For example, we use Microsoft word with built in excell spreadsheets and ODBC queries that update charts in real time from an Oracle database as well as include visio stencils and other good stuff.
What exactly is it that you do that the above is considered valuable and a reasonable investment of your time? Most of the time when I hear examples of this sort, they're entirely contrived and don't occur in the real world. I'm interested in hearing about cases where the end result is valuable to the company, and the value exceeds the effort of the humans creating it.
I can certainly see embedding an Excel spreadsheet and some Visio diagrams into a Word document (here's the financial report with the "big picture" table embedded and some process flow diagrams). I'm less clear on the value of pulling real time updates into your document. If you're mixing text from Word, a spreadsheet, and diagrams, presumably you're creating a document for printing and distribution (or at least electronic distribution). Do you really want to distribute this document without being certain exactly what real-time changes made it in? If you really want real-time, what about the lack of real-time updates to your descriptive text in word and your diagrams?
I'm a secretary for one of the Free Software Foundation's lawyers,...
What a coincidence! I'm a secretary for Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (it doesn't pay well, so I work two jobs), and it's pretty well-known around here that all three like to drown kittens and push grandmothers down stairs.
It's unfortunate that it has to be this way, but unless people get burned by EULAs they're not going to take EULA's seriously. Discovering that they've agreed to let this software spam their boss, coworkers, and business contacts will hopefully encourage people to seriously read EULAs in the future. I expect that when people start seriously reading EULAs, they'll discover they don't actually agree with many of the terms. (Or at least they'll discover that they can't make heads or tails over the thing.) A little backlash would be help restore balance to EULAs and make the work a more fair place.
A dollar per track is a bit high, but I would certainly be interested in buying some tracks for that price. However, that price is "in addition to paying a monthly subscription fee of $9.95." I can't imagine buying more than ten songs per month. Once that's worked in we're up to two dollars per track. Two dollars? Too much.
Furthermore, I expect that this new functionality will be available through their proprietary software. I don't want to deal with your unknown software (even if it did run under my primary operating system: Linux). I want to open a account with some money, then download songs off your web site until my account is empty. Nice and simple. Do it for one dollar per song and I'll very occasionally use it for catchy tunes. Do it for fifty cents and I'll regularly use it. Do it for twenty five cents and I'll make heavy use it, regularly buying music on a whim.
C++ is crucial for this; GNOME will forever be hampered by their choice of C and the subsequent lack of first-class objects.
While what you describe is admirable, it has little to nothing to do with the choice between C and C++. KDE (and Qt) basically use C++ as "C With Classes", which is a fine way to use C++. (There are many good arguments for not using the more complex aspects of C++) However, anything expressed in the C With Classes subset of C++ can be written relatively easily in straight C.
Programmers have been embedding things in other things for years and manage to do so in a variety of languages including C.
The important thing...is that Word and Excel...can export their data as XML without information loss.
Oooooh, yay, Microsoft added another export filter to Word and Excel. The world is a better place.
The reality is that unless the XML format is the default format, this change is useless to most users. The cry against new word processors is always, "If it doesn't import every single Word file ever created with every single feature supported, it's worthless." Unfortunately the insane complexity of the Word file format, the lack of documentation, and the constant churn as new versions of Word come out mean that you'll never see perfect conversions, yet too many people whine that it has to be perfect. (Completely ignoring the fact that most users would never notice the (in most cases) ever so slightly inaccurate translation, the minority that push the documents to their limits refuse to admit any value in an imperfect translation.) An XML would make the translation easier, but it's useless if it's not the default. Microsoft's monopoly on office productivity software is based on the massive numbers of existing Word and Excel files.
Seriously, if I'm going to pay for music, I want a real CD... and maybe a nice jewel case and cover. IF musicians want to sell their product on Ebay in order to make some money, would it really hurt them to invest a little money into their product? It doesn't cost that much to have real CDs produced...
You've been rated "Funny", but I think you're serious, so I'll respond as such.
It does cost that much to have real CDs? Try again. A minimal run of "real CDs" can easily run you $1,000. If you're a small time artist who is working a traditional job to pay the rent while you work on your music, $1,000 is alot of money, especially if most of your disposable income is already invested in instruments and recording equipment. On the other hand, with the help of a friend with a computer, a CD-R writing drive, and color printer, you can burn runs of almost any size for a few dollar per disc (with nice jewel case and cover). What a great way for an unknown musician to get his music out!
