you get screwed everytime you pick the phone up with metering, so I could see how inane text messageing would be the way to go, but personally when I think of cell phone I think of phone, not device with sucky ergonomics to type messages in.
Can someone please tell me what people find so objectionable to the idea that the caller party pays (CPP)? If I want to send someone a letter then I have to pay for the service - the paper, the envelope and, most importantly, the stamp. And, in just about every market outside of North America, the same model is applied to telephone calls.
Frankly this makes far more sense than the US model - if you want to talk to me then why should I have to pay for the priviledge of having to hear what you have to say? And how would you feel if the mail worked that way too? Can you imagine having to pay the postal service for receiving bills or junk mail?
Now, if you make lots of calls you pay more than someone who makes only a few. This makes sense - the more you use a service, the more you pay for it.
Heavy users can plan accordingly, by subscribing to a plan that has a lot of inclusive minutes and/or for which the call costs are greatly reduced (eg, a few US cents per minute).
Meanwhile, light users aren't penalised into contracts that require them to shell out big bucks for a service they don't use. Sure, they pay more for their calls, but the rates aren't that much more than those of public phones.
So in Europe, a business man who uses his phone constantly can pay a fixed monthly fee and use his phone as much as he likes whilst, on the same network, a frail grandmother who only has a phone for emergencies can go months without having to pay a single penny for the peace of mind that having a phone gives her.
How is this a bad thing?
Roaming costs? What roaming costs? It's just not an issue in Europe. Nationwide long distance? I pay one rate for all calls, irrespective of who I call or where they are.
Again, not a bad thing.
Sometimes, when things are different, it's because they are different for a very good reason.
Err, I hate to rain on your parade but you can walk into any phone store in Europe and buy a tri-band phone on a choice of networks that will work virtually anywhere in the world (including the US).
And as for radio, internet, and other telephone, the choices are just as varied as those you've oulined - those services and services and technologies do exist outside of the US and have done for some time.
True there is more cell phone coverage in Europe than in the US. However the US has a lot less people.
Hmmm, I guess this is is straying off-topic but I have to correct you on that. The population of the European Union right now is roughly 280 million. This will rise to around 360 million once the new members (mostly former Eastern Bloc states) join.
Compare that to the US population of roughly 300 million. Hardly "a lot less people" is it?
True, Europe is more densely populated than the US but most as Americans live in urban areas (cities, towns) it doesn't make that much difference.
Sure, if you live in a remote area of Utah then you're not going to find network coverage everywhere but the same is true of some places in Europe. However, it is fair to say that the percentage of land where you can't find coverage is far greater for the US than it is for the majority of Europe.
Paraphrasing Animal Farm, all legislators are stupid but some legislators (ie, US ones) are more stupid than others.
The European DCMA-alike is being pushed for by the same organisations that lobbied for the DCMA in the US - ie, large multinational corporations.
(Capitalism does have an ugly side, and sometimes the victims aren't the overworked, underpaid sweatshop workers somewhere in the third world but the the overworked, underpaid sweatshop workers somewhere in the first world. The DCMA is just one example of a law that places the rights of the corporation above the rights of the individual.)
Where corporations abuse their monopoly positions, the EU at least tries to do the right thing by protecting the rights of the individual. Toner cartridge refills are one just one such case.
Bottom line is this: It's likely that, in the long-run, a Lexmark/HP/Canon/whoever-owning individual will pay less for his/her printer consumables if they live in the EU than if they live in the US. So why get down on the EU for that?
(Is it me, or do a small minority of American/. readers jump at every opportunity to bash anything that isn't covered in stars and stripes? Why? The civilised world doesn't end at your borders.)
(Yeah, yeah. Moderate this as flamebait, off-topic or trolling. See if I care. You're only proving my point.)
What the hell is this "SDPIF" that you keep going on about?
I've heard of SPDIF - Sony Philips Digital Interface - but I can't find any info online on this new-fangled interface that you've got on your Creative and AOpen drives.
Could you please elaborate with some detailed technical information for the less enlightened amongst us?
