I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate. I see plenty of poorer people driving old less fuel efficient cars or that have spent all their money on a giant truck with mudding tires. Also, hybrids and electrics are currently anything but cheap and generally owned by the middle class or above.
And keep in mind that just because you may not be able to see all 1080 lines doesn't mean you won't still see my than the 480 lines on a DVD. So the image should still look better in most cases. Also, the BR format has better colors. The debate over 1080 and screen size is usually discussed when comparing 720p to 1080p TVs.
The mission will supposedly cost $78 million. A lot of money to the average person... but a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions we're wasting on needless wars and bailing out failed banks and automotive companies. Guess which I think is being better spent?
"Unless your physical security is tight, I'll almost certainly have a much easier time sneaking in and plugging in than I will trying to break WPA or better."
But this still entails a huge risk. You would be much more likely to find yourself in handcuffs and on your way to jail by attempting unauthorized physical access to a building. This is a huge deterrent even if the security once inside is easier to crack. Hell, why not argue that you should simply break into the server room?
Kindle provides access to magazines and newspapers.
Anyway, as I said, it depends on how you use the material. If you like to loan out and show off your collection, then stick with physical books. But don't assume your wants apply to everyone. I enjoy the convenience of having a new book instantly, of never having to bookmark my last location, being up to look up words instantly, not having to carry around weighty books on trips, not having to worry about needing a new bookcase or where to place said bookcase, being able to search the text of the book, being able to instantly jump to specific locations in the book, etc...
There's plenty of upside to ebooks. And those upsides were enough for me to switch. So I'm glad devices like the Kindle exist.
Your one example of a book in a supermarket is pretty weak. I'm sure there are other examples out there of physical books being cheaper, but that are also hundreds of examples of ebooks being cheaper. Including the thousands of public domain books which are free in ebook format, but cost money in physical format.
I will say though that I think many ebooks should be a couple of bucks cheaper, but in many cases they are cheaper than physical books.
Wait... you're complaining about Kindle's DRM and you chose an iPod Touch instead? What's the difference? The Kindle doesn't require that you actually buy DRM'd content. It supports DRM free files too.
And for why e-readers exist... convenience. Plain and simple. Buy books online and have them instantly. You entire library can exist in a single device instead of on a physical bookshelf. Making your collection both easier to store and transport... plus doing away with the need to even own a book shelf. Run across a word you're unfamiliar with while reading? The built-in dictionary can look it up for you instantly.
It all depends on how much you read and what you do with your books afterward. For some people physical books may indeed be the better option. I used to feel the same way until I actually used an ereader, now I don't bother with physical books any more.
His Kindle wasn't bricked and I doubt he lost any books. I think he just got cut off from subscription based content (newspapers, magazines, etc...). That still shouldn't happen, but it's quite clear that many of the comments are comeing from people don't have any experience with a Kindle.
Then TWC needs to be as heavily regulated as other utilities. Last year they PROFITED over 4 billion on their data services. The cost to maintain their network was roughly $150 million and was actually lower than the previous year. So why don't they put some of that money toward increasing capacity?
Also, there's a pretty clear difference between using up a physical resource like water or electricity which must be generated and consuming bandwidth.
Yeah, a combo of quota + throttling. But if you're going to throttle when you hit the cap, I'd just rather see throttling when the network maxes out. This way you can still get good speeds during off-peak hours.
Throttling is easily better caps if the throttling is transparent and fair. With caps you will either hit a wall and your connection will cease to work or you will be hit with overage charges. I'd much rather see a sensible throttling scheme that is applied ONLY when the system is hitting maximum capacity. But how about this for option D:
d) Spend some those billions in profits to upgrade the network.
As recent reporting has shown, TWC profited over 4 billion on their data services last year and their expenses actually dropped.
One more thing, you talk about undercutting other competitors, but whom are you really talking about? In many places cable ISPs are a monopoly. Or maybe a duopoly with a telco that offers DSL. Most people don't have many choices for broadband. Where I live I can choose between 1 cable company and DSL. That's it.
That's Time Warner's own information to their investors. They claim they made $4B in profit off their data services. You talk about their other services, like cable TV, but don't forget that those other services also have their own revenue streams. You act like they are being run purely off the profit from the data services. The bottom line is they have plenty of money to upgrade their network, but instead they would rather implement caps and squeeze the consumer for even more profit.
"If the pursuant has a valid patent the judge hardly has a choice now does he."
But that's exactly the point, most tech people would argue that the patent is invalid because it's obvious. Which is exactly what MS tried to argue. Unfortunately we have too many people in the USPO and legal system that are not tech savvy.
That's asinine. If the initial purchase didn't stipulate any time limit then that's exactly what the end user should get. It shouldn't matter what the hell happens to MLB.com. Sorry, but if they changed their technology and aren't willing to support the old one via their servers any more, then they need to give the "decoder ring" to the end user. At that point the onus will be on the end user to not lose the "decoder ring". If they lose it at that point then, yeah, they're screwed... but in this case it's MLB that's going to get screwed in the end. They WILL lose this battle.
