Let me preface by saying, I don't agree with the grand parent's over exgeration of our current state of afairs. Yea, we're not as bad as 1930s and 1940s Germany or [insert evil government here]. But that doesn't mean that we're doing the best job we can. Just because we're doing it better than they did, doesn't excuse the mistakes that we [the country] commit.
Oh yeah, the US government is killing away millions of people to further the cause of the state. The last time I checked, we were also annexing all our neighbouring countries to become more powerful. Am sure the Canadians are trembling in their shoes.
Not to mention the fact that the US government is completely controlled by the military and is persecuting its citizens for not following its mandate.
FYI - for all of the government's efforts, the judiciary still deems it illegal for the legislature to interfere. Despite everything, the
"regime" that is currently in power was _democratically_ elected by the majority of Americans. Perhaps you may disagree with their decision or the methods they employ, however that does not mean it is not democracy.
Kill one or millions. If you do it in the name of the state, it's wrong. And using the point that we democratically and majority elected the POTUS is pretty silly. Not even counting our hilariously poor voter turn out... You can make the point that most of the people who voted for Bush still think Iraq had connections with 911. Yea, so the majority of people are ignorant to facts and voted for the wrong person. Winning an election does not absolve the unethical tactics used to win.
Papers? We don't need no stinkin' papers. I mostly agree here. In an ideal state, this wouldn't be a problem. It CAN be a problem when those papers are prone to mistakes and don't even work to keep the wrong people out. See 911.
FYI - these things have been happening for all of time. It's only that you hear more about them now with the new media. Just because you hear more about them does not mean that they didn't happen before.
And the fact that it's been happening for years makes it A-OKAY? Well, murder has been happening since the dawn of humanity. Precendent has been set, kill away!
Here's a little secret. Democracy doesn't really "work" - almost every American president other than Kennedy has been a White Christian Protestant Male. So much for diversity and blah blah blah. If democracy really did work, Joe Schmoe would be able to contest for elections and get elected. And if that were the case, you think the powers that be would really let that happen?
Right. And we should just sit around and take it? What was that noise? Oh nevermind that, it was just ole Jefferson rolling in his grave.
This has always been happening - WW2, Cold War and the like. And like I mentioned earlier, it's merely that you're hearing more about it now, that is all.
Back to that precedent arguement! Hooray for previous crimes paving the way for a future of non improvement and continued injustice!
I like how your basis for refuting the point includes comparisons to bigger injustices. When you got in trouble as a kid, you probably would bring up the vase your sister broke last week, wouldn't you.
Well, we have the technology that makes this possible quite easily. In time, we'll also develop means of overcoming such "watching" - through other technologies.
Remember - whatever happens, the majority of the people asked for it. The state is what the people want it to be.
Err... no. Whatever happens, the majority of the people didn't know about it. Largely due to apathy and ignorance. But also due to the fact that when it happens, it's also too late. The state of the people is hardly ever what they want it to be. The state is ONLY what the people accept it to be.
That's ridiculas. And when did I bash anyone for bashing Bill Gates? Sounds like you misinterpreted something.
If you ask only unbiased people who have no vested interest in a topic, you're going to get some pretty useless information.
I understand your point. That it's in Bill Gates best interest to paint a picture that will sell the most Microsoft products. But that doesn't mean he's not also qualified to speak on the subject.
It's kind of like saying you can't trust a professional mathematicians answer to a complex math problem, because he has a conflict of interest.
You can't be unbiased AND an expert at the same time. Any expert without real field time, is a self claimed expert. And anyone who chooses to take answers from an unqualified expert deserves what they get.
Bill Gates is an expert at what he does. Love him or hate him, it's undeniable that Microsoft's influence SHAPES events. Hopefully oneday, one of those events will include it's own undoing.
Despite all that, I find myself agreeing with your point. It's like saying since George W Bush is President of the United States, we shouldn't trust anything he says about the United States.
Well, I'm suprised at the response to the post personally. It's aim was mostly sarcasm:D
You make a classic mistake when you assume that what Bill says for publication is necessarily what he actually thinks. It has been known that people make statements in order to influence an outcome, not becuase they are sure that outcome will happen. In fact, if an outcome is certain, people usually don't bother to talk about it: How many "The sun rose today" conversations do you hear every morning?