USA - the world's biggest polluter. So what's new?
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
The United States is the world's biggest polluter. This isn't trolling. This isn't flaming. This is fact.
Four percent of the world's population, 25 percent of the pollution. Way to go, USA.
Recent American achievements in the "who cares if your kids got asthma?" race:
Torpedoing any serious effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the 1997 Kyoto agreement (thanks, Bill Clinton).
Later reneging on America's commitment to ratify that agreement, despite the fact that 178 other nations have done so (thanks, George W. Bush).
Failing to tackle arsenic pollution in its own drinking water (currently at levels way above those that would be illegal in Europe and elsewhere) until 2004 (thanks again, Bill).
Attempting to reverse that legislation, only to have it blow up in his face (thanks again, Dubya).
Allowing Alcoa, the world's third largest Aluminium maker, to profit from a loophole in Texas environmental laws by further polluting that state with 60,000 tons of sulphur dioxide each year (from which Paul O'Neill, Dubya's Secretary to the Treasury profited).
Cutting funding for research into cleaner, more fuel efficient cars by 28% (Dubya again).
Reversing an age-old bi-partisan policy of demanding more fuel effieciency from car makers (Bill again).
Carrying on that policy (Dubya again).
Exempting SUVs from having to meet the same minimum mileage requirements of other cars (Bill again).
Cancelling the 2004 deadline for car makers to develop prototype high-mileage cars (Dubya again).
Breaking a campaign promise to invest $100 million into rain forest conservation (Dubya again).
Vetoing a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences of chemical plant accidents (Dubya again).
Refusing to honour an international accord to enforce a 1972 treaty banning germ warfare (Dubya again).
Cutting $500 million from the Environmental Protection Agency's budget (Dubya again).
Ignoring campaign promises to regulate carbon dioxide emissions (Dubya again).
Proposing the opening up of previously unspoilt national monuments in Alaska and elsewhere in the hunt for yet more coal, oil and gas (Dubya again).
Permitting oil and gas developments off the coast of Florida and in Montana forests (Dubya again).
Attempting to reverse legislation protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging and road building (Dubya again).
Promoting the development of "mini-nukes, in direct violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (Dubya again).
The list goes on and on.
Not only is the US the world's biggest polluter, it's also the world's biggest consumer. Per capita, Americans use more energy, more oil, more gas than any other nation in the world.
Even the most patriotic simpleton has got to see that this isn't something to be proud of - if nothing else, the shit's going to hit the fan sooner or later. Why not try and do something about it?
Gotta love those eco-friendly trans-atlantic train lines;)
There's always one (or two) isn't there? For your education (if not entertainment), let me just hit you with a few basic facts:
1. 95% of Americans don't have a passport.
If most Americans don't bother to get a passport what does that suggest to you about the frequency with which they make transatlantic trips?
2. Most Americans who board a plane do so to fly domestically.
And, seeing as only a limited number of them are travelling to and from Hawaii, that means almost all of them could reach their destination by train or even coach.
Is flying from New York to Philadelphia really that much faster or convenient than the alternatives?
3. There is another method of crossing the oceans. It's called a boat.
Newsflash: Christopher Columbus didn't travel to the new world on American Airlines.
4. Just because you can open your mouth and say something, it doesn't mean that you have to do so.
Try resisting the need to comment where none is necessary. If you must comment then at least try to come up with something vaguely intelligent - trust me, it really doesn't hurt to engage your brain before you open your mouth.
But thanks* for taking a quote our of context. What I actually said was:
Oh yeah, you might think about changing your choice of carrier too - or perhaps even taking a slower, more eco-friendly and safer form of transport (hint: trains).
Fail to spot the word "perhaps" there, buddy? I think, perhaps, you did.
(*This is irony. If you have trouble understanding it - just like you have seem to have trouble understanding other basic words - then, please, invest in a dictionary.)
The first time that one of these systems is used and a passenger/patient dies because his/her plane was not diverted to the closest possible landing site where the appropriate medical aid could have saved their life is the day that the airlines will ditch these devices.