Nonsense. There's a HUGE difference when people are expecting others to be driving fast. For example, you likely don't expect someone to be going 100 MPH down a residential road as you back out of your driveway in the morning. So you might not be looking that far down the road or be expecting someone to come around a curve on your street that fast. Same thing applies to your example. On the autobahn the other drivers are expecting people to be going fast and are thus taking the appropriate considerations into doing things like changing lanes. It's not always about how careful you are, you have to take into consideration the reactions of others. Your reasoning is fatally flawed.
You're wrong. I don't know if 480p was at one point part of the HD spec, but I know for fact that it's not now. So it's technically inaccurate to call a standard DVD "high definition". And, as someone else pointed out, the Xbox had a few 720p games. The Xbox was capable of outputting both 720p and 1080i. XBox Media Center and other various homebrew apps and emulators made use of this ability.
While I think the patent system needs reform, your stance is a bit extreme and completely naive. It often costs a LOT of money to develop and idea into a product. Why should one company spend invest a ton of money into bringing a new idea into the marketplace only to have another company swipe their idea when they are done? The second company didn't spend a dime on the research. The first company should most definitely have the right to bring their idea into the market without a bunch of copycats suddenly appearing so they can recover their investment costs and establish their brand.
What we don't need are companies sitting on ideas and doing nothing with them. It's sort of the reverse of the situation above. Patent an idea, but don't spend a dime developing it. Then when someone else runs with the idea, sue them and take all their profits.
Both situations are equally bad... you simply traded one bad idea for another. Try again.
That's complete BS. You shouldn't be allowed to allow a company slide for years and then suddenly decide to enforce it when they are big enough to get a nice chunk of change out of them... that's ludicrous and idiotic beyond belief.
Is this supposed to be sarcasm? First off, it's obvious people would have to buy either new controller or a rumble add-on. Second, why would you hope they have to go buy new controllers? Don't be an ass.
HL/HL2's story hardly makes any sense at all to begin with. I loved the game, but damn, there's not much story there. Just a bunch of navigating from insurgent base to insurgent base. Besides, exceptions don't make the rule. I never stated there were no FPS/Action games with decent stories, but most are pretty shallow.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate. I see plenty of poorer people driving old less fuel efficient cars or that have spent all their money on a giant truck with mudding tires. Also, hybrids and electrics are currently anything but cheap and generally owned by the middle class or above.
That should say "see more than", not "see my than".
It's not that 1080p is only good on large TVs, it's that you won't get the full benefit depending on your viewing distance. Here's a handy chart:
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
And keep in mind that just because you may not be able to see all 1080 lines doesn't mean you won't still see my than the 480 lines on a DVD. So the image should still look better in most cases. Also, the BR format has better colors. The debate over 1080 and screen size is usually discussed when comparing 720p to 1080p TVs.
Looks like you simply didn't read far enough:
"Later that year, Sony and Philips Consumer Electronics (Philips) set up a joint task force of engineers to design a new digital audio disc. The task force, led by prominent members Kees Schouhamer Immink and Toshitada Doi (åoeYäå©å), progressed the research into laser technology and optical discs that had been started independently by Philips and Sony in 1977 and 1975, respectively.[2] After a year of experimentation and discussion, the taskforce produced the Red Book, the Compact Disc standard. "
Notice the use of "the taskforce" in that final sentence. The final version of the CD format was the result of a Sony and Philips joint project.
The mission will supposedly cost $78 million. A lot of money to the average person... but a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions we're wasting on needless wars and bailing out failed banks and automotive companies. Guess which I think is being better spent?
"Unless your physical security is tight, I'll almost certainly have a much easier time sneaking in and plugging in than I will trying to break WPA or better."
But this still entails a huge risk. You would be much more likely to find yourself in handcuffs and on your way to jail by attempting unauthorized physical access to a building. This is a huge deterrent even if the security once inside is easier to crack. Hell, why not argue that you should simply break into the server room?
Everything you listed is still more difficult, and more risky, than simply being in range of the wireless network.
Kindle provides access to magazines and newspapers.
Anyway, as I said, it depends on how you use the material. If you like to loan out and show off your collection, then stick with physical books. But don't assume your wants apply to everyone. I enjoy the convenience of having a new book instantly, of never having to bookmark my last location, being up to look up words instantly, not having to carry around weighty books on trips, not having to worry about needing a new bookcase or where to place said bookcase, being able to search the text of the book, being able to instantly jump to specific locations in the book, etc...
There's plenty of upside to ebooks. And those upsides were enough for me to switch. So I'm glad devices like the Kindle exist.
Your one example of a book in a supermarket is pretty weak. I'm sure there are other examples out there of physical books being cheaper, but that are also hundreds of examples of ebooks being cheaper. Including the thousands of public domain books which are free in ebook format, but cost money in physical format.
I will say though that I think many ebooks should be a couple of bucks cheaper, but in many cases they are cheaper than physical books.
Wait... you're complaining about Kindle's DRM and you chose an iPod Touch instead? What's the difference? The Kindle doesn't require that you actually buy DRM'd content. It supports DRM free files too.