I've purchased a half-dozen CD-Rs from musicians I've discovered online, and I've been pleased with every one I. I don't begrudge them that CD-R is the only format they can economically produce.
wouldn't it help these small bands to produce a product that people will be able to remember (not just the music, but the CD cover as well??)
Wow, and to think I've been making my music selections entirely based on the quality of the music.
That said, it's not relavent in this discussion. The artist specifically did print nice CD covers. The jewel cases he bought are identical to the jewel cases most commercial CDs come in. He's trying to market himself in all sorts of ways (personal website, free mp3 samples on mp3.com, and selling CDs on eBay) He's trying to market himself without going broke. He's using various services as they were designed!
Librarians fight to keep information free
on
Libraries Are 31337
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I've always respected librarians. They dedicate their lives to sharing information with people as freely as possible. I cheer the American Library Associationprotect individual's privacy and confidentiality, and fight against free limiting legislation like the Children's Internet Protection Act, the DMCA (PDF), and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. They've been fighting to keep information free longer than the internet has been around. Democracy requires an educated citizenry, and libraries make it their mission to spread knowledge to everyone, regardless of race, social status, or wealth. Library's are a geek's best friend.
Just because every other system is worse doesn't make capitalism good. Capitalism has many, many problems. It's just that every system that's been tried has proven to have many, many more. Capitalism shouldn't be held on a pedastool as sacred, it should be continuously challenged.
Enough little guys get screwed and media picks up. Then you get a negative article on eBay which costs eBay actual money. That provides incentive to change....
Capitialism works.
... and is apparently oiled with the blood of little guys getting screwed.
Yes, in general the market self corrects. But until it self corrects there is a window of opportunity for shysters and frauds to steal from you. The occurs both in the small scale (The guy on the street who tries to sell you crappy speakers) and on a large scale (the guy in a suit who tries to sell you crappy stock). Capitalism uncontrolled can destroy the lives of innocent people and rewards scam artists.
...there is really no legal use for this technology so it should not be permitted to be sold...
Fair enough. So if I can come up with a legal use for the technology can be sold?
...The same goes with Mod Chips, there is said "grey area" like the linux project...
Hey! A legal use for a Mod Chip: to run Linux on your X-Box! It may not be a terribly logical use of your X-Box, but apparently a number of people are seriously interested in doing it.
But if one wishes to do the linux project one must fist make there own mod...
Why? I'm not capable of building a Mod Chip. I'm famous for my ability to kill hardware simply by opening the case. Heck, hardware that I'm near has a tendency to fail for no reason. So maybe I want to pay someone who is less dangerous to hardware to build and install one for me, leaving me to worry about writing the software (which I am good at). Why can't I do this? Am I simply not cool enough to be allowed to work on X-Box Linux because I lack the hardware chops?
People should be free to have almost any contract they wish....
I agree! However, let's give take these EULA contracts as seriously as we take contracts for cell phone service, leases, loans, and other contracts. Let's have the signed contract before the sale occurs. Having a cashier at Best Buy explain, "Before I can sell you this software, I need to have you sign this five page legal form." would be great! Everyone would completely understand the seriousness of the agreement they were entering into, the agreement would be up front, and would be documented like other legal agreements. My landlord doesn't stick a notice inside my apartment that says, "By moving in here you agree to the following lease...", it would probably be easier for my landlord, but instead we meet, I'm given a lease to review and sign, and I don't move in until I return the signed lease. Why should software be a special case?
Well, if you aren't, then the GPL isn't binding either, since you aren't intrinsically "signing" anything when you use GPL'd code. Why is it that the EULA is wrong, but the GPL, BSD license etc are OK?
The difference is that EULAs attempt to take away rights you normally would have, but the GPL grants you rights would normally would not have.
You are free to use GPLed software, reverse engineer GPLed software (of course, it's alot easier since you can get the sourc), make copies for personal use, modify GPLed software, and use modified GPLed software. You can do all of these things without even looking at the GPL, let alone agreeing to it. However, copyright law (not the GPL) forbids you from distributing copies. If you'd like to distribute copies, take a look at the GPL, it's offering you a license to distribute copies in exchange for your making certain promises. Each side gets something (you can redistribute the software, the original author gets to limit how you redistribute it), so it's pretty reasonable deal. Licenses like the GPL and the BSD License don't take away anything you previously could have done in the absence of a license. They simply offer you a deal: you can have additional freedoms, but here are the terms of the trade.