Can you just imagine what kind of field day the lawyers, press and politicians would have in that scenario? Can you see how fast the relevant airline's stock would plummet? And how hard a blow it would make to their future bookings?
Nothing cripples a business faster than a reputation for putting profits before the safety and lives of their customers - just ask Firestone.
The day that airlines start rolling out these devices is the day to start dumping your airline (and other aviation) stock. Oh yeah, you might think about changing your choice of carrier too - or perhaps even taking a slower, more eco-friendly and safer form of transport (hint: trains).
The downturn in the world economy can only have a negative effect on the numbers of American students going to university - when times are bad, people who don't have the benefit of a college fund built up by their parents since birth are less likely to find putting themselves into heavy debt for the foreseable future an attractive proposition for a qualification that won't necessarily get them a well-paid job. And, when there are thousands of people out there who already have those qualifications and years of real-world experience competing for almost every opening, the odds of a new graduate finding his/her dream job - or even a relevant job in their field - can become an impossible task.
(Conversely, in Europe, Australia and elsewhere, where the cost of education to the individual is either paid for or subsidised by the state, a poor job market can be a greater incentive to go to university.)
Fewer students means more choice for students, as colleges are forced to fight harder to get the numbers they need to fill their programmes. Inevitably, this means that the most prestigous universities, such as the Ivy league, MIT, Caltech, will continue to prosper, whilst those lower down the ladder suffer. At the bottom end, it becomes a dog eat dog scenario, and universities that fail to meet their projected student numbers can find themselves vulnerable.
(Of course, the fact that research funding will follow a similar pattern during tough times doesn't help either.)
My guess is your college is one of the vulnerable ones. It's cutting cost where it can (closing down an entire campus surely suggests a fall in student numbers) and making its courses more attractive to students (dropping the need for everyone to take required courses in order to graduate).
Of course, as you're almost finished there, there's little you can do except to bite the bullet and finish your degree. But, if you're going to supplement your education with a masters or a doctorate then you might be better off looking to read those elsewhere - if the college's student numbers and graduate quality falls in the coming years studying elsewhere higher up the food chain should help you from being pigeon-holed as someone who only has "a worthless degree from a third-rate college".
Sure, it's a harsh assessment but, believe me, it's a harsh world out there. Compared to the real world, college is paradise.
...buy phones that they know are on their last legs for $600 (or whatever you paid for it).
Seriously, you bought a 4-year old hand set for a few hundred bucks? How much would a new one, with a greater feature set and a warranty have cost?
I do have some sympathy for you but try to see both points of view. The mobile telecoms is even faster than the PC industry in bringing out newer and newer models - even the new phone I bought two years ago is now two or three generations old (WAP, colour screens, picture messaging have all been introduced since).
A six year-old phone is even more removed from today's handsets and it's entirely possible that Nokia's refusal to ship the part is because it's no longer manufactured for them and they have none left. The situation is akin togoing to Ford and asking them to sell you an original part for a 1950's convertible. Just as Ford won't have it (why would they have inventory for something that old?) neither will Nokia (or Ericsson, Motorola, Sagem, Samsung, etc).
Again, I appreciate how frustrating this must be to you but if you're going to live in a capitalist society then you're going to be a victim to market forces every now and again. And in this case, market forces dictate that there is no point or profit in a multi-billion dollar company stocking a 35 cent part for a product that's technologically obsolete.
Duh. I am aware of Australia's geographical size and the cost of laying cable but I was hoping someone (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?) would know just how much of a dent this would put into a potential subscriber's pocket and how much less of a dent it puts than the existing alternatives.
The good thing about cable is that, once it's been laid, it's relatively inexpensive to maintain and quite reliable. I'm not sure that's the case here but, nevertheless, it'd be interesting to see the numbers.
A friend of mine sent me a link to his uncle's startup...
Translation: "Go look there and buy those puppies! Buy two! Buy as many as you can! Cos when my friend's uncle sees the amount of sales I've generated for him he's gonna have to give me a couple of these to play with and put me on the payroll too! Sweet!"
