I've used a bootable CD that emulates a 3.5" floppy. For booting a hosed system, it works well. The problem will be with Dell's floppy requirement when running the.EXE file to upgrade some piece of firmware.
I can't see how Dell is going to get rid of the floppy requirement in any reasonable ammount of time. The executable opens a DOS/Command Line window and asks for a floppy disk in Drive A:. If you don't have one, you can't upgrade the firmware. With the number of systems and the number of options that have firmware upgrades on each of those system, I really can't see how they're going to change the way they distribute their upgrades reliably. They'll need to re-package and possibly re-code all of their firmware updates. Booting to a clean OS or an otherwise stable and protected environment is required so that there's a minimum of possible things that can go wrong and ruin the hardware being flashed.
CD-RW drives are much cheaper now so distributing small ISO images might work, but why waste a blank CD (or a CD-RW erase cycle) on less than 1 MB or so of data? Besides, not everyone has a CD burner yet and I know some people that will never want one. And getting them installed on systems that will need firmware updates the most (older systems) is sometimes tricky at best and impossible at worst. CD-RWs aren't the answer.
Now, MSI's Live BIOS utility might be a better solution. I've got 2 MSI MoBos, and this utility works well for each of them. But it requires a broadband connection to make it worthwhile. A 56k modem connection will work, but the scan of your hardware and comparison to the online database will be *really* slow. This might be the best solution until a fast, inexpensive, high-capacity, read/write media takes hold to displace the floppy for good.
The only other options I see is to continue using floppies on a very limited basis or to dual boot into a minimal OS when updating. That requires some forethought and not everybody knows how to do this when setting up their system.
Oh, and dont' forget that even Windows XP still requires a floppy upon installation if you're going to boot from a drive controller that isn't natively supported (like some off-brand SCSI/RAID cards or outboard IDE/RAID controllers).
The end of the floppy is near, but it's not going completely away any time soon. Manufacturers of hardware, among others, will make that determination for all of us.
I can't wait for this to take hold, but there's more than just making a company-wide mandate. If you've ever purchased a Dell system, you'll know that the majority of their firmware updates *REQUIRE* a floppy disk, which would require a floppy drive. I ordered an Inspiron laptop in July '02 and almost decided to get it without the floppy as I don't use it much, myself. However, I've heard of the firmware updates through other sources and decided to get it anyway, just to be on the safe side. At about $20, it didn't break the bank. It's also lighter than an extra battery, any of the optical drives, or an extra HD.
Until Dell stops requiring firmware updates via floppy, this won't work. Nice sentiment, though...
That's exactly the problem with the media industry as a whole. I've said it before in discussions about the RIAA member companies: It's all about promotion.
The simple fact that it wasn't promoted more/better than the other movies being released at the time doomed it. The loyal fans will see it if there's any promotion at all (ie: "The movie exists"), but it's the vast numbers of the general public that need to be sucked in for a film to be successful today which is, again, part of the problem.
Marketing decisions aside, I found it to be particularly boring and predictable. Star Trek scripts have always been predictable, so that's not such a big deal. But the fact that I found it boring is what did it for me. I'm in agreement with most everybody here in that the plot was paper-thin, the new characters were a little over the top (and unneccessary), and it just seemed to lack that classic "Trek" flavor. As a Star Trek movie, it did suck.
But it could have been a good movie otherwise, if all references to ST had been removed. There's a certain expectation of how the ST movies should be portrayed, and it just didn't live up to that expectation. I got the distinct feeling like it was trying too hard to be both faithful to the Star Trek universe as well as be something more than what it is (a 2+ hour, high-budget STTNG episode). That strain on the film's design made it feel more forced than it should have, and would have done much better (IMNSHO) had the story been re-written for a non-Trek setting.
In summary, the movie sucked because it was trying to be too much in order to capture a larger audience than the Trek universe typically attracts. Further, the promotion of the film to the general public (typical non-Trek fans) was not accomplished on par with other films being released at the same time period.
Life seems to be getting more predictable all the time...
Ideally, you should be able to make your computer fail *COMPLETELY* and still be able to recover completely. The distributed backup plan seems to have different specific advantages for two specific groups of home users, but has the same overall beneficial results.
For the average Joe with only one computer running that ancient copy of Windows98 on a P133, the massive ammount of data-cruft is bound to be the weakest point of upgrading or even backing up. I've found that most families only have that one computer, and only have the option of backing up onto floppies. Usually their data can fit on one or two CDR/CDRW discs, but their system is also usually too old to get a cd burner to work reliably. In addition, they're just too stingy with the purse-strings to shell out the $100 or so for a decent, middle-of-the-pack drive, anyway. Sending critical data over the internet might be a better option, if a bit more time-consuming (no broadband, only 56k modem). Frequent backups like this has the potential to be substantially more reliable, not to mention scores easier, than a pile of floppies as you're ideally only sending the new data. I can't tell you how often I wished for something like this when working on a friend's/family's system across town and away from my own network.
And that brings me to my second group that can really take advantage of something like this: Power-users with a small network running at home. My network has a file-server that stores *EVERYTHING* on it for backup purposes. It's got ISO's of all my software and OS's, drivers, stand-alone programs, documents, and media files. Currently, there's about 80GB of data on there. Backing up that data is a Travan-5 drive (10GB/tape, native) and 9 cartridges. At about 3 hours per tape, backing up to 9 TR-5 tapes takes days, not hours. There's two additional tapes for backup of the server's OS and configuration and it easily fits on one tape. But if there are any significant changes to the system, I rotate the tape so that there's always a working copy in case things go terribly wrong. That's a total of 11 tapes. They're not exactly cheap, but it's probably the least expensive backup I can find right now without going to removable HDs (I'm avoiding that solution as HDs are, in my opinion, less reliable and durable than tapes). Using this distributed backup plan would allow me to recover my server's OS from the single tape and retrieve the data from the network when I have time.
The 2 desktops and 2 laptops can be fully recovered with an OS or system recovery cd and the rest is available on the server. In fact, I usually have one of each type of computer down at any given time for something-or-other. Having the data on the server allows me to blow away any of the systems I run at any time and completely recover the system to a working state in just over an hour.
Actually, I had been setting up a distributed backup plan for my own server with some of my friends so we'd all have each others' server's backup. More accurately, the plan was to merge the changes between all the servers' data and share it between all of us in a manner similar to CVS. There's only 3 of us, but we're located all over the state and we all have broadband. 80GB of data is a large ammount to initially transfer. Really, though, all we'd be transmitting is the changes we've made which would limit the total bandwidth used. We'd probably only set it up for once per week in automatic mode to further decrease the load with an option to manually update. In the event of a complete failure of one of the systems, there should be a copy from one of the other two servers that's no older than 1 week. As the storage requirements grow, each server can be updated with additional storage in sequence so that it recovers in a manner similar to how a RAID5 array rebuilds the data on a replaced drive.
Unfortunately, neither of my two friends in question have the resources to afford the hardware and set up their own server to the reliability standards that I'm requiring, so it kind of fell through for now. I'm working with them on how to get everything running, and I may just maintain it for them from a remote console. They'll still host the server on their network and have access to it, of course. But the responsibility of maintaining the system may just have to lie with me.
In short, it's not terribly difficult to implement a solution like this, but there are serious bandwidth concerns. If you're only doing this amongst your friends/peers, it's possible to mitigate the bandwidth issue by using a single removable hard disk to sneakernet the data to a fresh server. This allows for a much more reliable home network for power-users, and gives some peace-of-mind to the average user (and their power-user friends who fix their computer for them)
Actually, it's more like the Top 30 or 40. A collection of 100 singles would be able to get them through the majority of the work-day (8 hours) without repeating a single tune. Let's assume 3 minutes for the typical radio-length single multiplied by the theoretical 100 as per your example. That would give us a total playlist length of 300 minutes. Divide that by 60 minutes for every hour and you have 5 hours. By that math, assuming the station always plays their entire daily playlist, you should hear any given song a maximum of 2 times in any given 8-hour workday.
But if you've ever listened to any major radio station for an entire workday, you'll hear at least one song about 3 or 4 times before you go home. Don't believe me? Try it sometime. Though I don't think it would do anyone any good to do it on a regular basis as it will significantly degrade your sense of good-taste.
As previously reported in many stories (too lazy to find them right now), timothy seems to be the source of the majority of the dupes. What's scary is that he often dupes his own stories. Can you say, "Short-Term Memory"?
Short-Term... LINE!
*SMACK!* [racermd slaps forehead with palm of hand in disgust]
I've got a bad short-term memory, and specifically with people's names, but what do you have to be on if you're forgetting the stories you've *posted* the day prior? I'll forgive the occasional relapse. But this is consistent.
The sensible thing to do is to just completely ignore the dupes. Don't even open the discussion thread. I know, I'm not exactly a gleaming example of my own advice, but I usually stay away from them as a rule. Consider this my one exception. The proper thing to do is to send an e-mail to the editors to let them know a dupe got by them. Griping about it in the discussion thread is off-topic and counter-productive at best.