Yup, partially the Hawthorne effect. Since when has this not been a part of American "capitalist" business anyway. Every CEO is made celebrity so they can speak publicly about their business. It's part of their job.
Whatever Bill Gates says publicaly or not, I would be willing to wager he has a better idea of what goes on in the PC world than you, I, the parent, or the person who wrote the article.
I personally detest him because of the business practices he lets happen in his company.
But back to your point. If a statement is designed to influence the outcome, and it does. Then I'd say the person making the statement has insight on the process, just by having the influence.
If power predicts, power dictates. They aren't mutually exclusive. For instance, if I tell you the sun will rise today, that doesn't mean I'm responsible for it. But then again, if someone who controls a sizable chunk of the PC industry "predicts" where the industry is going to go. It's quite possible it's because, that's where he's planning on taking it.
As far as your "pile of cash" comment, do you remember someone called Ken Olsen?
Never heard of him. But I fail to see any statistical correlation.
He amassed his weatlh in the PC business. One might say that's a measurement of success. One might also say that such a successful person is qualified to speak about it more so than a random journalist. If he says positive things about it, where's your pile of cash that qualifies you to argue about it?
Now granted, I'll immediately concede that most of Microsoft's success comes from less than ethical business practices and marketing, rather than technology innovation.
I'd also admit that I detect a bit of underhanded marketing any time Bill Gates says ANYTHING about the computer industry.
Having said that, I'd still take his opinion over some cynical slashdot poster or ill-informed journalist about the computer industry.
Questionable quality and poor business practices aside... they are managing to sell a lot of stuff to a lot of people without the use of gun point. Though, they do buy and stop the sale of a lot of things at legal gun point.
Oh, who am I kidding with this post. Sorry, I'll revert. MICROSOFT BAD! BILL GATES ARE EVIL! BRAINS!!!!
I went on a quest for a silent system a while back. I bought all the fancy heatsinks, quiet fans, and special PSU's. The more I bought, the more I thought about the noise and the more it bugged me. It became... a problem.
After realizing that I couldn't have a completely silent machine that also ran cool enough for gaming... I had an epiphany. Move this blasted thing as far away as possible.
I dashed off to my local Frys and bought a USB 2.0 hub (which has since been replaced by a USB 2.0 and firewire combo) and 25 feet of USB extension cable. I ordered high quality 25 foot CRT extension cables from Belkin. I hand made a 25 foot speaker cable. And then I bought an external CDRW.
I then stuck all the noisy fans back inside the machine and stuck it in my closet and shut the door. Ahhhh... quiet. How does it run you ask? Cooler than it ever did with all of the quiet technology. Screw that noise, pun intended. I can't hear a damn thing unless my closet door is open and airflow has never been better. And as an added bonus, in the winter when I step out of the shower and head to my closet to get the days clothes, it feels quite a bit warmer in there:) At one point I had 2 computers running in there, and I did have to open up both cases and add a box fan blowing between them to move air. They both ran fine, never had heat issues, and never hear a damn thing.
Now all I have on my desk is a hub, various devices, a cdrw, and of course the keyboard and mouse. The foot print is smaller, the noise is gone, and since I never turn off my computer, I never have to get up to swap cds unless I want to do a direct copy. Which is rare, and worth the trade off.
Ahhhhh..... silence. Now, I can get back to uhh.... Playing computer games with loud noises.
You know, you're absolutely right. While I honestly believe there is a level of internet and specifically gaming (mmorpgs) addiction, this shouldn't be confused with "Focus".
I go through phases. My senior year in high school, and some time after that when I was working for myself in the dot com phase it was Everquest. I played that for 5-10 hours a day easy. Quite possibly 35 hours or more a week. Was I addicted? I'm not sure that I was, it was just how I spent ALL of my free time. I can say I wasn't addicted because once I stopped, I didn't miss or crave it at all.
Then I got into paintball. Would spend at least 10-15 hours a week playing it. Friday practices, Sunday games, ENTIRE weekends every other month spent at tournies. When I wasn't playing it, I was working on mine, or my team mates markers. I still play quite a bit, but not nearly as much as then. It was just how I spent my free time.