(Or, alternatively, he might just get pissed at you for/.ing his server.)
Seriously, I appreciate that this is/., where editors fall for even the most obvious of hoaxes but would it be asking too much if someone was to tone down the number of free ads/informercials we see disguised as genuine news stories? This isn't even a shipping product yet! It's still in development!
OK, it's the holidays and I've had more than I usually would have to drink in the last couple of days but would it really kill the/. editors to edit?
Building, launching and maintaining a telecoms satellite is not something that you can be done on a shoestring budget; these things cost money.
According to the second link given, the satellite project has a budget of AUS $20million over seven years. And given that the majority of Australia's population lives in urban centres, there are going to be relatively few people using this satellite as their broadband service provider.
High costs and low potential usage doesn't exactly suggest that this will be a cheap solution - quite the opposite in fact.
Quoting from the linked page:
Its purposes are: to establish Australian capability in microsatellite technologies; to develop expertise necessary for sustaining those industries and profiting from them; to test and develop Australian-developed intellectual property; and to provide a research platform for Australian space-science, communication and GPS studies.
Note, it's described as a research platform, not a commercial development. (Perhaps this is where the cheap comes from, perhaps the broadband service is subsidised in some way.)
Bottom line: I don't see this benefiting all but a few and even then it's a platform that's just getting off the ground (if you'll pardon the pun)and likely to be problematic rather than one that delivers rock-solid reliability.
Of course, IANAA (I am not an Australian), so would any of our more leaned, koala-loving friends care to give their perspective?
Slashdot Mirror
Let me get this straight, you want a good POST diagnostic card packed with all the latest features?
So, what your really looking for are POST cards from the edge?
No thanks required. No, really.
What are you doing with this machine? You're not putting DRM-enabled drives into your Kazaa server are you?
That way, /. posters will be able to flame RIAA, hammer home the blandness of mainstream music offerings and blame Canada in a single post!
Think about it, in future you'll be able to get three on-topic posts for the price of one! Woot!
Steve wouldn't want the job unless he could be president number 0.
For those of you that don't know, when Apple got round to issuing employee numbers, Steve Jobs was pretty peeved that he couldn't be employee number 1 as Steve Wozniak had already nabbed that priviledge for himself. Unable to convince Wozniak to change, Jobs took employee number 0 rather than be stuck behind Wozniak with the employee number 2 tag.
It's possibly illegal, but I don't see the problem. They can't tell how many people watch X show (unless you have the box), and you presumably still see the ads. Who cares?
/. readers will never be able to understand. Well, at least until it's their income that's being hit - then they'll be crying blue murder.)
The people who care are the broadcasters and the people responsible for the original programming, both of whom are deprived of potential revenue.
If Channel XYZ is being streamed over the internet then there is no incentive to viewers to subscribe to XYZ. (Most people won't pay for something that they can get for free, irrespective of whether it's legitimately free or not.)
Additionally, a drop in subscribers means a drop in measureable viewers. As advertising revenues are closely tied to viewing figures (because the more people watching a given ad, the more it's worth to the advertiser) fewer viewers means less income that way too.
So, unauthorised internet streams hurt a TV channel by depriving it of both subscription (assuming it's not a free to air channel) and ad revenue.
Similarly, if a programme is freely available online then fewer people will watch it on TV or buy it on VHS or DVD. The reduced TV audience will mean a less valuable product in terms of TV rights (programme makers sell their shows to the channels and, again, the value of a show will increase if it attracts more viewers) and the VHS and DVD sales will take a hit as fewer people buy the programmes on those media because they can get it for free elsewhere.
Please note, I'm not attaching any morality to unauthorised internet streaming. I'm just trying to explain (for the benefit of this AC and others who may wonder) why it hurts broacasters and the original content creators.
(Personally, I do believe that such streaming is wrong, for the reasons outlined. At the end of the day, if something costs x and you don't want to pay that price for it then that's your choice. But just because you think it's only worth x/2 or whatever that doesn't give you the right to take it for nothing. Regardless of whether it's legal or not, it sure isn't morally right.