I hate to agree with (almost) everyone, but that was my precisely my point. I'm not defending Metalica's actions, but I can see where they're coming from. They certainly did the inappropriate thing by going after Napster, but it was the path that appeared (at the time) to have a higher probability of immediate success. Performing an exhaustive investigation is both time-consuming and expensive. Telling Napster to both stop sharing files and to hand over the name of the person(s) with their songs is a much shorter path, especially if you can get the might of the entire music industry behind your cause.
Pointing out the reason they did what they did and defending the same reason are completely different actions on my part. I did the former, not the latter. Please don't confuse my motives. I've never really liked Metallica, even before the Napster incident, but at least I was open to hearing one of their songs once in a while before all of this erupted. Now, I find their music rather displeasing and only reminds me of all that's wrong in the tech and music industries. I couldn't enjoy anything by Metallica now if I wanted to. The name alone is enough to turn me off to whatever it is that they've made. I've moved on and my musical tastes have widened significantly. I don't think I'm missing much by passing on anything Metallica.
I'm also very happy that p2p sharing software has evolved to a more decentralized nature. I really think that it's the way the future of all computing is going to go, anyway. Napster may have failed as a company, but we've all learned from their mistakes in order to make and find better products to fill the void that Napster left behind.
Because the way Napster was designed, it's almost impossible to find the source of the "upload" post facto. Once it's on the network, it's there until nobody wants it anymore and everyone throws it away or stops sharing it. I completely agree with your point. They should go after the person that leaked the content to begin with. But trying to find that person through traditional means was probably a little more difficult than picking on an big, juicy, easy target. Think about it. What sounds easier to you?
A) Investigating and following thousands of leads until you narrow the number of suspects down to a few hundred>
B) Getting the media companies behind you and going after the company's product that facilitates copyright infringement on their dime.
Napster was an unfortunate victim, but they don't have anybody else to blame but themselves. Had they cooperated from the start, whether or not they had the ability to do so, they would probably still be doing business today. The fact that the company was so defiant at the start of it all doomed them. But what could they do? Once the media companies got wind of their existence and their possibilities, it would have been over, anyway. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. It just happened sooner than later, and by the RIAA's puppets of Metalica et al. (Especially Henley. Ugh. If ever there were a poster-child of Not-Having-To-Worry-About-File-Sharing, it would be Don Henley.)
Oh, well. I figure we've all learned from that experience since then, and are much better off now than we were then. Distributed-file-sharing software has gotten *much* better, both in terms of overall network structure as well as the available content.
I've got a red '91 Miata "A" with only 45k miles, stored winters in MN, and a 2001 Chevy pickup (maroon, LT, Z71, ext. cab). I'm happy with both vehicles, as they're both reliable and fun to drive.
The Miata, at age 12, is running like a champ. No major problems, mostly due to great overall engineering and simple preventative maintenance. If you've ever been a Miata nut, you'd know most of the engineering history through a helpful guy in Australia named Bob. He was one of the original Miata designers or engineers (I don't remember which, and there's a big difference between the two), and hosts a great monthly Q/A session on a Miata fan site I won't mention here. (Go do your own homework, I don't want to slam the guy with unsolicited, unrelated e-mails) The only real problem I've had with the car was a rough engine when cold due to a faulty O2 sensor. The car is very easy to work on, as it's not overly complicated. The engine is only a 1.6L inline-4, and it's pretty well understood that you can't really do anything to hurt the thing unless you run it dry of oil and/or coolant, which is covered under that preventative maintenance thing I mentioned above. Even if the timing belt breaks, it's not catastrophic as it's a non-interference engine (the valves won't hit the piston no matter how close you can get them). You may be stranded for a bit, but you don't need a new engine. The designers even came up with this crazy idea to design a body shape with no flat surfaces. Ideally, this would allow a drop of water to roll off of any body part is was placed on. I can assure you that this doesn't work in practice, but it does make for a pretty shapely car!
The only arguement I'd like to make about your savings in a front-end collision in a Miata is this: If you were ever in a front-end collition severe enough to deploy the airbag(s) with your Miata, you're going to need more than a fender. It's a *very* small car, and the crush boxes are even smaller. To absorb the impact of that SUV at even 20 MPH, the Miata will probably be compressed to about 2/3 of it's original size. You'll be fine in the passenger compartment's "safety cage", but the rest of the car is designed to crumple at any force remotely resembling an impact. In fact, the hood on your car will probably be the most expensive of the bodywork, as it's a nice aluminum piece. The fenders, IIRC, are steel. That front bumper cover can't be cheap, either, as it's a one-piece facia made of some plastics. If you're unlucky enough to be in a collision severe enough to enter the engine compartment, the engine will probably be tilted down and underneath the car, but you're going to need another one of those, too. There's not much on the engine that can be sacrificed. Remember that it was designed to be light and relatively fast, so there's not much there you can scrape off before it's unusable. Then there's the frame work, at which point the insurance company will probably write off the car as a total loss due to the fairly low replacement cost of a 2-year-old Miata. Face it, Miata's just don't hold their value due to the 500,000-plus of them on the roads (all model years).
Another thing for all of you who think that the Miata isn't a performance car. It was never designed to be in the same class as a Corvette or a Mustang or a Porche. It's not overpowered with a big, beefy V8. It's not even offered in a 6-cyl version. The I4 in the '91 I have is rated at about 90 or so hp at the rear wheels, 116 at the crank. Since it's now over 10 years old, it's probably even lower than that. But in a car weighing just over 2200 lbs in stock trim (light for a convertable, which all Miatas are), it's fairly spirited. And I prefer to think of it as not being "underpowered", but rather "oversprung" and "overbraked". The mere lack of an abundance of power does not make the car weak and underpowered. It's all about the application of the available power that's more important. I can easily beat the Corvette and Mustang owners around some of the twisties here in town. Even some crotch-rockets have trouble as the Miata, with good tires and a minor tweak to the stock suspension, can pull more than 1.1g on the skidpad and will have better speed *through* the corner than just about anything short of a race-prepped car or bike.
I'm getting off-topic here, but the Miata is a fun, inexpensive car that's even cheaper to operate. Yes, it's safe. No, I don't think that it's entirely recyclable (finally back on topic). And you don't really want to play bumper-cars with one.
My pickup, on the other hand, exactly 10 years newer, is a huge hulking beast. In a recent collision with a late-'80s Taurus, I suffered a bent license plate while the Taurus required an entirely new rear bumber. The bumper was made of plastic and filled with a styrofoam inner support to give it more resistance to bending and cracking. My truck shattered the foam insert and marred the bumper to the point that it was less expensive to replace it than repair it. That's why it's my wintertime vehicle. Since bad road conditions are a large contribtor to collisions in MN during the winter, I would feel much safer in my big hulking pickup truck than just about anything else out there for that time period, gas mileage be damned. In addition, GM powertrains are known to just keep running and refuse to die, even when they're so far gone that you're intentionally trying to kill them. Properly taken care of, the GM engines will probably outlive the rest of the vehicle. I'm not entirely certain of the 4.8L, 5.3L, and the 6.0L, but they're based on one of the longest-running series of engines in history so I have some well-founded confidence there. The truck can fall apart around me, but if the frame is relatively straight and the engine runs, I'll be happy! I plan to keep it for about 20 years and am taking care of it with that in mind.
However, some cars just aren't suited to the 20-year plan, like the Focus. Same goes for Saturn. Don't even get me started with the Korean imports. Hondas and Toyotas are probably the best candidates coming out of Japan. BMW and Porche are the best bets out of Germany, but for very different reasons. The new VWs and Audis (they share lots of engineering) just don't seem to be up to par. Overall, they're solid, but I have doubts as to their longevity to 20 years. US-made compact cars are disposable, and probably have more plastics in them than most of us would feel comfortable with. On top of that, they're poorly engineered. More appropriately, the cars were compromised by the bean-counters desire to produce a cheap product even cheaper to help increase the bottom line or reduce the red ink. All mass-produced cars ultimately suffer this fate, but the domestic compacts seem to be the target of this practice more than the rest. US-made mid- and full-size cars are better, but not by much. All SUVs are overpriced truck-based station wagons for the Gen-X and Gen-Y crowd, but are generally more durable due to their pickup truck roots. And full-size pickups are probably the most durable of all, as they were designed from the outset to do lots of work. It's hard to abuse something that was designed for abuse. Compact SUVs (or whatever they're calling them now) and and compact pickups are down a rung on the durability scale, but hold up pretty well due to the factors mentioned above regarding full-size pickups.
In short, do your homework before you buy a car. And I'd recommend that you buy the best of what's available at that time based on your own needs. Don't overbuy, but don't accept a vehicle that won't meet your needs. It's a major purchase in most people's lives, and you don't want to be stuck with a car that doesn't do what you need it to do or that you don't feel confortable with. Read the trade magazines, ask other owners what they think, and *definitely* take more than one test drive to get the excitement of a new toy out of your system. If possible, rent a car similar to the one you plan to purchase for a week. Car rental companies will usually try to accomodate you as best they can, and you'll see what excessive wear-and-tear will reveal before you get stuck with it. With vehicles, YMMV takes on a whole different dimension.
That's all for now. It's late and I need to work in the morning...
That's great, but what happens when the company we're rooting for against MS is just as large and powerful, if not more so, than MS? Two elephants dancing come to mind...