In the absence of a EULA, you're free to take a copyright protected work home, use it, disassemble it, make copies for personal use, reverse engineer it, and modify it. For older copyright protected works (music and books) this is still true. The software industry has attempted to change these rules and claims that you need to agree to the EULA before you can excercise any of these rights you would normally have. What do I get in return for the restrictions the EULA adds? Nothing. There was one court case where is was insanely ruled that copying software into your computer's memory was an infringing copy, and that a EULA gave you a righ to make that copy in exchange for limiting yourself in other ways. That ruling is clearly insane and ignores that making copies for personal use has been fair game for a long time. Fortunately said judgement didn't make it too far up the legal system and has not been tested on a national level. A future case may yet invalidate that judgement.
Microsoft won't allow anyone to mod their xbox because then anyone could write software for it. If this were to happen, than M$ wouldn't get any money from game publishers, etc for allowing said publishers to distribute games for xbox.
While I'm sure that this is interesting, how does it apply to me as a consumer who wants to mess with hardware I purchased? As far as I can tell, it's irrelevant. Their business model is not my concern
I'm all for transparent security, but I think you take it a bit too far.
It's an old joke, but it's relevant:
Two friends decide to go on an African safari. One of the two immediately starts spending all of his free time running at the local gym. The second friend asks, "What are you doing?"
"I'm practicing running away from lions."
"What's the point? No matter how fast you run, you'll never be faster than a lion."
"I don't need to outrun the lion. I need to outrun you."
Security through obscurity is all about outrunning the other potential targets. Attackers tend to cherry pick easy targets or targets that promise large rewards for their work. If you're not interesting enough to justify the effort and their are easier targets, security through obscurity may work because the attackers decide to pick easier targets. This is why simple but uncommon changes like renaming the root account or running a potentially dangerous service on an unusual port can minorly contribute to your security. They confuse some attackers who will go look for easier targets.
That said, if you're all alone, or the lion has decided that you look extra tasty, well you're out of luck. If an attacker decides he really wants to break in (perhaps even because he's curious about your obscure system), your obscurity basically becomes meaningless and you're back to traditional obscurity.
So obscurity can be a helpful part of a full security package. Security through obscurity alone is nearly useless, but I think your statement is a bit overly broad.
You can find the specific coverage on NPR's Morning Edition here. Search for "Supreme", it's near the middle of the page. The Real stream is about 7 minutes long.
No, this is why a new car today costs (on average) about $22,000 (US) whereas when I started driving in 1976 the average was closer to US$10,000.
I suspect that inflation has more to do with the issue.
Given inflation since 1976 (PDF, sorry. You'll get similar numbers from other sources) cars are now proportionally cheaper. Assuming car prices moved exactly with inflation, your $10,000 car would now run $31,600. Naturally this cost saving is due to other reasons (more efficient manufacturing processes, cheaper foreign labor, newer and cheaper materials). Sure, adding safety features did increase the cost, but not by a huge margin.
True, my social and professional circles limit my exposure to the overall population. My anecdotal evidence isn't statistically significant. But I don't think it's as limited as you suggest. My social and professional circles include a number of Microsoft fans, and of those Microsoft fans those who use PDAs prefer Palms over PocketPCs. One of the biggest Microsoft fans (and an ex-Microsoftie who only left to marry his wife), is a huge Palm fan and is very down on the several PocketPCs he has owned or worked professionally with. Not statistically significant, but probably a fair barometer opinion on these devices. If there is a noteworthy bias, it's that my social and professional circles are dominantly technical. I can't really speak for non-technical users.
All that said, it's a fair challenge, and I appreciate your bringing it up.
For this reason, the commenter above erroneously concludes that because none of the people he knows use Pocket PC units, the PocketPC unit cannot be taken seriously as a PDA.
Just to clairify, I take PocketPCs perfectly seriously. They are perfectly functional PDAs, and for certain uses are superior to Palms. However, I believe that for core PDA functionality (Address book, date book, memos, to do list, long battery life, simple interface, small size), Palms are superior.
Once the novelty wears off (and it has), the ability to play Asteroids at a movie theater isn't all that great a selling point.
If that's why people are buying PDAs, of course it's going to wear off. And I do know a few people who bought PDAs for novelty value, or purchased one without quite knowing what they would use it for. Sure enough, these people stopped using their PDAs within a few months.