That's my personal view and, frankly, I know it's one that a small minority of
What we'd hear from some (in)famous brains of our time:
George W. Bush's brain: I must remember to chew my pretzels. Bomb Iraq. I must remember to chew my pretzels. Bomb Iraq. I must remember to chew my pretzels. Bomb Iraq.
Tony Blair's brain: I must do whatever Dubya says cos Dubya's a smart man and he obviously knows what he's doing. Now where's my leash?
Saddam Hussein's brain: I didn't have anything to do with that attack. Why's George picking on me all of a sudden?
Osama Bin Laden's brain: Boy, am I glad that George's forgotten about me!
Bill Gates's brain: With all these wars to worry about I think the Government's forgotten about me. Time to pull out those plans for world domination again.
Pamela Anderson's brain: Gee, My boobs are looking kinda small. Time to call the surgeon again.
Britney Spear's brain: Damn that Christina's dirty. I wish I was.
Justin Timberlake's brain: Damn, I wish I was Michael Jackson. I'd love to be in his shoes.
Michael Jackson's brain: Damn, I wish I was with Justin Timberlake. I'd love to be in his trousers.
Slashdot editor's brain: Hmmm, yet another duplicate story/obvious hoax/shameless plug for a "me too" product. Now where's that "post" button gone?
Damn this is a recent repeat.
Even has every media player: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/ 2003/01/13/190872t .com/
Not even any more info either. I'm sure all of us would like to examine this browser just to see if it is true.
More info: http://radio.weblogs.com/0103966/2003/01/14.html
http://www.esatbtyoungscientis
Uh-oh. It's deja vu all over again. Someone call Yogi Berra...
Now this is funny.
Man, I wish I had mod points right now because you just made me laugh out loud. So eloquent and so spot on.
Come on guys, it's "potatoes", P-O-T-A-T-O-E-S. Even Dan Quayle got that much right.
Are correctly spelt story titles too much to ask for? If even those are screwed, how are people meant to search through archived stories?
(Yeah, yeah, off-topic. Waste your mod points. See if I care.)
OK, I'm not a luddite, I understand that progress is a Good Thing (TM) but am I the only one getting dizzy at the speed at which the hard disk drive industry seems to be moving?
In the last five years, typical hard disk drive sizes have increased more than ten-fold, transfer speeds have shot up too and prices have come right down.
The net effect of all these factors is that HDDs have now become commodities and many manufacturers - put off by both the shrinking profit margins available and the high investment costs of developing the next generation of drives - have left the business.
There are now only four major players left, and all of them are doing whatever they can to maintain profitability. Cranking up volume only works so far - there are only so many customers out there, especially in today's economy - so manufacturers have looked to cut costs elsewhere.
Two critical areas that seem to have taken a major hit are quality control and warranties. More and more drives (and in some cases, entire drive families) seem to be failing at every given opportunity. Meanwhile, the length for which they're covered has shrunk back from (typically) three years to the minimum one.
Sure, at the high-end, speed will always be appreciated, but how many of us run render farms?
The market is near-saturated (not everyone needs 200GB or even 20GB, because not everyone is a MP3/MPEG/whatever addict) and that situation isn't going to change any time soon.
I would be much happier with an industry that still has some real competition and offers customers reliable, well-supported products in five years time than one that has breakneck-speed products from top to bottom but which break down every five minutes.
For 99% of users, data integrity is the holy grail and everything else comes a distant second. I wish manufacturers would remember that.
Why don't I have a right to pass on what's mine to somebody else? Should my worldly possessions both material and etherial become public domain or the property of the state when I die? Where does that line end, with my personal copyrights (whether I'm an author, artist or innovator), or does it extend to everything I own, including the clothes on my back? I ask because you don't seem to make any distinction.
I laugh at your "devine right of kings" argument. Are you suggesting that US culture (I assume you're American, you're post seems to suggest it) is based upon the rejection of inheritance? That each generation inherits nothing from the previous one?