We've got some of MS's skeltons out of the closet. We know that they're not entirely playing fair. MS has a legal history of screwing with consumers, OEMs, governments, etc. It's on record now, and we're keeping a close eye on them. It's like having a prior arrest record when the cops come to the door and start handcuffing everyone for any number of reasons. The one with the prior record will get fewer breaks than the first-time offender. Political clout be damned, MS won't get away with bad business behavior as easily from now on. Why go through it all again with someone new?
That's the theme that most everyone (not all) is missing: Marketing.
The major labels are as big as they are because they know how to market the talent that they sign. They get bigger with every artist/band they sign and become more in demand to the artists/bands due to the size of the marketing machine. It's funny that the demand for a label tends to increase in relative proportion to the number of artists they've signed. It's a kind of self-perpetuating desire.
I don't think I'm shattering anyone's illusions when I say this, but the major labels have never been "about the music". Their sole purpose is, has been, and always will be to market the heck out of you so that your (their?) product sells. Obviously, that makes them money that you're hoping they'll share with you. Sure, they hire people that know how to make music sound good. It's in their best interests to make you sound and appear good. No, they want you to sound *GREAT*. But the goal is to sell a product that was never their's to begin with to people who probably would never have known it existed, or even that it was desired. They take the job of promotion off the shoulders of the artist(s) so the they can focus instead on making a great product to sell.
And that's where the model starts to break down. They don't share enough with the artists to make them happy. They use scare tactics and legal papers to get what *THEY* want. The artists that want to be promoted widely must either sign with a major label or spend the majority of their time on their own promotion duties. There's 2 major problems with this alternative approach of DIY-promotion. First, the artist isn't focusing on the product that they're promoting, thus producing an inferior product that won't live up to the promotions. Second, the major labels have most, if not all, of the major distribution channels locked up to themselves by being prohibitively expensive for the DIY'er. It's really more about scale than total cost per unit. So not only is it time-consuming, it's also prohibitively expensinve to market yourself. If you were a recording artist, what would you rather be doing: sign a contract or spend your time and money marketing yourself? It's like choosing between the lesser of two evils. The only other option is to not participate at all. But those with real talent and the desire to be successful and famous generally don't have the time and/or money to do the job themselves. At least with the major labels, you can streamline the process a little and only worry about the money. From that standpoint, the labels start looking pretty good. Until you realize that you're locked into a contract that's even more expensive to back out of... We've heard that story too many times to count.
Then there's the issue of payola. Despite the fact that this is no longer supposed to be going on, it does happen, just under the radar and/or with shady deals. The local FM radio station probably won't even consider playing a song by a new artist unless they get something out of the deal. I'm sure everyone can cite exceptions to this, such as a local-only segment run for maybe an hour of each day, but that's all they are: exceptions. As a general rule, you won't find new talent on any of the "popular" radio stations across the country at prime times unless it's delivered by one of the major labels. If you can cite exceptions to this, please do so in the hopes that we can find a station in our area and support them.
I'll also draw a parallel to Microsoft's own strategy. In case anyone's been living under a rock or in a coma for the last 3 decades, I'll need to explain that Microsoft is primarily a marketing machine. It's products are "good enough" for the general popluation, but are far from superior. I don't think too many of the/. crowd will argue with me when I say that MS software is bug-ridden crap. But people will line up just to pay for a new copy of an OS or office suite that they don't need. In the many reviews of recent history focus on how MS became the behemoth entity that it is, most will point at a stroke of marketing genius by Gates in that he *licensed* MS-DOS to IBM instead of selling it outright to them to include with their brand new desktop-sized computer. Does anybody else see the similarities here with the major music labels, the artists they represent, and the general public? Ownership of the products being sold is retained by MS, and we're all just buying the right to use it. And the sheeple wouldn't buy this stuff unless MS did a good job of telling people that they need to have it.
I will reiterate that marketing (and distribution as a result) is the key that the major labels hold. And they will hold it for as long as they see it as an advantage. Since the internet can be (and is, indeed) a lucrative distribution channel for any size label, it only stands to reason that they want control over that medium. But since the internet is founded primarily on trust and freedom (as in speech), gaining control over it has been fairly painful for all parties involved and can probably never be totally controlled by the major labels.
I will also point out that the future of the major labels' is far from certain, but I do think that they have an opportunity to survive more peacefully with the internet population in the future. Understandably, control over distribution is a concern. But I also really think that the leverage of the major labels will be weakened by an extremely inexpensive and accessible distribution channel like the internet. Don't get me wrong. General promotion for things like concerts, appearances, etc., will be their primary draw to up-and-coming artists. But none of this will happen until the internet is "old-hat" to the grandparents. Until then, it's business as usual.
I actually have very little experience in the professional music industry, but I am a hobby/home musician that frequently jams with friends and perform only for people I know. When I perform, I only recoup my costs (very little, usually just a few bucks for gas) and usually get a free meal. I'm happy that way and never want it to get bigger. Before I settled into this mode, I did look into promotion and explored the options of signing with a label. I almost had an ulcer (at age 22!) just hearing about what other smaller "signed" artists got in their "deals". The point is that I did my homework, but my knowledge is almost all second-hand.
Ok, that may be his BEST role. But his funniest is in Little Nicky":
"You-ah.. make the Lord-ah... VERY NERVOUS!"
And I'll leave it at that. I don't want to get bogged down into a tangent criticism of Tarantino's work.
And back on topic, I don't think that this would neccessarily have to be too complicated. Already there are windows that can become opaque with the flip of a switch. IIRC, the early technology was based on a significantly less-sophisticated design than the current crop of LCD panels. The idea is that you have liquid crystals sandwiched between 2 plates of glass and you either apply an electric current through the liquid crystals to make it clear or remove it to make it opaque, similar in appearance to frosted glass. (This is possibly backwards, and you can correct me if you'd like, but I'm pretty sure it worked this way.)
Throw in a standard video port (composite, s-video, 15-pin VGA, whatever), an alignment grid of some sort, and some controller circuitry, and I can see this as an evolution of that early technology. I mean, even if it's a stand-alone, self-contained application that only displayed pictures from a bank of memory (think of a large MediaStick picture frame for a window), it's still *very* cool. I recently sold a house that had a wonderful view to one that has almost no view, so I'd be interested in something like this to bring that view to my new home.
I can also see this expanding to other applications like the walls that change color based upon the mood of the peron(s) in the room. Heck, combine it with other technologies, such as touch-panels and one mentioned here recently regarding circuitry-on-LCD, and you're on your way to never having to paint the interior of your house ever again! And simple, solid colors don't need to be the only choices. It should be pretty simple to add dynamic scenes to the list of choices, such as a grassland or a beach. Or how about changing colors/patterns based upon the sound in the room. What fun!
Now that I think about it more, this may just be the first major hurdle to a functional holodeck experience. Now if we can just get these things to work in 3D without the assistance of glasses or goggles, we'll really only need to modify physics within the confines of a room... Baby steps.
More specifically, the CD/Book you purchase at the used CD/Book store has already done it's damage when it came out of it's original shrinkwrap. It's now unable to generate revenue for the media companies, but it's also unable to generate revenue for the artist.
I do have a small gripe, though. By buying the music that the major media companies "produce", you are still supporting them. Just because you bought yours second-hand doesn't mean that the media companies haven't recieved their money. It's the person that purchased it the first time that gave them the money ala First Sale. But your demand in the second-hand market may have given someone the courage to buy a CD they normally wouldn't normally have purchased, safe in the knowledge that they could easily sell it to the used CD store where the value of that CD has risen due to higher demand and recouping more of his/her original costs in purchasing the CD new.
Yes, it's a bit of a stretch, but it does happen and is very much a factor in the valuation of new CDs of similar content.
I do applaud your effort to minimize the impact your dollar (or other currency) has in supporting these blood-sucking lawyer-wannabes, however. If/when I purchase new music for my collection, I try to buy CDs directly from independent artists when they're performing locally. After that, I head to the used CD store. I *never* buy new CDs, except royalty-free blanks for my PC.
Obtaining an authentic, decommissioned, military Hummer is just about impossible. Popular rumor has it that they're stripped for spare parts, and the frames are sliced to shreds, before being completely decomissioned. Can anyone else here shed any factual light on this?
Besides, the military versions are beat to all hell during the relatively short life that each of them has, anyway. While good routine and preventative maintenance can drastically extend the life of any vehicle, military use goes a little beyond what most manufacturers consider "extreme duty". I can't imagine that the available military Hummers can be of any decent quality if they're being sold, even though they're the most durable vehicles made today.
I'll take a stripped-down civillian model and give it some fresh homemade paint (read: flat gray camo colors). Strenthen the entire driveline and add the amphibious kit, and you're just about there! There shouldn't be any need for armor or an 80mm gun mounted to the rear, and I doubt the military would sell any of that stuff to the civillian population, anyway.