On the other hand, I knew exactly what I wanted a PDA for. I had been carrying a small datebook and pen with me. This significantly helped keep my life organized. It also provided me with a place to write notes (work todo items, shopping lists, reminders to email people information). I also kept contact information for various people, mostly phone numbers, in it.
On the down side, every year I got a new datebook. Any information I wanted from the previous datebook had to be manually copied to the new one. If my datebook was lost or damaged, any information in it was lost. The physical book didn't make it easy to reorganize the information, to collect the scattered notes to identify which are still relevant and which aren't.
I needed a smart datebook. And so I bought a Palm III.
My Palm was exactly what I needed. Appointments actually beeped to remind me. I could easily reorganize information without my address book turning into a message of scratched out information or pages thin from repeated erasing. I have effectively unlimited scratch paper for notes which I use to keep all sorts of useful information.
I'm on my third Palm (III -> V because I was sick of replacing the batteries and wanted a smaller palm, V -> Vx because I was starting to read e-books and needed more space). I use my Palm several times per day and I really value it. I know a number of people who feel the same way about their Palms.
PDAs are not just a fad. Sure, some people got them because of the fad, but I don't care about those people (in this context at least). There is a real market of people who value a good PDA. These people are the ones that continue to buy Palm (or PalmOS devices) over the various Windows based PDAs because they know that Palm got it right. Mostly people following the fad, people who don't know what they want, are drawn to the shiny Windows based PDAs. Many serious PDA users see no need for Palms to upgrade to ARM processors. Sure, more processing power would be nice, but my Palm does everything I need. I don't need games, I don't need video, I don't need MP3 support. I need a smart datebook, address book, and notepad that I can back up on my computer. The Palm does exactly this. I'm really frustrated at the superficial media which keeps reporting "Look at all of the advances in Windows PDAs, Palm hasn't advanced at all. Palm is on its way down." I know many serious Palm users, but I've never seen a serious PDA user with a Windows PDA. Serious users know that Palm gets it right, and Microsoft focuses on superficial glitz.
One minor nit: rather than setting a null attribute for your ALT tags, I'd suggest using something that's at least somewhat descriptive.
I only meant that you should have ALT="something" tags, not that they should be empty. (Unless of course the image is a spacer graphic or otherwise contributes nothing to the pages content, in which case ALT="" is appropriate.)
I can see both sides of the issue. Generally I'm for less regulation not more, and for fewer lawsuits. But it's really frustrating for so many sites to ignore the relatively easy steps it takes to make themeselves accessible. Historically pressure from users isn't enough. There are too many arty webmaster with no concept of usability and accessability.
And, I'm hoping you'll agree, strongly graphical sites definately do have a place.
Absolutely. If the graphics are the end unto themselves, it's fine. There are a number of Flash and QuickTime based sites that I enjoy. However...
If I'm visiting a gaming site, it makes me very happy to see flash and lots of graphics (except in the news section, etc).
...sometimes I'd rather just have simple text and minimal graphics. I recently purchased a new computer game that I was looking forward to. I visited their web site to look for any patches and was greated with frames and flash. It was harder to scroll through the framed page and too longer for the flash to download the menus. End result: I was hoping for a quick visit to check if a patch was available, but my visit was much longer and more difficult than I desired. If I was using lynx, I would have been out of luck. Sure, I need to have Windows (And thus Internet Explorer) to run the game, but I chose to use lynx for its speed sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
What exactly is it that you do that the above is considered valuable and a reasonable investment of your time? Most of the time when I hear examples of this sort, they're entirely contrived and don't occur in the real world. I'm interested in hearing about cases where the end result is valuable to the company, and the value exceeds the effort of the humans creating it.
I can certainly see embedding an Excel spreadsheet and some Visio diagrams into a Word document (here's the financial report with the "big picture" table embedded and some process flow diagrams). I'm less clear on the value of pulling real time updates into your document. If you're mixing text from Word, a spreadsheet, and diagrams, presumably you're creating a document for printing and distribution (or at least electronic distribution). Do you really want to distribute this document without being certain exactly what real-time changes made it in? If you really want real-time, what about the lack of real-time updates to your descriptive text in word and your diagrams?
What a coincidence! I'm a secretary for Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (it doesn't pay well, so I work two jobs), and it's pretty well-known around here that all three like to drown kittens and push grandmothers down stairs.