Then it was racing. Spending entire weekends in my garage working on my car. Working extra to buy more parts. Autocrossing, reading about racing, driving on roads, playing video games about racing. Racing racing racing. I still race, but not as much (Yea... I was kind of living above my income on that "hobby", still paying that one off:D)
And now, I actually play WoW at least 15 hours a week. Sometimes more if I play a lot on the wekends. But yet I would hardly consider myself addicted. I work for a fortune 50 company 40 hours a week. I work out regularly. I just don't watch TV or participate in any other hobbies seriously at the moment. This too I'm sure will change as it always has.
So what these researchers might be confusing as addiction, just might be a form of focus. Just because your free time lacks variety, doesn't mean addiction.
Some people have lots of hobbies. Some people have one. It might just be my personality, but I prefer to focus entirely on one hobby, than to do 10 half-assed. Shrug.
There is an easy way to make this illegal on the federal level. Encrypt the keyboard signal to the driver. Not only would it defeat most keyboard loggers in the first place, but any subsequent kb loggers to be created with encryption breaking would be illegal under the DMCA. Or if not illegal, at least give the owner of the computer the right to sue.
So being that the article is in French, I can't exactly tell.
But the slashdot editorial said that 8% of Windows session requires a reboot. How is that automatically translated into a windows failure? It could be an application or driver install for one thing. It could be unrelated software, such as spyware or a worm, that is causing the reboot. Again, I can't read the article, and the translation is poor, and doesn't quite mention failures (I skimmed it cuz it sucked) as the only cause for the reboots listed. So I'd go out on a limb and say this is another blatant attempt at propaganda like slashdot editorial.
Ok, so I know someone will post and say "Well, if Windows did not have the security flaw in the first place, it wouldn't have happened.". And my reply to that is, if you're driving your car and you get hit with a bazooka round, are you going to go complain to Ford that it wasn't designed to survive bazooka rounds, and that your car doesn't drive anymore? Sure I'm exgerating a bit, but it's basically a malicious attack that circumvents security, or exploits a flaw. Note: I'm not apologizing for Microsoft's poor attempt at security, I recongnize that it needs vast improvement. But the blame for a reboot caused by a malicious piece of code does not rest on Microsoft's shoulders alone. ESPECIALLY if there is an update that addresses that particular flaw already.
From a statistical perspective, I'd like to see the user population groups, and the causality of the reboots before you go saying that Windows fails 8% of the time. I wonder if the data is even normal.
I'd also like to see a similar study done on other operating systems, and see if the means of required reboots (not failures) are statistically different between operating systems. They likely are, but who knows for sure?
Of course, the non-free (as in beer) version that expired quickly wasn't conspiciously labeled as such in the several places it was displayed... so most people, even knowledgable technical people, were usually tricked into downloading the trial version of the expensive player, having a reasonable believe that they were in fact installing the free one they had been promised.
Ok, fair enough. I don't quite remember if it was labeled as a trial or a free product or what. But can you really fault Real for trying to get you to PAY for their product? I remember being equally as annoyed by those tactics myself. Which is one (among a myriad of others) reason I would never consider paying for RealPlayer. But honestly, in the days the internet it's hard to sell a product like this. I understand the need behind the methods they employed. I don't agree, but I understand.
If I was in the posistion to sell the player, and we were giving it away for free, and all signs and analysis pointed to sales lost due to giving it away; you can bet I'm going to employ some strategies to make it harder to give away. Since a demo trial is essential for over-the-web software these days, they still needed to offer a free service.
Basically at this point, my original curiosity has been satisfied and I've started to post only to play devils advocate.
While I think Real made some very poor decisions in the marketing, presentation, and overall development with RealPlayer; I still maintain that it doesn't make Real evil(tm), it just makes them bad business people. If that pisses you [the negative posters] off, then perhaps it's time to find a new hobby.
The analogy is if you don't LIKE a particular food.
Every single one of the rebuttals has mentioned someone getting sick. That isn't the same thing.
You can barely even call it spyware since you agree to install it in the first place. The point of the analogy is when it comes right down to it, Real has shady business practices, but they are well within thier rights to practice business how they want. This means if you don't like it (and I hope you don't), don't support the products. In other words, Real has no authority over what you install or operate on your computer. They aren't some commision that decides what you do. You do. They are a free enterprise company that uses tactics that customers don't like. Well as they found out, when your customers don't like something, you tend to lose business. Hence the turn around.