And not that I'd even have a need for a Hummer in the first place, civillian *or* military. I have my 4x4 pickup with decent tires and some good seat-time in bad weather. The Hummer wouldn't add that much to my daily commute, or even my recreational travel needs, unless the apocolypse arrived. Even if it did, would I really have a need for a vehicle as extreme as the Hummer? Probably not. I'll have other things to worry about than how I'm going to get to work in the morning. In short, it's overkill for the transportation needs of most of us. Sure, it would be fun to be able to go just about anywhere on the surface of the earth. But do any of us really have the time, skills, energy, or even desire to do that? And for those that do, why are you not saving your money to really get one and go see the world?
True, wearable gives you more options and is less intrusive. However, I think implantable computers or their various subsystems will inevitably become implantable.
At first, it will probably be basic sensors and/or location-awareness devices. (Come to think of it, this already exists) Generally, these will be passive devices aimed more at information gathering and interpretation than full-fledged computation or bio-enhancement.
The future will progress and features will be added at a steadily increasing rate, much like the boxes that sit on our desks, next to (or on top of) our TVs, in our pockets, on our wrists, and fully surround us every day. Eventually, these devices will offer enhancements directly to our own abilities. This process will occur so gradually that it will be difficult to put an exact date on it, even well after the fact.
The only major disadvantage that I can think of immediately is a lack of upgradeability. Unless, of course, it's designed as a semi-self-healing modular system that can survive a complete failure (read: removal) of about half or more of the overall subsystems during upgrades. Or maybe the systems will have a certain level of upgradeability built-in, like tweaking a car's engine to get better fuel economy and/or power.
The repercussions of all of this cannot yet be fully predicted, but a Borg-like being isn't totally out of the question, if a bit extreme. It will be an evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary one, but I believe it will happen someday. Perhaps even within our lifetimes.
The thought of all this potential makes me giddy with excitement, but also scares me shitless. The best we all can do is to pay attention and not let our guard down. Technology is not inherently good nor evil. It's what we do with it that is good or evil.
Now, why did you have to go and make me think about all of this right before bedtime?!
I've done tech support for a number of years, and I can easily differentiate between those who are "idiots" and those who just don't get it. Specifically, the idiots are the ones who just don't get it and often don't try. Make an effort, and nobody is going to give you too much of a hard time. Don't even try, and you run yourself right out of the support queue. Truncated example:
Them: "I have an error message with only an 'OK' button. Do I press 'OK'?" Me: "Yes, as there is no other option to get rid of that dialog box." Them: "Now I have *another* of these error messages with only an 'OK' button. Do I press 'OK'?" Me: "No. Pack your computer up and bring it back to the store. Tell them it's broken with a PEBKAC error ID 10-T. They'll be happy to assist you in finding a suitable replacement."
My Maytag washer is model MAV7700 purchased about 6 months ago.
My Maytag automatically and dynamically adjusts the water temperature to the "proper" warm temperature. Your Maytag just averages the temperatures between the hot and cold inputs.
My Maytag probably uses about a third of the electricity and about 25% less water than your Maytag.
My Maytag is probably about half as loud as your Maytag.
My Maytag has both an automatic bleach mixer/dispenser and a fabric softener dispenser. Your Maytag probably doesn't have either one.
In terms of general effectiveness, they're about dead even. (How complicated is it to churn a stew of dirty clothes in soapy water?)
As far as conveniece and NVH values, I would prefer my almost-new Maytag over your almost-50 year-old model.
You asked, so I replied. And, yes, I do expect that my Maytag will last about 20-30 years with minimal repairs.
It's true that products built before about the mid-'70s generally have better build quality. But refinements and enhancements have been made in great strides since then. Efficiency is up, harshness is down, and asthetics have definitely changed. Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's crap. In 30 years, I'll let you know just how well my Maytag waser is doing and if the local Maytag repair manager wants MINE in his front window for the sales drive that fall.
I'm fairly impressed with your collection of audio gear, however. I've got a Kenwood integrated amp and tuner combo from about '65 or so, and they both work fairly well. The integrated amp has a bit of a problem until it warms up, but I use the tuner on a daily basis in another setup in my home. I should set up some pictures sometime. I do like the brushed-aluminum look of my components that many manufacturers are starting to get back into now. However, my newest receiver runs circles around the integrated amp, and I have plenty of presets on a digital tuner where I could only use an analog dial-tune unit of the older tuner. I only wish I could combine the looks of my older equipment with the functionality of the newer stuff.
That explains *everything*! I never knew that hockey == war. But looking back, it makes total sense. "Players" getting paid obscene ammounts of money to shoot the precision-guided PUC-K munition into the opponenet's territory (what everyone calls a "goal") has always been secondary to the fistfights and bloodshed.
I suppose the refs are representatives from the UN making sure nobody brings in firearms and will invoke sanctions against any "player" "playing" too rough by sending them to the "penalty box". Nothing can get in or out until a predetermined time has passed, all the while the "team" he "plays" for is crippled by the reduction in forces. I suppose an agreement could be made to allow humanatarian aid through as long as no further rules have been violated.
I don't understand the agreed-upon ceace-fire twice per "game", but I can see it as a neccessity to regroup the forces and plan a new attack.
I also think it's brilliant to allow the public to watch by limiting the war to a small patch of ice inside of a big arena that seats have been installed around. Funding of the war effort has been made very efficient by offering these seats, as well as food and beverage, in exchange for money to the very populace they're protecting. Unfortunately, there is also the possibility of civillian casualties when the precision-guided PUC-K munition goes haywire and sails into the gathered crowd.
My only rhetorical question is this: Why has a "game" that's "played" on ice been so popular in areas where there is no natural ice? I specifically cite Los Angeles.
It's kind of funny to see these lego "people" smiling in these terrible scenes. I'm getting conflicting messages here... Am I normal? Am I supposed to enjoy getting hanged?
This is just plain odd. But it *is* also a hoot! I actually *giggled* for the first time since I was about 5.
"Any computer (or any other type of I/O system) is only as fast as it's slowest part."
It's a modification of an old addage that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link ("goodbye!"). Since the speed of a computer can change over time due to dynamic loads on various subsystems (CPU, memory, disk, etc.), any one of the core subsystems can bring the whole system to a grinding halt and preventing any other data from being processed.
In this case, I'd rather have a properly config'd system with a 450MHz processor and a GeForce2MX than a poorly config'd system with a 2.2GHz processor and a GeForce4 4600.
What am I thinking?! Gimme the better hardware. I'll reconfig it myself... [drools]
That's probably because it was a Radio Shack branded radio to begin with. In the interest of customer service, he probably just exchanged it with yours and counted it as a defective part upon receipt. As long as it has a relatively current catalog number, you shouldn't have any problems exchanging *any* Radio Shack branded product.
What I find rather amusing is that I'm able to buy an OEM copy of Windows at my local computer parts shop with the purchase of a $.05 case screw, else I'm required to pay for the full retail price. Specifically, they state "OEM only, Must be purchased with a piece of hardware." When I inquired as to what the minimum hardware purchase is to qualify for the OEM copy of Windows XP Pro ($159 for those wondering), a sales rep replied that their $.05 case screw is all that's required.
And, please, no jokes about how Windows XP is the item screwing the case...
My point is that if an OEM copy of Windows can be accompanied with a $.05 part, why not allow another OS be accompanied by (or installed on) a new hard disk?
As much as some people love to hate William, I don't think that it's entirely his fault that Mr. Doohan stopped speaking with him, even if intentional. Last I heard, James Doohan had a few screws loose and would mumble gibberish when he's not in character. Get him into his Star Trek role (such as you'd find at any convention/show he'll appear at), and he's a perfect match to his on-screen counterpart, though. It's kind of surreal seeing this older, semi-senile gentleman flip an internal switch and become Scotty.
So, in all fairness, I don't think you can wholly blame the Cap'n for this. Mr. Doohan probably values his privacy a bit more in his aging years and prefers to have only his closest family and friends with him when he's in private.
I don't normally chime in on the RIAA anymore. I'm too tired to deal with them or the subject matter. However, your comment does have another issue that I feel strongly about: Musicians. More specifically, the process of music writing/performing. Since being a musician is a hobby of mine (I don't perform for others or sell my material), I think I can speak with *some* authority on the subject.
Some musicians will write whatever the heck they want to write and perform. Music is not a measureable science, no matter how much leagal mumbo-jumbo you attach to it. Music is about emotions, or lack thereof sometimes. You can try to refine the emotional impact of a piece of music, but you'll lose it's integrity. The song might sound better, and it might sell better. But it's just not the same. Call me a purist if you must. Of course, some music might need some post-production massaging to get it "just right", but I prefer to take a minimalist approach there.
I'm rambling. Back to topic.
However, I do see the point in your post, if from a different point of view. If a reactionary change were made to the next album about *which songs* to include to increase sales, that would be a worthwhile goal. I am *completely* opposed to changing the feeling of the individual songs just to bend to market pressures. If there isn't a market for the song, then it won't sell. Write something else that will. And this assumes that you want to make money doing this. Most musicians I know are more concerned about their emotional impact (sometimes called a musician's "sound") rather than what song will sell best.
Sorry if I sound so narrow-minded about this. I just can't bring myself to really believe that such an emotional medium has been compromised by commercialism. I blame the RIAA, but if it wasn't them, it would be someone else. Sigh...
Slashdot Mirror
I've used a bootable CD that emulates a 3.5" floppy. For booting a hosed system, it works well. The problem will be with Dell's floppy requirement when running the .EXE file to upgrade some piece of firmware.