But it was in the perfect location and the rent so cheap! How could I pass it up?
It's unfortunate that it has to be this way, but unless people get burned by EULAs they're not going to take EULA's seriously. Discovering that they've agreed to let this software spam their boss, coworkers, and business contacts will hopefully encourage people to seriously read EULAs in the future. I expect that when people start seriously reading EULAs, they'll discover they don't actually agree with many of the terms. (Or at least they'll discover that they can't make heads or tails over the thing.) A little backlash would be help restore balance to EULAs and make the work a more fair place.
We were all waiting for you to start it.
It sounds so good, then I see the details.
A dollar per track is a bit high, but I would certainly be interested in buying some tracks for that price. However, that price is "in addition to paying a monthly subscription fee of $9.95." I can't imagine buying more than ten songs per month. Once that's worked in we're up to two dollars per track. Two dollars? Too much.
Furthermore, I expect that this new functionality will be available through their proprietary software. I don't want to deal with your unknown software (even if it did run under my primary operating system: Linux). I want to open a account with some money, then download songs off your web site until my account is empty. Nice and simple. Do it for one dollar per song and I'll very occasionally use it for catchy tunes. Do it for fifty cents and I'll regularly use it. Do it for twenty five cents and I'll make heavy use it, regularly buying music on a whim.
While what you describe is admirable, it has little to nothing to do with the choice between C and C++. KDE (and Qt) basically use C++ as "C With Classes", which is a fine way to use C++. (There are many good arguments for not using the more complex aspects of C++) However, anything expressed in the C With Classes subset of C++ can be written relatively easily in straight C.
Programmers have been embedding things in other things for years and manage to do so in a variety of languages including C.
Oooooh, yay, Microsoft added another export filter to Word and Excel. The world is a better place.
The reality is that unless the XML format is the default format, this change is useless to most users. The cry against new word processors is always, "If it doesn't import every single Word file ever created with every single feature supported, it's worthless." Unfortunately the insane complexity of the Word file format, the lack of documentation, and the constant churn as new versions of Word come out mean that you'll never see perfect conversions, yet too many people whine that it has to be perfect. (Completely ignoring the fact that most users would never notice the (in most cases) ever so slightly inaccurate translation, the minority that push the documents to their limits refuse to admit any value in an imperfect translation.) An XML would make the translation easier, but it's useless if it's not the default. Microsoft's monopoly on office productivity software is based on the massive numbers of existing Word and Excel files.
You've been rated "Funny", but I think you're serious, so I'll respond as such.
It does cost that much to have real CDs? Try again. A minimal run of "real CDs" can easily run you $1,000. If you're a small time artist who is working a traditional job to pay the rent while you work on your music, $1,000 is alot of money, especially if most of your disposable income is already invested in instruments and recording equipment. On the other hand, with the help of a friend with a computer, a CD-R writing drive, and color printer, you can burn runs of almost any size for a few dollar per disc (with nice jewel case and cover). What a great way for an unknown musician to get his music out!
I've purchased a half-dozen CD-Rs from musicians I've discovered online, and I've been pleased with every one I. I don't begrudge them that CD-R is the only format they can economically produce.
Wow, and to think I've been making my music selections entirely based on the quality of the music.
That said, it's not relavent in this discussion. The artist specifically did print nice CD covers. The jewel cases he bought are identical to the jewel cases most commercial CDs come in. He's trying to market himself in all sorts of ways (personal website, free mp3 samples on mp3.com, and selling CDs on eBay) He's trying to market himself without going broke. He's using various services as they were designed!
I've always respected librarians. They dedicate their lives to sharing information with people as freely as possible. I cheer the American Library Associationprotect individual's privacy and confidentiality, and fight against free limiting legislation like the Children's Internet Protection Act, the DMCA (PDF), and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. They've been fighting to keep information free longer than the internet has been around. Democracy requires an educated citizenry, and libraries make it their mission to spread knowledge to everyone, regardless of race, social status, or wealth. Library's are a geek's best friend.
Just because every other system is worse doesn't make capitalism good. Capitalism has many, many problems. It's just that every system that's been tried has proven to have many, many more. Capitalism shouldn't be held on a pedastool as sacred, it should be continuously challenged.
... and is apparently oiled with the blood of little guys getting screwed.