And for why e-readers exist... convenience. Plain and simple. Buy books online and have them instantly. You entire library can exist in a single device instead of on a physical bookshelf. Making your collection both easier to store and transport... plus doing away with the need to even own a book shelf. Run across a word you're unfamiliar with while reading? The built-in dictionary can look it up for you instantly.
It all depends on how much you read and what you do with your books afterward. For some people physical books may indeed be the better option. I used to feel the same way until I actually used an ereader, now I don't bother with physical books any more.
His Kindle wasn't bricked and I doubt he lost any books. I think he just got cut off from subscription based content (newspapers, magazines, etc...). That still shouldn't happen, but it's quite clear that many of the comments are comeing from people don't have any experience with a Kindle.
WOL?
Then TWC needs to be as heavily regulated as other utilities. Last year they PROFITED over 4 billion on their data services. The cost to maintain their network was roughly $150 million and was actually lower than the previous year. So why don't they put some of that money toward increasing capacity?
Also, there's a pretty clear difference between using up a physical resource like water or electricity which must be generated and consuming bandwidth.
Yeah, a combo of quota + throttling. But if you're going to throttle when you hit the cap, I'd just rather see throttling when the network maxes out. This way you can still get good speeds during off-peak hours.
Throttling is easily better caps if the throttling is transparent and fair. With caps you will either hit a wall and your connection will cease to work or you will be hit with overage charges. I'd much rather see a sensible throttling scheme that is applied ONLY when the system is hitting maximum capacity. But how about this for option D:
d) Spend some those billions in profits to upgrade the network.
As recent reporting has shown, TWC profited over 4 billion on their data services last year and their expenses actually dropped.
One more thing, you talk about undercutting other competitors, but whom are you really talking about? In many places cable ISPs are a monopoly. Or maybe a duopoly with a telco that offers DSL. Most people don't have many choices for broadband. Where I live I can choose between 1 cable company and DSL. That's it.
That's Time Warner's own information to their investors. They claim they made $4B in profit off their data services. You talk about their other services, like cable TV, but don't forget that those other services also have their own revenue streams. You act like they are being run purely off the profit from the data services. The bottom line is they have plenty of money to upgrade their network, but instead they would rather implement caps and squeeze the consumer for even more profit.
"If the pursuant has a valid patent the judge hardly has a choice now does he."
But that's exactly the point, most tech people would argue that the patent is invalid because it's obvious. Which is exactly what MS tried to argue. Unfortunately we have too many people in the USPO and legal system that are not tech savvy.
That's asinine. If the initial purchase didn't stipulate any time limit then that's exactly what the end user should get. It shouldn't matter what the hell happens to MLB.com. Sorry, but if they changed their technology and aren't willing to support the old one via their servers any more, then they need to give the "decoder ring" to the end user. At that point the onus will be on the end user to not lose the "decoder ring". If they lose it at that point then, yeah, they're screwed... but in this case it's MLB that's going to get screwed in the end. They WILL lose this battle.
Nonsense. There's a HUGE difference when people are expecting others to be driving fast. For example, you likely don't expect someone to be going 100 MPH down a residential road as you back out of your driveway in the morning. So you might not be looking that far down the road or be expecting someone to come around a curve on your street that fast. Same thing applies to your example. On the autobahn the other drivers are expecting people to be going fast and are thus taking the appropriate considerations into doing things like changing lanes. It's not always about how careful you are, you have to take into consideration the reactions of others. Your reasoning is fatally flawed.
You're wrong. I don't know if 480p was at one point part of the HD spec, but I know for fact that it's not now. So it's technically inaccurate to call a standard DVD "high definition". And, as someone else pointed out, the Xbox had a few 720p games. The Xbox was capable of outputting both 720p and 1080i. XBox Media Center and other various homebrew apps and emulators made use of this ability.
While I think the patent system needs reform, your stance is a bit extreme and completely naive. It often costs a LOT of money to develop and idea into a product. Why should one company spend invest a ton of money into bringing a new idea into the marketplace only to have another company swipe their idea when they are done? The second company didn't spend a dime on the research. The first company should most definitely have the right to bring their idea into the market without a bunch of copycats suddenly appearing so they can recover their investment costs and establish their brand.
What we don't need are companies sitting on ideas and doing nothing with them. It's sort of the reverse of the situation above. Patent an idea, but don't spend a dime developing it. Then when someone else runs with the idea, sue them and take all their profits.
Both situations are equally bad... you simply traded one bad idea for another. Try again.
That's complete BS. You shouldn't be allowed to allow a company slide for years and then suddenly decide to enforce it when they are big enough to get a nice chunk of change out of them... that's ludicrous and idiotic beyond belief.
Is this supposed to be sarcasm? First off, it's obvious people would have to buy either new controller or a rumble add-on. Second, why would you hope they have to go buy new controllers? Don't be an ass.
HL/HL2's story hardly makes any sense at all to begin with. I loved the game, but damn, there's not much story there. Just a bunch of navigating from insurgent base to insurgent base. Besides, exceptions don't make the rule. I never stated there were no FPS/Action games with decent stories, but most are pretty shallow.