I can't see how Dell is going to get rid of the floppy requirement in any reasonable ammount of time. The executable opens a DOS/Command Line window and asks for a floppy disk in Drive A:. If you don't have one, you can't upgrade the firmware. With the number of systems and the number of options that have firmware upgrades on each of those system, I really can't see how they're going to change the way they distribute their upgrades reliably. They'll need to re-package and possibly re-code all of their firmware updates. Booting to a clean OS or an otherwise stable and protected environment is required so that there's a minimum of possible things that can go wrong and ruin the hardware being flashed.
CD-RW drives are much cheaper now so distributing small ISO images might work, but why waste a blank CD (or a CD-RW erase cycle) on less than 1 MB or so of data? Besides, not everyone has a CD burner yet and I know some people that will never want one. And getting them installed on systems that will need firmware updates the most (older systems) is sometimes tricky at best and impossible at worst. CD-RWs aren't the answer.
Now, MSI's Live BIOS utility might be a better solution. I've got 2 MSI MoBos, and this utility works well for each of them. But it requires a broadband connection to make it worthwhile. A 56k modem connection will work, but the scan of your hardware and comparison to the online database will be *really* slow. This might be the best solution until a fast, inexpensive, high-capacity, read/write media takes hold to displace the floppy for good.
The only other options I see is to continue using floppies on a very limited basis or to dual boot into a minimal OS when updating. That requires some forethought and not everybody knows how to do this when setting up their system.
Oh, and dont' forget that even Windows XP still requires a floppy upon installation if you're going to boot from a drive controller that isn't natively supported (like some off-brand SCSI/RAID cards or outboard IDE/RAID controllers).
The end of the floppy is near, but it's not going completely away any time soon. Manufacturers of hardware, among others, will make that determination for all of us.
I can't wait for this to take hold, but there's more than just making a company-wide mandate. If you've ever purchased a Dell system, you'll know that the majority of their firmware updates *REQUIRE* a floppy disk, which would require a floppy drive. I ordered an Inspiron laptop in July '02 and almost decided to get it without the floppy as I don't use it much, myself. However, I've heard of the firmware updates through other sources and decided to get it anyway, just to be on the safe side. At about $20, it didn't break the bank. It's also lighter than an extra battery, any of the optical drives, or an extra HD.
Until Dell stops requiring firmware updates via floppy, this won't work. Nice sentiment, though...
That's exactly the problem with the media industry as a whole. I've said it before in discussions about the RIAA member companies: It's all about promotion.
The simple fact that it wasn't promoted more/better than the other movies being released at the time doomed it. The loyal fans will see it if there's any promotion at all (ie: "The movie exists"), but it's the vast numbers of the general public that need to be sucked in for a film to be successful today which is, again, part of the problem.
Marketing decisions aside, I found it to be particularly boring and predictable. Star Trek scripts have always been predictable, so that's not such a big deal. But the fact that I found it boring is what did it for me. I'm in agreement with most everybody here in that the plot was paper-thin, the new characters were a little over the top (and unneccessary), and it just seemed to lack that classic "Trek" flavor. As a Star Trek movie, it did suck.
But it could have been a good movie otherwise, if all references to ST had been removed. There's a certain expectation of how the ST movies should be portrayed, and it just didn't live up to that expectation. I got the distinct feeling like it was trying too hard to be both faithful to the Star Trek universe as well as be something more than what it is (a 2+ hour, high-budget STTNG episode). That strain on the film's design made it feel more forced than it should have, and would have done much better (IMNSHO) had the story been re-written for a non-Trek setting.
In summary, the movie sucked because it was trying to be too much in order to capture a larger audience than the Trek universe typically attracts. Further, the promotion of the film to the general public (typical non-Trek fans) was not accomplished on par with other films being released at the same time period.
Life seems to be getting more predictable all the time...
Ideally, you should be able to make your computer fail *COMPLETELY* and still be able to recover completely. The distributed backup plan seems to have different specific advantages for two specific groups of home users, but has the same overall beneficial results.
For the average Joe with only one computer running that ancient copy of Windows98 on a P133, the massive ammount of data-cruft is bound to be the weakest point of upgrading or even backing up. I've found that most families only have that one computer, and only have the option of backing up onto floppies. Usually their data can fit on one or two CDR/CDRW discs, but their system is also usually too old to get a cd burner to work reliably. In addition, they're just too stingy with the purse-strings to shell out the $100 or so for a decent, middle-of-the-pack drive, anyway. Sending critical data over the internet might be a better option, if a bit more time-consuming (no broadband, only 56k modem). Frequent backups like this has the potential to be substantially more reliable, not to mention scores easier, than a pile of floppies as you're ideally only sending the new data. I can't tell you how often I wished for something like this when working on a friend's/family's system across town and away from my own network.
And that brings me to my second group that can really take advantage of something like this: Power-users with a small network running at home. My network has a file-server that stores *EVERYTHING* on it for backup purposes. It's got ISO's of all my software and OS's, drivers, stand-alone programs, documents, and media files. Currently, there's about 80GB of data on there. Backing up that data is a Travan-5 drive (10GB/tape, native) and 9 cartridges. At about 3 hours per tape, backing up to 9 TR-5 tapes takes days, not hours. There's two additional tapes for backup of the server's OS and configuration and it easily fits on one tape. But if there are any significant changes to the system, I rotate the tape so that there's always a working copy in case things go terribly wrong. That's a total of 11 tapes. They're not exactly cheap, but it's probably the least expensive backup I can find right now without going to removable HDs (I'm avoiding that solution as HDs are, in my opinion, less reliable and durable than tapes). Using this distributed backup plan would allow me to recover my server's OS from the single tape and retrieve the data from the network when I have time.
The 2 desktops and 2 laptops can be fully recovered with an OS or system recovery cd and the rest is available on the server. In fact, I usually have one of each type of computer down at any given time for something-or-other. Having the data on the server allows me to blow away any of the systems I run at any time and completely recover the system to a working state in just over an hour.
Actually, I had been setting up a distributed backup plan for my own server with some of my friends so we'd all have each others' server's backup. More accurately, the plan was to merge the changes between all the servers' data and share it between all of us in a manner similar to CVS. There's only 3 of us, but we're located all over the state and we all have broadband. 80GB of data is a large ammount to initially transfer. Really, though, all we'd be transmitting is the changes we've made which would limit the total bandwidth used. We'd probably only set it up for once per week in automatic mode to further decrease the load with an option to manually update. In the event of a complete failure of one of the systems, there should be a copy from one of the other two servers that's no older than 1 week. As the storage requirements grow, each server can be updated with additional storage in sequence so that it recovers in a manner similar to how a RAID5 array rebuilds the data on a replaced drive.
Unfortunately, neither of my two friends in question have the resources to afford the hardware and set up their own server to the reliability standards that I'm requiring, so it kind of fell through for now. I'm working with them on how to get everything running, and I may just maintain it for them from a remote console. They'll still host the server on their network and have access to it, of course. But the responsibility of maintaining the system may just have to lie with me.
In short, it's not terribly difficult to implement a solution like this, but there are serious bandwidth concerns. If you're only doing this amongst your friends/peers, it's possible to mitigate the bandwidth issue by using a single removable hard disk to sneakernet the data to a fresh server. This allows for a much more reliable home network for power-users, and gives some peace-of-mind to the average user (and their power-user friends who fix their computer for them)
"...playing only the top100 or something."
Actually, it's more like the Top 30 or 40. A collection of 100 singles would be able to get them through the majority of the work-day (8 hours) without repeating a single tune. Let's assume 3 minutes for the typical radio-length single multiplied by the theoretical 100 as per your example. That would give us a total playlist length of 300 minutes. Divide that by 60 minutes for every hour and you have 5 hours. By that math, assuming the station always plays their entire daily playlist, you should hear any given song a maximum of 2 times in any given 8-hour workday.
But if you've ever listened to any major radio station for an entire workday, you'll hear at least one song about 3 or 4 times before you go home. Don't believe me? Try it sometime. Though I don't think it would do anyone any good to do it on a regular basis as it will significantly degrade your sense of good-taste.
As previously reported in many stories (too lazy to find them right now), timothy seems to be the source of the majority of the dupes. What's scary is that he often dupes his own stories. Can you say, "Short-Term Memory"?
Short-Term... LINE!
*SMACK!* [racermd slaps forehead with palm of hand in disgust]
I've got a bad short-term memory, and specifically with people's names, but what do you have to be on if you're forgetting the stories you've *posted* the day prior? I'll forgive the occasional relapse. But this is consistent.
The sensible thing to do is to just completely ignore the dupes. Don't even open the discussion thread. I know, I'm not exactly a gleaming example of my own advice, but I usually stay away from them as a rule. Consider this my one exception. The proper thing to do is to send an e-mail to the editors to let them know a dupe got by them. Griping about it in the discussion thread is off-topic and counter-productive at best.