I STILL don't like Real, but I appluad their efforts to turn things around. At least they are listening, albiet a bit late. If Real makes a good product, I'll treat them like a convict on probation. I'll use it, but with scrutiny. If you vow never to use a Real product again just because their first 10 products suck, then that's a decision you're free to make. If they make a bad ass product and it's better than everything else, why miss out just because they sucked in the past?
I understand the points, but honestly these examples are asinine.
1. They all included paid services. I'm willing to bet a dollar that all of the people who are complaining are doing so about the free version and are not paying customers. I'm pretty confident in that bet, because I seriously doubt any slashdot member will actually admit to having payed for Real software;)
2. They are all too liberal with the side effects that the real player actually has. They don't cause physical harm. Yes they might take up some of your time and are inconvient. BUt that's not exactly the same.
3. Real isn't doing anything illegal.
4. There's a difference between marketing and untruthful advertising.
5. Ultimately it's the customers responsibility to be happy with the product. If they aren't and continue to use it, it becomes their fault.
If Real can make money with their model, then it stands to reason they are satisfying some people some of the time. It's Real's loss, not yours, if they don't satisfy most people, most of the time.
You make a point, but it's hardly a fair comparison. Getting "sick" and "not liking something" are rather different. Personal preferences are one thing, side effects are another.
Yes, I understand that real installs what can be considered spyware. I hate it too. But I guess what it boils down to, is I'm just not sure where it's written that Real has a responsiblity to customers who installed free players. If you installed it, you did it of your own free will. Sure it's shady, but it's hardly malicious.
You're right, that's not journalism, that's editorial. Big deal.
If you wouldn't do the same thing in his place, then not only are you potentially a liar, but also not very smart.
Like any CEO or senior member of ANY company is going to put a negative spin on something. All of the answers appeared to be FACT. Not saying it is, because I can't validate it. A positive "spin" does not change it, it just alters it's presentation. It's called marketing... look into it.
Since when is slashdot responsible for policing the integrity of those it interviews?
Slashdot is just a journalism medium. Questions were offered and answered. You're going to lose a lot of credibility as an interviewer if you come back and say "No those answers weren't good enough and they sound fishy, try again." The replies were a fair chance for the CEO to speak out. They choose how they convey messages, not slashdot.
Slashdot, the new filter for wusses who can't be bothered to form their own opinion!
Seriously, why do all of you people get so bent out of shape? I'm honestly asking here.
If you don't like a type of food, do you go on a personal crusade to ensure no one ever eats it ever again? Probably not.
If you don't like Real's business strategy, DON'T USE IT. I personally don't like the real player, never have, probably never will. I do, however, use Rhapsody and I think it's a fantastic service for the price. But that's off topic.
The real question is why Real (or any other company for that matter) perceived as a malicious company? They are being cast as villians for having stupid business practices? Last I checked they weren't out forcing you to install the product. If it sucks, it sucks, and that's Real's problem in terms of business strategy. It's not an insult to your person for god's sake.
Yea yea, it's invasive. Yea yea, it's annoying. I get it, and I happen to agree. So I don't use or buy the products that are annoying. I installed, didn't like it and uninstalled. Live and learn.
But but but, how come I can't use it on x platform? Well, if you really want to use it that badly, I suggest you go to real and pitch a business case to them for why they should spend the extra time and money developing for your platform. Just because you use it[the platform], doesn't mean the majority of the target demographic uses it. Son of a bitch, Real is out to make money? LYNCH THEM!
If the product isn't what you want, it means the marketing and development failed. It doesn't mean they are evil. Grow up.
Suprisingly, when I look at normal statistics, half of it falls above the average. In a crazy coincidence, half of it occurs below the average!
Estimations are funny. I estimate that the average person has average number of legs. But actually, the average person, has more than the average number of legs.
You make a good point and it reminded me of the "structured language" = conscienceness thought debate.
I realize those devices are neccesary, but my original intent is to say that they are over emphasized in school. Which in turn gives a negative impression to some students.
Creative writing teaches brainstorming an outline before you write. Come up with your idea and/or point. Introduce it in a manner that the audience will identify with. Offer the points, and counterpoint, and why your point is better than the counter point. As a bonus, it'd also be nice to include some factual data with your point.