That's just plain laughable. Look at who owns what in your society. 1% of the people own 50% of the wealth. Old money rules, in business and in politics. Do you think that George W. Bush would be your president if it wasn't given everything on a platter by his daddy (and his daddy's daddy and his daddy's grandaddy)?
Sheesh.
The American War of Independence was about taxation, not about inheritance, or even representation. When you celebrate on the 4th July you're raising a glass to a bunch of fat, middle-aged men who didn't want to pay their taxes. Not coincidentally, it's those same middle-aged men (metaphorically-speaking) that are screwing you now.
Now for the euros you get screwed everytime you pick the phone up with metering, so I could see how inane text messageing would be the way to go, but personally when I think of cell phone I think of phone, not device with sucky ergonomics to type messages in.
Can someone please tell me what people find so objectionable to the idea that the caller party pays (CPP)? If I want to send someone a letter then I have to pay for the service - the paper, the envelope and, most importantly, the stamp. And, in just about every market outside of North America, the same model is applied to telephone calls.
Frankly this makes far more sense than the US model - if you want to talk to me then why should I have to pay for the priviledge of having to hear what you have to say? And how would you feel if the mail worked that way too? Can you imagine having to pay the postal service for receiving bills or junk mail?
Now, if you make lots of calls you pay more than someone who makes only a few. This makes sense - the more you use a service, the more you pay for it.
Heavy users can plan accordingly, by subscribing to a plan that has a lot of inclusive minutes and/or for which the call costs are greatly reduced (eg, a few US cents per minute).
Meanwhile, light users aren't penalised into contracts that require them to shell out big bucks for a service they don't use. Sure, they pay more for their calls, but the rates aren't that much more than those of public phones.
So in Europe, a business man who uses his phone constantly can pay a fixed monthly fee and use his phone as much as he likes whilst, on the same network, a frail grandmother who only has a phone for emergencies can go months without having to pay a single penny for the peace of mind that having a phone gives her.
How is this a bad thing?
Roaming costs? What roaming costs? It's just not an issue in Europe. Nationwide long distance? I pay one rate for all calls, irrespective of who I call or where they are.
Again, not a bad thing.
Sometimes, when things are different, it's because they are different for a very good reason.
Err, I hate to rain on your parade but you can walk into any phone store in Europe and buy a tri-band phone on a choice of networks that will work virtually anywhere in the world (including the US).
And as for radio, internet, and other telephone, the choices are just as varied as those you've oulined - those services and services and technologies do exist outside of the US and have done for some time.
True there is more cell phone coverage in Europe than in the US. However the US has a lot less people.
Hmmm, I guess this is is straying off-topic but I have to correct you on that. The population of the European Union right now is roughly 280 million. This will rise to around 360 million once the new members (mostly former Eastern Bloc states) join.
Compare that to the US population of roughly 300 million. Hardly "a lot less people" is it?
True, Europe is more densely populated than the US but most as Americans live in urban areas (cities, towns) it doesn't make that much difference.
Sure, if you live in a remote area of Utah then you're not going to find network coverage everywhere but the same is true of some places in Europe. However, it is fair to say that the percentage of land where you can't find coverage is far greater for the US than it is for the majority of Europe.
Paraphrasing Animal Farm, all legislators are stupid but some legislators (ie, US ones) are more stupid than others.
/. readers jump at every opportunity to bash anything that isn't covered in stars and stripes? Why? The civilised world doesn't end at your borders.)
The European DCMA-alike is being pushed for by the same organisations that lobbied for the DCMA in the US - ie, large multinational corporations.
(Capitalism does have an ugly side, and sometimes the victims aren't the overworked, underpaid sweatshop workers somewhere in the third world but the the overworked, underpaid sweatshop workers somewhere in the first world. The DCMA is just one example of a law that places the rights of the corporation above the rights of the individual.)
Where corporations abuse their monopoly positions, the EU at least tries to do the right thing by protecting the rights of the individual. Toner cartridge refills are one just one such case.