I hate to agree with (almost) everyone, but that was my precisely my point. I'm not defending Metalica's actions, but I can see where they're coming from. They certainly did the inappropriate thing by going after Napster, but it was the path that appeared (at the time) to have a higher probability of immediate success. Performing an exhaustive investigation is both time-consuming and expensive. Telling Napster to both stop sharing files and to hand over the name of the person(s) with their songs is a much shorter path, especially if you can get the might of the entire music industry behind your cause.
Pointing out the reason they did what they did and defending the same reason are completely different actions on my part. I did the former, not the latter. Please don't confuse my motives. I've never really liked Metallica, even before the Napster incident, but at least I was open to hearing one of their songs once in a while before all of this erupted. Now, I find their music rather displeasing and only reminds me of all that's wrong in the tech and music industries. I couldn't enjoy anything by Metallica now if I wanted to. The name alone is enough to turn me off to whatever it is that they've made. I've moved on and my musical tastes have widened significantly. I don't think I'm missing much by passing on anything Metallica.
I'm also very happy that p2p sharing software has evolved to a more decentralized nature. I really think that it's the way the future of all computing is going to go, anyway. Napster may have failed as a company, but we've all learned from their mistakes in order to make and find better products to fill the void that Napster left behind.
Because the way Napster was designed, it's almost impossible to find the source of the "upload" post facto. Once it's on the network, it's there until nobody wants it anymore and everyone throws it away or stops sharing it. I completely agree with your point. They should go after the person that leaked the content to begin with. But trying to find that person through traditional means was probably a little more difficult than picking on an big, juicy, easy target. Think about it. What sounds easier to you?
A) Investigating and following thousands of leads until you narrow the number of suspects down to a few hundred>
B) Getting the media companies behind you and going after the company's product that facilitates copyright infringement on their dime.
Napster was an unfortunate victim, but they don't have anybody else to blame but themselves. Had they cooperated from the start, whether or not they had the ability to do so, they would probably still be doing business today. The fact that the company was so defiant at the start of it all doomed them. But what could they do? Once the media companies got wind of their existence and their possibilities, it would have been over, anyway. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. It just happened sooner than later, and by the RIAA's puppets of Metalica et al. (Especially Henley. Ugh. If ever there were a poster-child of Not-Having-To-Worry-About-File-Sharing, it would be Don Henley.)
Oh, well. I figure we've all learned from that experience since then, and are much better off now than we were then. Distributed-file-sharing software has gotten *much* better, both in terms of overall network structure as well as the available content.
You beat me to it! I can still hear the late Mr. Hartman's voice in that...
I've got a red '91 Miata "A" with only 45k miles, stored winters in MN, and a 2001 Chevy pickup (maroon, LT, Z71, ext. cab). I'm happy with both vehicles, as they're both reliable and fun to drive.
The Miata, at age 12, is running like a champ. No major problems, mostly due to great overall engineering and simple preventative maintenance. If you've ever been a Miata nut, you'd know most of the engineering history through a helpful guy in Australia named Bob. He was one of the original Miata designers or engineers (I don't remember which, and there's a big difference between the two), and hosts a great monthly Q/A session on a Miata fan site I won't mention here. (Go do your own homework, I don't want to slam the guy with unsolicited, unrelated e-mails) The only real problem I've had with the car was a rough engine when cold due to a faulty O2 sensor. The car is very easy to work on, as it's not overly complicated. The engine is only a 1.6L inline-4, and it's pretty well understood that you can't really do anything to hurt the thing unless you run it dry of oil and/or coolant, which is covered under that preventative maintenance thing I mentioned above. Even if the timing belt breaks, it's not catastrophic as it's a non-interference engine (the valves won't hit the piston no matter how close you can get them). You may be stranded for a bit, but you don't need a new engine. The designers even came up with this crazy idea to design a body shape with no flat surfaces. Ideally, this would allow a drop of water to roll off of any body part is was placed on. I can assure you that this doesn't work in practice, but it does make for a pretty shapely car!
The only arguement I'd like to make about your savings in a front-end collision in a Miata is this: If you were ever in a front-end collition severe enough to deploy the airbag(s) with your Miata, you're going to need more than a fender. It's a *very* small car, and the crush boxes are even smaller. To absorb the impact of that SUV at even 20 MPH, the Miata will probably be compressed to about 2/3 of it's original size. You'll be fine in the passenger compartment's "safety cage", but the rest of the car is designed to crumple at any force remotely resembling an impact. In fact, the hood on your car will probably be the most expensive of the bodywork, as it's a nice aluminum piece. The fenders, IIRC, are steel. That front bumper cover can't be cheap, either, as it's a one-piece facia made of some plastics. If you're unlucky enough to be in a collision severe enough to enter the engine compartment, the engine will probably be tilted down and underneath the car, but you're going to need another one of those, too. There's not much on the engine that can be sacrificed. Remember that it was designed to be light and relatively fast, so there's not much there you can scrape off before it's unusable. Then there's the frame work, at which point the insurance company will probably write off the car as a total loss due to the fairly low replacement cost of a 2-year-old Miata. Face it, Miata's just don't hold their value due to the 500,000-plus of them on the roads (all model years).
Another thing for all of you who think that the Miata isn't a performance car. It was never designed to be in the same class as a Corvette or a Mustang or a Porche. It's not overpowered with a big, beefy V8. It's not even offered in a 6-cyl version. The I4 in the '91 I have is rated at about 90 or so hp at the rear wheels, 116 at the crank. Since it's now over 10 years old, it's probably even lower than that. But in a car weighing just over 2200 lbs in stock trim (light for a convertable, which all Miatas are), it's fairly spirited. And I prefer to think of it as not being "underpowered", but rather "oversprung" and "overbraked". The mere lack of an abundance of power does not make the car weak and underpowered. It's all about the application of the available power that's more important. I can easily beat the Corvette and Mustang owners around some of the twisties here in town. Even some crotch-rockets have trouble as the Miata, with good tires and a minor tweak to the stock suspension, can pull more than 1.1g on the skidpad and will have better speed *through* the corner than just about anything short of a race-prepped car or bike.
I'm getting off-topic here, but the Miata is a fun, inexpensive car that's even cheaper to operate. Yes, it's safe. No, I don't think that it's entirely recyclable (finally back on topic). And you don't really want to play bumper-cars with one.
My pickup, on the other hand, exactly 10 years newer, is a huge hulking beast. In a recent collision with a late-'80s Taurus, I suffered a bent license plate while the Taurus required an entirely new rear bumber. The bumper was made of plastic and filled with a styrofoam inner support to give it more resistance to bending and cracking. My truck shattered the foam insert and marred the bumper to the point that it was less expensive to replace it than repair it. That's why it's my wintertime vehicle. Since bad road conditions are a large contribtor to collisions in MN during the winter, I would feel much safer in my big hulking pickup truck than just about anything else out there for that time period, gas mileage be damned. In addition, GM powertrains are known to just keep running and refuse to die, even when they're so far gone that you're intentionally trying to kill them. Properly taken care of, the GM engines will probably outlive the rest of the vehicle. I'm not entirely certain of the 4.8L, 5.3L, and the 6.0L, but they're based on one of the longest-running series of engines in history so I have some well-founded confidence there. The truck can fall apart around me, but if the frame is relatively straight and the engine runs, I'll be happy! I plan to keep it for about 20 years and am taking care of it with that in mind.
However, some cars just aren't suited to the 20-year plan, like the Focus. Same goes for Saturn. Don't even get me started with the Korean imports. Hondas and Toyotas are probably the best candidates coming out of Japan. BMW and Porche are the best bets out of Germany, but for very different reasons. The new VWs and Audis (they share lots of engineering) just don't seem to be up to par. Overall, they're solid, but I have doubts as to their longevity to 20 years. US-made compact cars are disposable, and probably have more plastics in them than most of us would feel comfortable with. On top of that, they're poorly engineered. More appropriately, the cars were compromised by the bean-counters desire to produce a cheap product even cheaper to help increase the bottom line or reduce the red ink. All mass-produced cars ultimately suffer this fate, but the domestic compacts seem to be the target of this practice more than the rest. US-made mid- and full-size cars are better, but not by much. All SUVs are overpriced truck-based station wagons for the Gen-X and Gen-Y crowd, but are generally more durable due to their pickup truck roots. And full-size pickups are probably the most durable of all, as they were designed from the outset to do lots of work. It's hard to abuse something that was designed for abuse. Compact SUVs (or whatever they're calling them now) and and compact pickups are down a rung on the durability scale, but hold up pretty well due to the factors mentioned above regarding full-size pickups.
In short, do your homework before you buy a car. And I'd recommend that you buy the best of what's available at that time based on your own needs. Don't overbuy, but don't accept a vehicle that won't meet your needs. It's a major purchase in most people's lives, and you don't want to be stuck with a car that doesn't do what you need it to do or that you don't feel confortable with. Read the trade magazines, ask other owners what they think, and *definitely* take more than one test drive to get the excitement of a new toy out of your system. If possible, rent a car similar to the one you plan to purchase for a week. Car rental companies will usually try to accomodate you as best they can, and you'll see what excessive wear-and-tear will reveal before you get stuck with it. With vehicles, YMMV takes on a whole different dimension.
That's all for now. It's late and I need to work in the morning...
That's great, but what happens when the company we're rooting for against MS is just as large and powerful, if not more so, than MS? Two elephants dancing come to mind...