This is where I think teaching should focus FIRST. I agree with you 100%, both are neccesary. My org. post was to offer a theory on why the essay has a negative context to it for some people. There is no language without rules, and there is no communication without language.
The English Class Ruined the Essay
on
The Age of the Essay
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think that the essay rules ruined the essay.
In school we focus on the rules, in terms of how an essay should be structured, and what it should contain.
Rules like spelling and grammar ARE important, but not as important as the content. I'd rather read an easy by a brilliant person with English as a second langauge, who doesn't write very well, opposed to an essay written perfectly by a random bloke.
This is where the English class ruined the essay. It was graded on those rules, and seldom on content.
They should focus on free thinking, creative writing, as much, if not more than the structure.
Right. The best evil people will look just like the good ones.
9/11 might have beed a tad bit different if the hijackers had horns, hooves, and a forked tail.
Like Microsoft or not, they do know a thing or two about business in general. They're only one of the most sucessful companies in the world.
Business sense (and government sense too, apparently) would say that security is a hot topic right about know. I would wager that Microsoft is all over security. Not because it will make their product better, but because it will make the product sell more. More buzzwords to impress account managers ect.
Concerning the OS market share wars, expect to see security continue to be a hot topic well after we're all tired of it. Much like the current presidential election. FUD sells.
If Microsoft ignores the issue long enough for worms to become malicious enough to do "real" damage, it won't be due to bone-headedness. It'll be to lobby for more trusted computing and to sell additional security products. Much like current election.
Either way, I would wager a dollar that says in 3-4 years we'll be complaining about too much security in windows. There will be articles in your rights online crying foul on Microsoft for locking everything down too much.
So... just what IS the right amount of security (aside from user common sense)?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, the US government is killing away millions of people to further the cause of the state. The last time I checked, we were also annexing all our neighbouring countries to become more powerful. Am sure the Canadians are trembling in their shoes. Not to mention the fact that the US government is completely controlled by the military and is persecuting its citizens for not following its mandate. FYI - for all of the government's efforts, the judiciary still deems it illegal for the legislature to interfere. Despite everything, the "regime" that is currently in power was _democratically_ elected by the majority of Americans. Perhaps you may disagree with their decision or the methods they employ, however that does not mean it is not democracy.
Kill one or millions. If you do it in the name of the state, it's wrong. And using the point that we democratically and majority elected the POTUS is pretty silly. Not even counting our hilariously poor voter turn out... You can make the point that most of the people who voted for Bush still think Iraq had connections with 911. Yea, so the majority of people are ignorant to facts and voted for the wrong person. Winning an election does not absolve the unethical tactics used to win.
Papers? We don't need no stinkin' papers. I mostly agree here. In an ideal state, this wouldn't be a problem. It CAN be a problem when those papers are prone to mistakes and don't even work to keep the wrong people out. See 911.
FYI - these things have been happening for all of time. It's only that you hear more about them now with the new media. Just because you hear more about them does not mean that they didn't happen before.
And the fact that it's been happening for years makes it A-OKAY? Well, murder has been happening since the dawn of humanity. Precendent has been set, kill away!
Here's a little secret. Democracy doesn't really "work" - almost every American president other than Kennedy has been a White Christian Protestant Male. So much for diversity and blah blah blah. If democracy really did work, Joe Schmoe would be able to contest for elections and get elected. And if that were the case, you think the powers that be would really let that happen?
Right. And we should just sit around and take it? What was that noise? Oh nevermind that, it was just ole Jefferson rolling in his grave.
This has always been happening - WW2, Cold War and the like. And like I mentioned earlier, it's merely that you're hearing more about it now, that is all.
Back to that precedent arguement! Hooray for previous crimes paving the way for a future of non improvement and continued injustice!
I like how your basis for refuting the point includes comparisons to bigger injustices. When you got in trouble as a kid, you probably would bring up the vase your sister broke last week, wouldn't you.
Well, we have the technology that makes this possible quite easily. In time, we'll also develop means of overcoming such "watching" - through other technologies. Remember - whatever happens, the majority of the people asked for it. The state is what the people want it to be.
Err... no. Whatever happens, the majority of the people didn't know about it. Largely due to apathy and ignorance. But also due to the fact that when it happens, it's also too late. The state of the people is hardly ever what they want it to be. The state is ONLY what the people accept it to be.
