Why have they never tried to prevent the installation of competing OSes before in history since the release of the first "IBM clones?"
Use of the BIOS implementation has prevented this from happening. Replacement of BIOS with UEFI has been a long effort and is only now hitting critical mass.
Your question is too focused. The industry trend for all other device-types has certainly been towards being proprietery and locked down. That's despite the great potential if they weren't. Apple, Sony (PS3), US phone carrier releases.
Say a poor person smokes a lot. He doesn't pay taxes and is covered under Universal Healthcare.
If the person is not paying taxes, they are either too poor to pay anything, criminal (based on my assumption that tax dodgers are dealt with), or alien; that's another discussion.
How does that compare to the savings of just saying "If you smoke you're not covered for smoking-related diseases unless you pay this extra smoking premium, and you chose to skip the premium and still keep smoking, so you don't get treatment?"
But going with the smoker example, you already pay for this person whether it's in hidden costs or covered formally by UHC. If they get a smoking related sickness do you really think they're going to stalwartly endure it and not eventually go to an emergency room?
It is no one's place to dictate whether healthcare is provided or not. Doctors who are in the best position to judge, as I understand, try their damnedest to keep a person alive regardless of cause. Or would you rather we not provide healthcare to an athlete who might be at risk of getting a permanent injury, how about a soldier who went to war, an emergency professional who is exposed to toxic substances. All these life choices also have known and provable health risks. Should we also offer only claused coverage to them, because there is a good chance they're going to have related health problems from what they're doing.
Try another perspective: What if after 20 years of smoking the person quits, and another 20 years later still gets emphysema? What if the emphysema occurs from another cause all together, how would anyone know? Should would still judge that person unworthy, and watch them die?
God forbid anyone make a wrong decision in life, right?
Using healthcare as a system of sticks and carrots is plain stupid. I'm sorry, but you are a citizen, so am I, so is the poor person who doesn't perfectly network job connections and loses their health coverage with their job, so is the drunk who smokes. I am not willing to dictate who gets coverage, nor should you be. There's simply no logical or moral excuse of why we can't cover our citizens universally.
Now how are your strategic actions by the government going to help me end up paying less in taxes to cover that person's lung cancer?
That person's cost of lung cancer treatment is spread across 250million people, not a smaller subset under any other "insurance" plan.
In the US there is nearly a 13% chance that Hobo Spaien doesn't have health coverage. What is your point with this question, and how does it counter his/her's?
That's a great outlook. Like you, I don't have cable, and don't really miss it. The more I watch DVD movies/series, the less patience I have for programming with commercials.
Like this dicussion questions, I despise the tepid service we receive for a premium price, and I think you're right we will bring about change. I just wish is could be sooner...
'...Is it worthy or is it just another player that falls short of the iPod's greatness?'
There are flaws, and I resent that no one ever talks about them. I don't know if the newer competitors (past may 2003) have better options but a couple of the things I can't stand about the Ipod are:
1. No delete on the fly:
If I come across a song that sucks I can't get rid of it, and it continues to take space on my Ipod. I can give the song a bad rating and remove it later now that PC itunes is out, and I assume is compatible with this feature. This is dangerous though, as I usually use the Ipod while driving and it's extremely distracting to get the rating right with the somewhat erratic solid-state dial. Plus it's just a pain in the ass to constantly have to hook the Ipod up to my computer to get rid of the occasion song. Which leads me to...
2. An intermediate application (be it itunes, ephpod, music match, itunes for PC) is required to put the _playable_ files on the Ipod:
This just sucks. I run an on-line radio station, and have already gone through the process of sorting my MP3's. I want to be able to just throw my directory structure in, have the IPod parse itself, and go. Maybe Apple requires this as a layer of protection against piracy, but I don't see why the Ipod can't be more autonomous.
I admit the glamour and the non-stop raving (but biased) reviews did get me to buy the Ipod. And for the most part I'm satisfied with it. To give Apple credit, they are making/allowing some great add-ons, like the media card reader. I'm just sick of seeing the Ipod being hailed as the "perfect device" when it's not.
I'm in my first week of owning my PVR, and I'm NEVER going back to live TV.
Why should I pay for service when I'm there to use it maybe 25% of the day. Of that 25% I miss most of the shows I like. Getting the PVR corrects that imbalance and allows me to get more from the money I've already paid to the cable company. As far as I'm concerned that negates the whole $.01 per commercial skipped argument.