Bottom line is this: It's likely that, in the long-run, a Lexmark/HP/Canon/whoever-owning individual will pay less for his/her printer consumables if they live in the EU than if they live in the US. So why get down on the EU for that?
(Is it me, or do a small minority of American
(Yeah, yeah. Moderate this as flamebait, off-topic or trolling. See if I care. You're only proving my point.)
What the hell is this "SDPIF" that you keep going on about?
I've heard of SPDIF - Sony Philips Digital Interface - but I can't find any info online on this new-fangled interface that you've got on your Creative and AOpen drives.
Could you please elaborate with some detailed technical information for the less enlightened amongst us?
Four percent of the world's population, 25 percent of the pollution. Way to go, USA.
Recent American achievements in the "who cares if your kids got asthma?" race:
The list goes on and on.
Not only is the US the world's biggest polluter, it's also the world's biggest consumer. Per capita, Americans use more energy, more oil, more gas than any other nation in the world.
Even the most patriotic simpleton has got to see that this isn't something to be proud of - if nothing else, the shit's going to hit the fan sooner or later. Why not try and do something about it?
Gotta love those eco-friendly trans-atlantic train lines ;)
There's always one (or two) isn't there? For your education (if not entertainment), let me just hit you with a few basic facts:
1. 95% of Americans don't have a passport.
If most Americans don't bother to get a passport what does that suggest to you about the frequency with which they make transatlantic trips?
2. Most Americans who board a plane do so to fly domestically.
And, seeing as only a limited number of them are travelling to and from Hawaii, that means almost all of them could reach their destination by train or even coach.
Is flying from New York to Philadelphia really that much faster or convenient than the alternatives?
3. There is another method of crossing the oceans. It's called a boat.
Newsflash: Christopher Columbus didn't travel to the new world on American Airlines.
4. Just because you can open your mouth and say something, it doesn't mean that you have to do so.
Try resisting the need to comment where none is necessary. If you must comment then at least try to come up with something vaguely intelligent - trust me, it really doesn't hurt to engage your brain before you open your mouth.
But thanks* for taking a quote our of context. What I actually said was:
Oh yeah, you might think about changing your choice of carrier too - or perhaps even taking a slower, more eco-friendly and safer form of transport (hint: trains).
Fail to spot the word "perhaps" there, buddy? I think, perhaps, you did.
(*This is irony. If you have trouble understanding it - just like you have seem to have trouble understanding other basic words - then, please, invest in a dictionary.)
The first time that one of these systems is used and a passenger/patient dies because his/her plane was not diverted to the closest possible landing site where the appropriate medical aid could have saved their life is the day that the airlines will ditch these devices.
Can you just imagine what kind of field day the lawyers, press and politicians would have in that scenario? Can you see how fast the relevant airline's stock would plummet? And how hard a blow it would make to their future bookings?
Nothing cripples a business faster than a reputation for putting profits before the safety and lives of their customers - just ask Firestone.
The day that airlines start rolling out these devices is the day to start dumping your airline (and other aviation) stock. Oh yeah, you might think about changing your choice of carrier too - or perhaps even taking a slower, more eco-friendly and safer form of transport (hint: trains).
...my virtual public spirit and enthusiasm couldn't overcome my real-world apathy and laziness.
God, sometimes it gets so bad that I can't even be bothered to finish my own
The downturn in the world economy can only have a negative effect on the numbers of American students going to university - when times are bad, people who don't have the benefit of a college fund built up by their parents since birth are less likely to find putting themselves into heavy debt for the foreseable future an attractive proposition for a qualification that won't necessarily get them a well-paid job. And, when there are thousands of people out there who already have those qualifications and years of real-world experience competing for almost every opening, the odds of a new graduate finding his/her dream job - or even a relevant job in their field - can become an impossible task.
(Conversely, in Europe, Australia and elsewhere, where the cost of education to the individual is either paid for or subsidised by the state, a poor job market can be a greater incentive to go to university.)