If you ask only unbiased people who have no vested interest in a topic, you're going to get some pretty useless information.
I understand your point. That it's in Bill Gates best interest to paint a picture that will sell the most Microsoft products. But that doesn't mean he's not also qualified to speak on the subject.
It's kind of like saying you can't trust a professional mathematicians answer to a complex math problem, because he has a conflict of interest.
You can't be unbiased AND an expert at the same time. Any expert without real field time, is a self claimed expert. And anyone who chooses to take answers from an unqualified expert deserves what they get.
Bill Gates is an expert at what he does. Love him or hate him, it's undeniable that Microsoft's influence SHAPES events. Hopefully oneday, one of those events will include it's own undoing.
Despite all that, I find myself agreeing with your point. It's like saying since George W Bush is President of the United States, we shouldn't trust anything he says about the United States.
Damn... You're right.
You make a classic mistake when you assume that what Bill says for publication is necessarily what he actually thinks. It has been known that people make statements in order to influence an outcome, not becuase they are sure that outcome will happen. In fact, if an outcome is certain, people usually don't bother to talk about it: How many "The sun rose today" conversations do you hear every morning? Yup, partially the Hawthorne effect. Since when has this not been a part of American "capitalist" business anyway. Every CEO is made celebrity so they can speak publicly about their business. It's part of their job.
Whatever Bill Gates says publicaly or not, I would be willing to wager he has a better idea of what goes on in the PC world than you, I, the parent, or the person who wrote the article.
I personally detest him because of the business practices he lets happen in his company.
But back to your point. If a statement is designed to influence the outcome, and it does. Then I'd say the person making the statement has insight on the process, just by having the influence.
If power predicts, power dictates. They aren't mutually exclusive. For instance, if I tell you the sun will rise today, that doesn't mean I'm responsible for it. But then again, if someone who controls a sizable chunk of the PC industry "predicts" where the industry is going to go. It's quite possible it's because, that's where he's planning on taking it.
As far as your "pile of cash" comment, do you remember someone called Ken Olsen? Never heard of him. But I fail to see any statistical correlation.
He amassed his weatlh in the PC business. One might say that's a measurement of success. One might also say that such a successful person is qualified to speak about it more so than a random journalist. If he says positive things about it, where's your pile of cash that qualifies you to argue about it?
Now granted, I'll immediately concede that most of Microsoft's success comes from less than ethical business practices and marketing, rather than technology innovation.
I'd also admit that I detect a bit of underhanded marketing any time Bill Gates says ANYTHING about the computer industry.
Having said that, I'd still take his opinion over some cynical slashdot poster or ill-informed journalist about the computer industry.
Questionable quality and poor business practices aside... they are managing to sell a lot of stuff to a lot of people without the use of gun point. Though, they do buy and stop the sale of a lot of things at legal gun point.
Oh, who am I kidding with this post. Sorry, I'll revert. MICROSOFT BAD! BILL GATES ARE EVIL! BRAINS!!!!
After realizing that I couldn't have a completely silent machine that also ran cool enough for gaming... I had an epiphany. Move this blasted thing as far away as possible.
I dashed off to my local Frys and bought a USB 2.0 hub (which has since been replaced by a USB 2.0 and firewire combo) and 25 feet of USB extension cable. I ordered high quality 25 foot CRT extension cables from Belkin. I hand made a 25 foot speaker cable. And then I bought an external CDRW.
I then stuck all the noisy fans back inside the machine and stuck it in my closet and shut the door. Ahhhh... quiet. How does it run you ask? Cooler than it ever did with all of the quiet technology. Screw that noise, pun intended. I can't hear a damn thing unless my closet door is open and airflow has never been better. And as an added bonus, in the winter when I step out of the shower and head to my closet to get the days clothes, it feels quite a bit warmer in there :) At one point I had 2 computers running in there, and I did have to open up both cases and add a box fan blowing between them to move air. They both ran fine, never had heat issues, and never hear a damn thing.
Now all I have on my desk is a hub, various devices, a cdrw, and of course the keyboard and mouse. The foot print is smaller, the noise is gone, and since I never turn off my computer, I never have to get up to swap cds unless I want to do a direct copy. Which is rare, and worth the trade off.
Ahhhhh..... silence. Now, I can get back to uhh.... Playing computer games with loud noises.