Yes, in general the market self corrects. But until it self corrects there is a window of opportunity for shysters and frauds to steal from you. The occurs both in the small scale (The guy on the street who tries to sell you crappy speakers) and on a large scale (the guy in a suit who tries to sell you crappy stock). Capitalism uncontrolled can destroy the lives of innocent people and rewards scam artists.
Fair enough. So if I can come up with a legal use for the technology can be sold?
Hey! A legal use for a Mod Chip: to run Linux on your X-Box! It may not be a terribly logical use of your X-Box, but apparently a number of people are seriously interested in doing it.
Why? I'm not capable of building a Mod Chip. I'm famous for my ability to kill hardware simply by opening the case. Heck, hardware that I'm near has a tendency to fail for no reason. So maybe I want to pay someone who is less dangerous to hardware to build and install one for me, leaving me to worry about writing the software (which I am good at). Why can't I do this? Am I simply not cool enough to be allowed to work on X-Box Linux because I lack the hardware chops?
The difference is that EULAs attempt to take away rights you normally would have, but the GPL grants you rights would normally would not have.
You are free to use GPLed software, reverse engineer GPLed software (of course, it's alot easier since you can get the sourc), make copies for personal use, modify GPLed software, and use modified GPLed software. You can do all of these things without even looking at the GPL, let alone agreeing to it. However, copyright law (not the GPL) forbids you from distributing copies. If you'd like to distribute copies, take a look at the GPL, it's offering you a license to distribute copies in exchange for your making certain promises. Each side gets something (you can redistribute the software, the original author gets to limit how you redistribute it), so it's pretty reasonable deal. Licenses like the GPL and the BSD License don't take away anything you previously could have done in the absence of a license. They simply offer you a deal: you can have additional freedoms, but here are the terms of the trade.
In the absence of a EULA, you're free to take a copyright protected work home, use it, disassemble it, make copies for personal use, reverse engineer it, and modify it. For older copyright protected works (music and books) this is still true. The software industry has attempted to change these rules and claims that you need to agree to the EULA before you can excercise any of these rights you would normally have. What do I get in return for the restrictions the EULA adds? Nothing. There was one court case where is was insanely ruled that copying software into your computer's memory was an infringing copy, and that a EULA gave you a righ to make that copy in exchange for limiting yourself in other ways. That ruling is clearly insane and ignores that making copies for personal use has been fair game for a long time. Fortunately said judgement didn't make it too far up the legal system and has not been tested on a national level. A future case may yet invalidate that judgement.
While I'm sure that this is interesting, how does it apply to me as a consumer who wants to mess with hardware I purchased? As far as I can tell, it's irrelevant. Their business model is not my concern
I'm all for transparent security, but I think you take it a bit too far.
It's an old joke, but it's relevant:
Security through obscurity is all about outrunning the other potential targets. Attackers tend to cherry pick easy targets or targets that promise large rewards for their work. If you're not interesting enough to justify the effort and their are easier targets, security through obscurity may work because the attackers decide to pick easier targets. This is why simple but uncommon changes like renaming the root account or running a potentially dangerous service on an unusual port can minorly contribute to your security. They confuse some attackers who will go look for easier targets.
That said, if you're all alone, or the lion has decided that you look extra tasty, well you're out of luck. If an attacker decides he really wants to break in (perhaps even because he's curious about your obscure system), your obscurity basically becomes meaningless and you're back to traditional obscurity.
So obscurity can be a helpful part of a full security package. Security through obscurity alone is nearly useless, but I think your statement is a bit overly broad.
You can find the specific coverage on NPR's Morning Edition here. Search for "Supreme", it's near the middle of the page. The Real stream is about 7 minutes long.
I trust you'll be moving to PlayStation 2 soon? Far more first-tier games than Windows.
(Relax, I'm kidding. I do all my work under Linux, but I keep a Windows partition around solely for my first person shooter game addiction.)
I suspect that inflation has more to do with the issue. Given inflation since 1976 (PDF, sorry. You'll get similar numbers from other sources) cars are now proportionally cheaper. Assuming car prices moved exactly with inflation, your $10,000 car would now run $31,600. Naturally this cost saving is due to other reasons (more efficient manufacturing processes, cheaper foreign labor, newer and cheaper materials). Sure, adding safety features did increase the cost, but not by a huge margin.