Fewer students means more choice for students, as colleges are forced to fight harder to get the numbers they need to fill their programmes. Inevitably, this means that the most prestigous universities, such as the Ivy league, MIT, Caltech, will continue to prosper, whilst those lower down the ladder suffer. At the bottom end, it becomes a dog eat dog scenario, and universities that fail to meet their projected student numbers can find themselves vulnerable.
(Of course, the fact that research funding will follow a similar pattern during tough times doesn't help either.)
My guess is your college is one of the vulnerable ones. It's cutting cost where it can (closing down an entire campus surely suggests a fall in student numbers) and making its courses more attractive to students (dropping the need for everyone to take required courses in order to graduate).
Of course, as you're almost finished there, there's little you can do except to bite the bullet and finish your degree. But, if you're going to supplement your education with a masters or a doctorate then you might be better off looking to read those elsewhere - if the college's student numbers and graduate quality falls in the coming years studying elsewhere higher up the food chain should help you from being pigeon-holed as someone who only has "a worthless degree from a third-rate college".
Sure, it's a harsh assessment but, believe me, it's a harsh world out there. Compared to the real world, college is paradise.
Good luck for the future.
...buy phones that they know are on their last legs for $600 (or whatever you paid for it).
Seriously, you bought a 4-year old hand set for a few hundred bucks? How much would a new one, with a greater feature set and a warranty have cost?
I do have some sympathy for you but try to see both points of view. The mobile telecoms is even faster than the PC industry in bringing out newer and newer models - even the new phone I bought two years ago is now two or three generations old (WAP, colour screens, picture messaging have all been introduced since).
A six year-old phone is even more removed from today's handsets and it's entirely possible that Nokia's refusal to ship the part is because it's no longer manufactured for them and they have none left. The situation is akin togoing to Ford and asking them to sell you an original part for a 1950's convertible. Just as Ford won't have it (why would they have inventory for something that old?) neither will Nokia (or Ericsson, Motorola, Sagem, Samsung, etc).
Again, I appreciate how frustrating this must be to you but if you're going to live in a capitalist society then you're going to be a victim to market forces every now and again. And in this case, market forces dictate that there is no point or profit in a multi-billion dollar company stocking a 35 cent part for a product that's technologically obsolete.
Sorry, but's that's the truth, Ruth.
Duh. I am aware of Australia's geographical size and the cost of laying cable but I was hoping someone (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?) would know just how much of a dent this would put into a potential subscriber's pocket and how much less of a dent it puts than the existing alternatives.
The good thing about cable is that, once it's been laid, it's relatively inexpensive to maintain and quite reliable. I'm not sure that's the case here but, nevertheless, it'd be interesting to see the numbers.
A friend of mine sent me a link to his uncle's startup...
/.ing his server.)
/., where editors fall for even the most obvious of hoaxes but would it be asking too much if someone was to tone down the number of free ads/informercials we see disguised as genuine news stories? This isn't even a shipping product yet! It's still in development!
/. editors to edit?
Translation: "Go look there and buy those puppies! Buy two! Buy as many as you can! Cos when my friend's uncle sees the amount of sales I've generated for him he's gonna have to give me a couple of these to play with and put me on the payroll too! Sweet!"
(Or, alternatively, he might just get pissed at you for
Seriously, I appreciate that this is
OK, it's the holidays and I've had more than I usually would have to drink in the last couple of days but would it really kill the
According to the second link given, the satellite project has a budget of AUS $20million over seven years. And given that the majority of Australia's population lives in urban centres, there are going to be relatively few people using this satellite as their broadband service provider.
High costs and low potential usage doesn't exactly suggest that this will be a cheap solution - quite the opposite in fact.
Quoting from the linked page:
Note, it's described as a research platform, not a commercial development. (Perhaps this is where the cheap comes from, perhaps the broadband service is subsidised in some way.)
Bottom line: I don't see this benefiting all but a few and even then it's a platform that's just getting off the ground (if you'll pardon the pun)and likely to be problematic rather than one that delivers rock-solid reliability.
Of course, IANAA (I am not an Australian), so would any of our more leaned, koala-loving friends care to give their perspective?