I go through phases. My senior year in high school, and some time after that when I was working for myself in the dot com phase it was Everquest. I played that for 5-10 hours a day easy. Quite possibly 35 hours or more a week. Was I addicted? I'm not sure that I was, it was just how I spent ALL of my free time. I can say I wasn't addicted because once I stopped, I didn't miss or crave it at all.
Then I got into paintball. Would spend at least 10-15 hours a week playing it. Friday practices, Sunday games, ENTIRE weekends every other month spent at tournies. When I wasn't playing it, I was working on mine, or my team mates markers. I still play quite a bit, but not nearly as much as then. It was just how I spent my free time.
Then it was racing. Spending entire weekends in my garage working on my car. Working extra to buy more parts. Autocrossing, reading about racing, driving on roads, playing video games about racing. Racing racing racing. I still race, but not as much (Yea... I was kind of living above my income on that "hobby", still paying that one off :D)
And now, I actually play WoW at least 15 hours a week. Sometimes more if I play a lot on the wekends. But yet I would hardly consider myself addicted. I work for a fortune 50 company 40 hours a week. I work out regularly. I just don't watch TV or participate in any other hobbies seriously at the moment. This too I'm sure will change as it always has.
So what these researchers might be confusing as addiction, just might be a form of focus. Just because your free time lacks variety, doesn't mean addiction.
Some people have lots of hobbies. Some people have one. It might just be my personality, but I prefer to focus entirely on one hobby, than to do 10 half-assed. Shrug.
There is an easy way to make this illegal on the federal level. Encrypt the keyboard signal to the driver. Not only would it defeat most keyboard loggers in the first place, but any subsequent kb loggers to be created with encryption breaking would be illegal under the DMCA. Or if not illegal, at least give the owner of the computer the right to sue.
But the slashdot editorial said that 8% of Windows session requires a reboot. How is that automatically translated into a windows failure? It could be an application or driver install for one thing. It could be unrelated software, such as spyware or a worm, that is causing the reboot. Again, I can't read the article, and the translation is poor, and doesn't quite mention failures (I skimmed it cuz it sucked) as the only cause for the reboots listed. So I'd go out on a limb and say this is another blatant attempt at propaganda like slashdot editorial.
Ok, so I know someone will post and say "Well, if Windows did not have the security flaw in the first place, it wouldn't have happened.". And my reply to that is, if you're driving your car and you get hit with a bazooka round, are you going to go complain to Ford that it wasn't designed to survive bazooka rounds, and that your car doesn't drive anymore? Sure I'm exgerating a bit, but it's basically a malicious attack that circumvents security, or exploits a flaw. Note: I'm not apologizing for Microsoft's poor attempt at security, I recongnize that it needs vast improvement. But the blame for a reboot caused by a malicious piece of code does not rest on Microsoft's shoulders alone. ESPECIALLY if there is an update that addresses that particular flaw already.
From a statistical perspective, I'd like to see the user population groups, and the causality of the reboots before you go saying that Windows fails 8% of the time. I wonder if the data is even normal.
I'd also like to see a similar study done on other operating systems, and see if the means of required reboots (not failures) are statistically different between operating systems. They likely are, but who knows for sure?
... in his first Star Wars trilogy. *spoiler alert* except they were used for microphones instead. Cool concept.
If I was in the posistion to sell the player, and we were giving it away for free, and all signs and analysis pointed to sales lost due to giving it away; you can bet I'm going to employ some strategies to make it harder to give away. Since a demo trial is essential for over-the-web software these days, they still needed to offer a free service.
Basically at this point, my original curiosity has been satisfied and I've started to post only to play devils advocate.
While I think Real made some very poor decisions in the marketing, presentation, and overall development with RealPlayer; I still maintain that it doesn't make Real evil(tm), it just makes them bad business people. If that pisses you [the negative posters] off, then perhaps it's time to find a new hobby.
SCO sues IBM, and makes themselves the laughing stock of the business world by doing so.
HA-FRICKEN-HA.
I don't need 12 updates a week on the status of how retarded the SCO lawyers are.
Every single one of the rebuttals has mentioned someone getting sick. That isn't the same thing.