True, my social and professional circles limit my exposure to the overall population. My anecdotal evidence isn't statistically significant. But I don't think it's as limited as you suggest. My social and professional circles include a number of Microsoft fans, and of those Microsoft fans those who use PDAs prefer Palms over PocketPCs. One of the biggest Microsoft fans (and an ex-Microsoftie who only left to marry his wife), is a huge Palm fan and is very down on the several PocketPCs he has owned or worked professionally with. Not statistically significant, but probably a fair barometer opinion on these devices. If there is a noteworthy bias, it's that my social and professional circles are dominantly technical. I can't really speak for non-technical users.
All that said, it's a fair challenge, and I appreciate your bringing it up.
Just to clairify, I take PocketPCs perfectly seriously. They are perfectly functional PDAs, and for certain uses are superior to Palms. However, I believe that for core PDA functionality (Address book, date book, memos, to do list, long battery life, simple interface, small size), Palms are superior.
Most open source projects would be even better than that if an infinite number of magical gnomes worked on the project full time.
Yes, it would be nice if more open source coders were paid for their work, but making do with what we have is a hallmark of open source hacking.
If that's why people are buying PDAs, of course it's going to wear off. And I do know a few people who bought PDAs for novelty value, or purchased one without quite knowing what they would use it for. Sure enough, these people stopped using their PDAs within a few months.
On the other hand, I knew exactly what I wanted a PDA for. I had been carrying a small datebook and pen with me. This significantly helped keep my life organized. It also provided me with a place to write notes (work todo items, shopping lists, reminders to email people information). I also kept contact information for various people, mostly phone numbers, in it.
On the down side, every year I got a new datebook. Any information I wanted from the previous datebook had to be manually copied to the new one. If my datebook was lost or damaged, any information in it was lost. The physical book didn't make it easy to reorganize the information, to collect the scattered notes to identify which are still relevant and which aren't.
I needed a smart datebook. And so I bought a Palm III.
My Palm was exactly what I needed. Appointments actually beeped to remind me. I could easily reorganize information without my address book turning into a message of scratched out information or pages thin from repeated erasing. I have effectively unlimited scratch paper for notes which I use to keep all sorts of useful information.
I'm on my third Palm (III -> V because I was sick of replacing the batteries and wanted a smaller palm, V -> Vx because I was starting to read e-books and needed more space). I use my Palm several times per day and I really value it. I know a number of people who feel the same way about their Palms.
PDAs are not just a fad. Sure, some people got them because of the fad, but I don't care about those people (in this context at least). There is a real market of people who value a good PDA. These people are the ones that continue to buy Palm (or PalmOS devices) over the various Windows based PDAs because they know that Palm got it right. Mostly people following the fad, people who don't know what they want, are drawn to the shiny Windows based PDAs. Many serious PDA users see no need for Palms to upgrade to ARM processors. Sure, more processing power would be nice, but my Palm does everything I need. I don't need games, I don't need video, I don't need MP3 support. I need a smart datebook, address book, and notepad that I can back up on my computer. The Palm does exactly this. I'm really frustrated at the superficial media which keeps reporting "Look at all of the advances in Windows PDAs, Palm hasn't advanced at all. Palm is on its way down." I know many serious Palm users, but I've never seen a serious PDA user with a Windows PDA. Serious users know that Palm gets it right, and Microsoft focuses on superficial glitz.
I only meant that you should have ALT="something" tags, not that they should be empty. (Unless of course the image is a spacer graphic or otherwise contributes nothing to the pages content, in which case ALT="" is appropriate.)
I can see both sides of the issue. Generally I'm for less regulation not more, and for fewer lawsuits. But it's really frustrating for so many sites to ignore the relatively easy steps it takes to make themeselves accessible. Historically pressure from users isn't enough. There are too many arty webmaster with no concept of usability and accessability.
Absolutely. If the graphics are the end unto themselves, it's fine. There are a number of Flash and QuickTime based sites that I enjoy. However...
...sometimes I'd rather just have simple text and minimal graphics. I recently purchased a new computer game that I was looking forward to. I visited their web site to look for any patches and was greated with frames and flash. It was harder to scroll through the framed page and too longer for the flash to download the menus. End result: I was hoping for a quick visit to check if a patch was available, but my visit was much longer and more difficult than I desired. If I was using lynx, I would have been out of luck. Sure, I need to have Windows (And thus Internet Explorer) to run the game, but I chose to use lynx for its speed sometimes.