Why should I change my life around watching TV shows at a certain times when technology exists, that I don't have to do that anymore?
There's not a Napsterization of anything going on in this context. The average consumer is not going to pull video and distribute on the Internet. The ones who are, would have done it anyway, with or without PVR's.
In addition, the ReplayTV video sharing feature only allows you to send first generation videos to other RTV units. That's a far cry from Napsteriazation and well within the confines of reasonable use. In my eyes, no worse than giving a friend a mix tape.
All I'm seeing is a bunch of bitching about having to change business models, when they haven't even tried to come up with solution on their own. If they offered a superior service then people would go for it. If all I did at work was bitch about problems and not offer any solutions, I'd be fired. I would expect to be, I'm not being paid to sit around and stagnate.
Can this game just die? It's ok to watch, but it's never been fun to play. I can't believe the mileage they're getting from this piece. They'll still be releasing it in 2050 on the MS BorgBox11.
Has anyone clued these companies into the fact that the line between living-room (containing "home audio equipment") and the computer room is blurring with each passing day? Is convenience offered by smart/versatile devices, like computers, really such a scary notion?
As far as anything I've read about the Xbox controllers, they are "USB-like". This is a real pet peeve of mine. I don't know why MS is referring to them as USB.
They have different power ratings, different connectors, and are slightly faster than USB. Perhaps the signaling is similar to what USB uses, but who cares at this point. They've changed everything else about it as compared to any kind of USB standard.
For that matter the Dreamcast's controllers are USB-like. Hell, might as well lump firewire into that category as well. It's "slightly" faster, uses a different connector, and I guess has a different power rating.
Yes I'm exaggerating, but I'm wondering why MS it touting them as USB. You obviously won't be able to plug any common USB peripheral into it, which means you have to get an Xbox designed peripheral. At that point it's no different from any other console (accessory wise). Is MS trying to be misleading?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry this is a worthless comment, but I have to give you props; perfectly said sir.
Use of the BIOS implementation has prevented this from happening. Replacement of BIOS with UEFI has been a long effort and is only now hitting critical mass.
Your question is too focused. The industry trend for all other device-types has certainly been towards being proprietery and locked down. That's despite the great potential if they weren't. Apple, Sony (PS3), US phone carrier releases.
I totally agree with your statement, this just stands out to me as their only justifaction based on facts.
I think B&N is asserting the opposite of that, which
is Ardeaem's point.
Okay so to elaborate on the smoking example.
Say a poor person smokes a lot. He doesn't pay taxes and is covered under Universal Healthcare.
If the person is not paying taxes, they are either too poor to pay anything, criminal (based on my assumption that tax dodgers are dealt with), or alien; that's another discussion.
How does that compare to the savings of just saying "If you smoke you're not covered for smoking-related diseases unless you pay this extra smoking premium, and you chose to skip the premium and still keep smoking, so you don't get treatment?"
But going with the smoker example, you already pay for this person whether it's in hidden costs or covered formally by UHC. If they get a smoking related sickness do you really think they're going to stalwartly endure it and not eventually go to an emergency room?
It is no one's place to dictate whether healthcare is provided or not. Doctors who are in the best position to judge, as I understand, try their damnedest to keep a person alive regardless of cause. Or would you rather we not provide healthcare to an athlete who might be at risk of getting a permanent injury, how about a soldier who went to war, an emergency professional who is exposed to toxic substances. All these life choices also have known and provable health risks. Should we also offer only claused coverage to them, because there is a good chance they're going to have related health problems from what they're doing.
Try another perspective: What if after 20 years of smoking the person quits, and another 20 years later still gets emphysema? What if the emphysema occurs from another cause all together, how would anyone know? Should would still judge that person unworthy, and watch them die?
God forbid anyone make a wrong decision in life, right?
Using healthcare as a system of sticks and carrots is plain stupid. I'm sorry, but you are a citizen, so am I, so is the poor person who doesn't perfectly network job connections and loses their health coverage with their job, so is the drunk who smokes. I am not willing to dictate who gets coverage, nor should you be. There's simply no logical or moral excuse of why we can't cover our citizens universally.
Now how are your strategic actions by the government going to help me end up paying less in taxes to cover that person's lung cancer?