We've got some of MS's skeltons out of the closet. We know that they're not entirely playing fair. MS has a legal history of screwing with consumers, OEMs, governments, etc. It's on record now, and we're keeping a close eye on them. It's like having a prior arrest record when the cops come to the door and start handcuffing everyone for any number of reasons. The one with the prior record will get fewer breaks than the first-time offender. Political clout be damned, MS won't get away with bad business behavior as easily from now on. Why go through it all again with someone new?
That's the theme that most everyone (not all) is missing: Marketing.
/. crowd will argue with me when I say that MS software is bug-ridden crap. But people will line up just to pay for a new copy of an OS or office suite that they don't need. In the many reviews of recent history focus on how MS became the behemoth entity that it is, most will point at a stroke of marketing genius by Gates in that he *licensed* MS-DOS to IBM instead of selling it outright to them to include with their brand new desktop-sized computer. Does anybody else see the similarities here with the major music labels, the artists they represent, and the general public? Ownership of the products being sold is retained by MS, and we're all just buying the right to use it. And the sheeple wouldn't buy this stuff unless MS did a good job of telling people that they need to have it.
The major labels are as big as they are because they know how to market the talent that they sign. They get bigger with every artist/band they sign and become more in demand to the artists/bands due to the size of the marketing machine. It's funny that the demand for a label tends to increase in relative proportion to the number of artists they've signed. It's a kind of self-perpetuating desire.
I don't think I'm shattering anyone's illusions when I say this, but the major labels have never been "about the music". Their sole purpose is, has been, and always will be to market the heck out of you so that your (their?) product sells. Obviously, that makes them money that you're hoping they'll share with you. Sure, they hire people that know how to make music sound good. It's in their best interests to make you sound and appear good. No, they want you to sound *GREAT*. But the goal is to sell a product that was never their's to begin with to people who probably would never have known it existed, or even that it was desired. They take the job of promotion off the shoulders of the artist(s) so the they can focus instead on making a great product to sell.
And that's where the model starts to break down. They don't share enough with the artists to make them happy. They use scare tactics and legal papers to get what *THEY* want. The artists that want to be promoted widely must either sign with a major label or spend the majority of their time on their own promotion duties. There's 2 major problems with this alternative approach of DIY-promotion. First, the artist isn't focusing on the product that they're promoting, thus producing an inferior product that won't live up to the promotions. Second, the major labels have most, if not all, of the major distribution channels locked up to themselves by being prohibitively expensive for the DIY'er. It's really more about scale than total cost per unit. So not only is it time-consuming, it's also prohibitively expensinve to market yourself. If you were a recording artist, what would you rather be doing: sign a contract or spend your time and money marketing yourself? It's like choosing between the lesser of two evils. The only other option is to not participate at all. But those with real talent and the desire to be successful and famous generally don't have the time and/or money to do the job themselves. At least with the major labels, you can streamline the process a little and only worry about the money. From that standpoint, the labels start looking pretty good. Until you realize that you're locked into a contract that's even more expensive to back out of... We've heard that story too many times to count.
Then there's the issue of payola. Despite the fact that this is no longer supposed to be going on, it does happen, just under the radar and/or with shady deals. The local FM radio station probably won't even consider playing a song by a new artist unless they get something out of the deal. I'm sure everyone can cite exceptions to this, such as a local-only segment run for maybe an hour of each day, but that's all they are: exceptions. As a general rule, you won't find new talent on any of the "popular" radio stations across the country at prime times unless it's delivered by one of the major labels. If you can cite exceptions to this, please do so in the hopes that we can find a station in our area and support them.
I'll also draw a parallel to Microsoft's own strategy. In case anyone's been living under a rock or in a coma for the last 3 decades, I'll need to explain that Microsoft is primarily a marketing machine. It's products are "good enough" for the general popluation, but are far from superior. I don't think too many of the
I will reiterate that marketing (and distribution as a result) is the key that the major labels hold. And they will hold it for as long as they see it as an advantage. Since the internet can be (and is, indeed) a lucrative distribution channel for any size label, it only stands to reason that they want control over that medium. But since the internet is founded primarily on trust and freedom (as in speech), gaining control over it has been fairly painful for all parties involved and can probably never be totally controlled by the major labels.
I will also point out that the future of the major labels' is far from certain, but I do think that they have an opportunity to survive more peacefully with the internet population in the future. Understandably, control over distribution is a concern. But I also really think that the leverage of the major labels will be weakened by an extremely inexpensive and accessible distribution channel like the internet. Don't get me wrong. General promotion for things like concerts, appearances, etc., will be their primary draw to up-and-coming artists. But none of this will happen until the internet is "old-hat" to the grandparents. Until then, it's business as usual.
I actually have very little experience in the professional music industry, but I am a hobby/home musician that frequently jams with friends and perform only for people I know. When I perform, I only recoup my costs (very little, usually just a few bucks for gas) and usually get a free meal. I'm happy that way and never want it to get bigger. Before I settled into this mode, I did look into promotion and explored the options of signing with a label. I almost had an ulcer (at age 22!) just hearing about what other smaller "signed" artists got in their "deals". The point is that I did my homework, but my knowledge is almost all second-hand.
Ok, that may be his BEST role. But his funniest is in Little Nicky":
"You-ah.. make the Lord-ah... VERY NERVOUS!"
And I'll leave it at that. I don't want to get bogged down into a tangent criticism of Tarantino's work.
And back on topic, I don't think that this would neccessarily have to be too complicated. Already there are windows that can become opaque with the flip of a switch. IIRC, the early technology was based on a significantly less-sophisticated design than the current crop of LCD panels. The idea is that you have liquid crystals sandwiched between 2 plates of glass and you either apply an electric current through the liquid crystals to make it clear or remove it to make it opaque, similar in appearance to frosted glass. (This is possibly backwards, and you can correct me if you'd like, but I'm pretty sure it worked this way.)
Throw in a standard video port (composite, s-video, 15-pin VGA, whatever), an alignment grid of some sort, and some controller circuitry, and I can see this as an evolution of that early technology. I mean, even if it's a stand-alone, self-contained application that only displayed pictures from a bank of memory (think of a large MediaStick picture frame for a window), it's still *very* cool. I recently sold a house that had a wonderful view to one that has almost no view, so I'd be interested in something like this to bring that view to my new home.
I can also see this expanding to other applications like the walls that change color based upon the mood of the peron(s) in the room. Heck, combine it with other technologies, such as touch-panels and one mentioned here recently regarding circuitry-on-LCD, and you're on your way to never having to paint the interior of your house ever again! And simple, solid colors don't need to be the only choices. It should be pretty simple to add dynamic scenes to the list of choices, such as a grassland or a beach. Or how about changing colors/patterns based upon the sound in the room. What fun!
Now that I think about it more, this may just be the first major hurdle to a functional holodeck experience. Now if we can just get these things to work in 3D without the assistance of glasses or goggles, we'll really only need to modify physics within the confines of a room... Baby steps.
More specifically, the CD/Book you purchase at the used CD/Book store has already done it's damage when it came out of it's original shrinkwrap. It's now unable to generate revenue for the media companies, but it's also unable to generate revenue for the artist.
I do have a small gripe, though. By buying the music that the major media companies "produce", you are still supporting them. Just because you bought yours second-hand doesn't mean that the media companies haven't recieved their money. It's the person that purchased it the first time that gave them the money ala First Sale. But your demand in the second-hand market may have given someone the courage to buy a CD they normally wouldn't normally have purchased, safe in the knowledge that they could easily sell it to the used CD store where the value of that CD has risen due to higher demand and recouping more of his/her original costs in purchasing the CD new.
Yes, it's a bit of a stretch, but it does happen and is very much a factor in the valuation of new CDs of similar content.
I do applaud your effort to minimize the impact your dollar (or other currency) has in supporting these blood-sucking lawyer-wannabes, however. If/when I purchase new music for my collection, I try to buy CDs directly from independent artists when they're performing locally. After that, I head to the used CD store. I *never* buy new CDs, except royalty-free blanks for my PC.
Obtaining an authentic, decommissioned, military Hummer is just about impossible. Popular rumor has it that they're stripped for spare parts, and the frames are sliced to shreds, before being completely decomissioned. Can anyone else here shed any factual light on this?
Besides, the military versions are beat to all hell during the relatively short life that each of them has, anyway. While good routine and preventative maintenance can drastically extend the life of any vehicle, military use goes a little beyond what most manufacturers consider "extreme duty". I can't imagine that the available military Hummers can be of any decent quality if they're being sold, even though they're the most durable vehicles made today.
I'll take a stripped-down civillian model and give it some fresh homemade paint (read: flat gray camo colors). Strenthen the entire driveline and add the amphibious kit, and you're just about there! There shouldn't be any need for armor or an 80mm gun mounted to the rear, and I doubt the military would sell any of that stuff to the civillian population, anyway.