That person's cost of lung cancer treatment is spread across 250million people, not a smaller subset under any other "insurance" plan.
In the US there is nearly a 13% chance that Hobo Spaien doesn't have health coverage. What is your point with this question, and how does it counter his/her's?
That's a great outlook. Like you, I don't have cable, and don't really miss it. The more I watch DVD movies/series, the less patience I have for programming with commercials.
Like this dicussion questions, I despise the tepid service we receive for a premium price, and I think you're right we will bring about change. I just wish is could be sooner...
Well the logic is, the software will then sync the deletion and the room will will be free so I don't have to hunt down the song later.
Convenience is the key here.
'...Is it worthy or is it just another player that falls short of the iPod's greatness?'
There are flaws, and I resent that no one ever talks about them. I don't know if the newer competitors (past may 2003) have better options but a couple of the things I can't stand about the Ipod are:
1. No delete on the fly:
If I come across a song that sucks I can't get rid of it, and it continues to take space on my Ipod. I can give the song a bad rating and remove it later now that PC itunes is out, and I assume is compatible with this feature. This is dangerous though, as I usually use the Ipod while driving and it's extremely distracting to get the rating right with the somewhat erratic solid-state dial. Plus it's just a pain in the ass to constantly have to hook the Ipod up to my computer to get rid of the occasion song. Which leads me to...
2. An intermediate application (be it itunes, ephpod, music match, itunes for PC) is required to put the _playable_ files on the Ipod:
This just sucks. I run an on-line radio station, and have already gone through the process of sorting my MP3's. I want to be able to just throw my directory structure in, have the IPod parse itself, and go. Maybe Apple requires this as a layer of protection against piracy, but I don't see why the Ipod can't be more autonomous.
I admit the glamour and the non-stop raving (but biased) reviews did get me to buy the Ipod. And for the most part I'm satisfied with it. To give Apple credit, they are making/allowing some great add-ons, like the media card reader. I'm just sick of seeing the Ipod being hailed as the "perfect device" when it's not.
I don't have much to add here, but I always like to see well done alternatives to the typical Lian-li and Master Cooler.
I'm in my first week of owning my PVR, and I'm NEVER going back to live TV.
Why should I pay for service when I'm there to use it maybe 25% of the day. Of that 25% I miss most of the shows I like. Getting the PVR corrects that imbalance and allows me to get more from the money I've already paid to the cable company. As far as I'm concerned that negates the whole $.01 per commercial skipped argument.
Why should I change my life around watching TV shows at a certain times when technology exists, that I don't have to do that anymore?
There's not a Napsterization of anything going on in this context. The average consumer is not going to pull video and distribute on the Internet. The ones who are, would have done it anyway, with or without PVR's.
In addition, the ReplayTV video sharing feature only allows you to send first generation videos to other RTV units. That's a far cry from Napsteriazation and well within the confines of reasonable use. In my eyes, no worse than giving a friend a mix tape.
All I'm seeing is a bunch of bitching about having to change business models, when they haven't even tried to come up with solution on their own. If they offered a superior service then people would go for it. If all I did at work was bitch about problems and not offer any solutions, I'd be fired. I would expect to be, I'm not being paid to sit around and stagnate.
Can this game just die? It's ok to watch, but it's never been fun to play. I can't believe the mileage they're getting from this piece. They'll still be releasing it in 2050 on the MS BorgBox11.
Has anyone clued these companies into the fact that the line between living-room (containing "home audio equipment") and the computer room is blurring with each passing day? Is convenience offered by smart/versatile devices, like computers, really such a scary notion?
The Xbox controllers ARE NOT USB.
As far as anything I've read about the Xbox controllers, they are "USB-like". This is a real pet peeve of mine. I don't know why MS is referring to them as USB.
They have different power ratings, different connectors, and are slightly faster than USB. Perhaps the signaling is similar to what USB uses, but who cares at this point. They've changed everything else about it as compared to any kind of USB standard.
For that matter the Dreamcast's controllers are USB-like. Hell, might as well lump firewire into that category as well. It's "slightly" faster, uses a different connector, and I guess has a different power rating.
Yes I'm exaggerating, but I'm wondering why MS it touting them as USB. You obviously won't be able to plug any common USB peripheral into it, which means you have to get an Xbox designed peripheral. At that point it's no different from any other console (accessory wise). Is MS trying to be misleading?