And not that I'd even have a need for a Hummer in the first place, civillian *or* military. I have my 4x4 pickup with decent tires and some good seat-time in bad weather. The Hummer wouldn't add that much to my daily commute, or even my recreational travel needs, unless the apocolypse arrived. Even if it did, would I really have a need for a vehicle as extreme as the Hummer? Probably not. I'll have other things to worry about than how I'm going to get to work in the morning. In short, it's overkill for the transportation needs of most of us. Sure, it would be fun to be able to go just about anywhere on the surface of the earth. But do any of us really have the time, skills, energy, or even desire to do that? And for those that do, why are you not saving your money to really get one and go see the world?
True, wearable gives you more options and is less intrusive. However, I think implantable computers or their various subsystems will inevitably become implantable.
At first, it will probably be basic sensors and/or location-awareness devices. (Come to think of it, this already exists) Generally, these will be passive devices aimed more at information gathering and interpretation than full-fledged computation or bio-enhancement.
The future will progress and features will be added at a steadily increasing rate, much like the boxes that sit on our desks, next to (or on top of) our TVs, in our pockets, on our wrists, and fully surround us every day. Eventually, these devices will offer enhancements directly to our own abilities. This process will occur so gradually that it will be difficult to put an exact date on it, even well after the fact.
The only major disadvantage that I can think of immediately is a lack of upgradeability. Unless, of course, it's designed as a semi-self-healing modular system that can survive a complete failure (read: removal) of about half or more of the overall subsystems during upgrades. Or maybe the systems will have a certain level of upgradeability built-in, like tweaking a car's engine to get better fuel economy and/or power.
The repercussions of all of this cannot yet be fully predicted, but a Borg-like being isn't totally out of the question, if a bit extreme. It will be an evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary one, but I believe it will happen someday. Perhaps even within our lifetimes.
The thought of all this potential makes me giddy with excitement, but also scares me shitless. The best we all can do is to pay attention and not let our guard down. Technology is not inherently good nor evil. It's what we do with it that is good or evil.
Now, why did you have to go and make me think about all of this right before bedtime?!
That is *so* true. Give this man a cigar!
."
I've done tech support for a number of years, and I can easily differentiate between those who are "idiots" and those who just don't get it. Specifically, the idiots are the ones who just don't get it and often don't try. Make an effort, and nobody is going to give you too much of a hard time. Don't even try, and you run yourself right out of the support queue. Truncated example:
Them: "I have an error message with only an 'OK' button. Do I press 'OK'?"
Me: "Yes, as there is no other option to get rid of that dialog box."
Them: "Now I have *another* of these error messages with only an 'OK' button. Do I press 'OK'?"
Me: "No. Pack your computer up and bring it back to the store. Tell them it's broken with a PEBKAC error ID 10-T. They'll be happy to assist you in finding a suitable replacement
My Maytag washer is model MAV7700 purchased about 6 months ago.
:-)
My Maytag automatically and dynamically adjusts the water temperature to the "proper" warm temperature. Your Maytag just averages the temperatures between the hot and cold inputs.
My Maytag probably uses about a third of the electricity and about 25% less water than your Maytag.
My Maytag is probably about half as loud as your Maytag.
My Maytag has both an automatic bleach mixer/dispenser and a fabric softener dispenser. Your Maytag probably doesn't have either one.
In terms of general effectiveness, they're about dead even. (How complicated is it to churn a stew of dirty clothes in soapy water?)
As far as conveniece and NVH values, I would prefer my almost-new Maytag over your almost-50 year-old model.
You asked, so I replied. And, yes, I do expect that my Maytag will last about 20-30 years with minimal repairs.
It's true that products built before about the mid-'70s generally have better build quality. But refinements and enhancements have been made in great strides since then. Efficiency is up, harshness is down, and asthetics have definitely changed. Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's crap. In 30 years, I'll let you know just how well my Maytag waser is doing and if the local Maytag repair manager wants MINE in his front window for the sales drive that fall.
I'm fairly impressed with your collection of audio gear, however. I've got a Kenwood integrated amp and tuner combo from about '65 or so, and they both work fairly well. The integrated amp has a bit of a problem until it warms up, but I use the tuner on a daily basis in another setup in my home. I should set up some pictures sometime. I do like the brushed-aluminum look of my components that many manufacturers are starting to get back into now. However, my newest receiver runs circles around the integrated amp, and I have plenty of presets on a digital tuner where I could only use an analog dial-tune unit of the older tuner. I only wish I could combine the looks of my older equipment with the functionality of the newer stuff.
Just some food for thought...
That explains *everything*! I never knew that hockey == war. But looking back, it makes total sense. "Players" getting paid obscene ammounts of money to shoot the precision-guided PUC-K munition into the opponenet's territory (what everyone calls a "goal") has always been secondary to the fistfights and bloodshed.
I suppose the refs are representatives from the UN making sure nobody brings in firearms and will invoke sanctions against any "player" "playing" too rough by sending them to the "penalty box". Nothing can get in or out until a predetermined time has passed, all the while the "team" he "plays" for is crippled by the reduction in forces. I suppose an agreement could be made to allow humanatarian aid through as long as no further rules have been violated.
I don't understand the agreed-upon ceace-fire twice per "game", but I can see it as a neccessity to regroup the forces and plan a new attack.
I also think it's brilliant to allow the public to watch by limiting the war to a small patch of ice inside of a big arena that seats have been installed around. Funding of the war effort has been made very efficient by offering these seats, as well as food and beverage, in exchange for money to the very populace they're protecting. Unfortunately, there is also the possibility of civillian casualties when the precision-guided PUC-K munition goes haywire and sails into the gathered crowd.
My only rhetorical question is this: Why has a "game" that's "played" on ice been so popular in areas where there is no natural ice? I specifically cite Los Angeles.
It's kind of funny to see these lego "people" smiling in these terrible scenes. I'm getting conflicting messages here... Am I normal? Am I supposed to enjoy getting hanged?
This is just plain odd. But it *is* also a hoot! I actually *giggled* for the first time since I was about 5.
To summarize:
"Any computer (or any other type of I/O system) is only as fast as it's slowest part."
It's a modification of an old addage that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link ("goodbye!"). Since the speed of a computer can change over time due to dynamic loads on various subsystems (CPU, memory, disk, etc.), any one of the core subsystems can bring the whole system to a grinding halt and preventing any other data from being processed.
In this case, I'd rather have a properly config'd system with a 450MHz processor and a GeForce2MX than a poorly config'd system with a 2.2GHz processor and a GeForce4 4600.
What am I thinking?! Gimme the better hardware. I'll reconfig it myself... [drools]
That's probably because it was a Radio Shack branded radio to begin with. In the interest of customer service, he probably just exchanged it with yours and counted it as a defective part upon receipt. As long as it has a relatively current catalog number, you shouldn't have any problems exchanging *any* Radio Shack branded product.
What I find rather amusing is that I'm able to buy an OEM copy of Windows at my local computer parts shop with the purchase of a $.05 case screw, else I'm required to pay for the full retail price. Specifically, they state "OEM only, Must be purchased with a piece of hardware." When I inquired as to what the minimum hardware purchase is to qualify for the OEM copy of Windows XP Pro ($159 for those wondering), a sales rep replied that their $.05 case screw is all that's required.
And, please, no jokes about how Windows XP is the item screwing the case...
My point is that if an OEM copy of Windows can be accompanied with a $.05 part, why not allow another OS be accompanied by (or installed on) a new hard disk?
As much as some people love to hate William, I don't think that it's entirely his fault that Mr. Doohan stopped speaking with him, even if intentional. Last I heard, James Doohan had a few screws loose and would mumble gibberish when he's not in character. Get him into his Star Trek role (such as you'd find at any convention/show he'll appear at), and he's a perfect match to his on-screen counterpart, though. It's kind of surreal seeing this older, semi-senile gentleman flip an internal switch and become Scotty.
So, in all fairness, I don't think you can wholly blame the Cap'n for this. Mr. Doohan probably values his privacy a bit more in his aging years and prefers to have only his closest family and friends with him when he's in private.
I don't normally chime in on the RIAA anymore. I'm too tired to deal with them or the subject matter. However, your comment does have another issue that I feel strongly about: Musicians. More specifically, the process of music writing/performing. Since being a musician is a hobby of mine (I don't perform for others or sell my material), I think I can speak with *some* authority on the subject.
Some musicians will write whatever the heck they want to write and perform. Music is not a measureable science, no matter how much leagal mumbo-jumbo you attach to it. Music is about emotions, or lack thereof sometimes. You can try to refine the emotional impact of a piece of music, but you'll lose it's integrity. The song might sound better, and it might sell better. But it's just not the same. Call me a purist if you must. Of course, some music might need some post-production massaging to get it "just right", but I prefer to take a minimalist approach there.
I'm rambling. Back to topic.
However, I do see the point in your post, if from a different point of view. If a reactionary change were made to the next album about *which songs* to include to increase sales, that would be a worthwhile goal. I am *completely* opposed to changing the feeling of the individual songs just to bend to market pressures. If there isn't a market for the song, then it won't sell. Write something else that will. And this assumes that you want to make money doing this. Most musicians I know are more concerned about their emotional impact (sometimes called a musician's "sound") rather than what song will sell best.
Sorry if I sound so narrow-minded about this. I just can't bring myself to really believe that such an emotional medium has been compromised by commercialism. I blame the RIAA, but if it wasn't them, it would be someone else. Sigh...