You can barely even call it spyware since you agree to install it in the first place. The point of the analogy is when it comes right down to it, Real has shady business practices, but they are well within thier rights to practice business how they want. This means if you don't like it (and I hope you don't), don't support the products. In other words, Real has no authority over what you install or operate on your computer. They aren't some commision that decides what you do. You do. They are a free enterprise company that uses tactics that customers don't like. Well as they found out, when your customers don't like something, you tend to lose business. Hence the turn around.
I STILL don't like Real, but I appluad their efforts to turn things around. At least they are listening, albiet a bit late. If Real makes a good product, I'll treat them like a convict on probation. I'll use it, but with scrutiny. If you vow never to use a Real product again just because their first 10 products suck, then that's a decision you're free to make. If they make a bad ass product and it's better than everything else, why miss out just because they sucked in the past?
I understand the points, but honestly these examples are asinine.
1. They all included paid services. I'm willing to bet a dollar that all of the people who are complaining are doing so about the free version and are not paying customers. I'm pretty confident in that bet, because I seriously doubt any slashdot member will actually admit to having payed for Real software ;)
2. They are all too liberal with the side effects that the real player actually has. They don't cause physical harm. Yes they might take up some of your time and are inconvient. BUt that's not exactly the same.
3. Real isn't doing anything illegal.
4. There's a difference between marketing and untruthful advertising.
5. Ultimately it's the customers responsibility to be happy with the product. If they aren't and continue to use it, it becomes their fault.
If Real can make money with their model, then it stands to reason they are satisfying some people some of the time. It's Real's loss, not yours, if they don't satisfy most people, most of the time.
Yes, I understand that real installs what can be considered spyware. I hate it too. But I guess what it boils down to, is I'm just not sure where it's written that Real has a responsiblity to customers who installed free players. If you installed it, you did it of your own free will. Sure it's shady, but it's hardly malicious.
You're right, that's not journalism, that's editorial. Big deal.
If you wouldn't do the same thing in his place, then not only are you potentially a liar, but also not very smart.
Like any CEO or senior member of ANY company is going to put a negative spin on something. All of the answers appeared to be FACT. Not saying it is, because I can't validate it. A positive "spin" does not change it, it just alters it's presentation. It's called marketing... look into it.
Slashdot is just a journalism medium. Questions were offered and answered. You're going to lose a lot of credibility as an interviewer if you come back and say "No those answers weren't good enough and they sound fishy, try again." The replies were a fair chance for the CEO to speak out. They choose how they convey messages, not slashdot.
Slashdot, the new filter for wusses who can't be bothered to form their own opinion!
If you don't like a type of food, do you go on a personal crusade to ensure no one ever eats it ever again? Probably not.
If you don't like Real's business strategy, DON'T USE IT. I personally don't like the real player, never have, probably never will. I do, however, use Rhapsody and I think it's a fantastic service for the price. But that's off topic.
The real question is why Real (or any other company for that matter) perceived as a malicious company? They are being cast as villians for having stupid business practices? Last I checked they weren't out forcing you to install the product. If it sucks, it sucks, and that's Real's problem in terms of business strategy. It's not an insult to your person for god's sake.
Yea yea, it's invasive. Yea yea, it's annoying. I get it, and I happen to agree. So I don't use or buy the products that are annoying. I installed, didn't like it and uninstalled. Live and learn.
But but but, how come I can't use it on x platform? Well, if you really want to use it that badly, I suggest you go to real and pitch a business case to them for why they should spend the extra time and money developing for your platform. Just because you use it[the platform], doesn't mean the majority of the target demographic uses it. Son of a bitch, Real is out to make money? LYNCH THEM!
If the product isn't what you want, it means the marketing and development failed. It doesn't mean they are evil. Grow up.
Suprisingly, when I look at normal statistics, half of it falls above the average. In a crazy coincidence, half of it occurs below the average!
Estimations are funny. I estimate that the average person has average number of legs. But actually, the average person, has more than the average number of legs.
I have no idea why I made this post.
You make a good point and it reminded me of the "structured language" = conscienceness thought debate.
I realize those devices are neccesary, but my original intent is to say that they are over emphasized in school. Which in turn gives a negative impression to some students.
Creative writing teaches brainstorming an outline before you write. Come up with your idea and/or point. Introduce it in a manner that the audience will identify with. Offer the points, and counterpoint, and why your point is better than the counter point. As a bonus, it'd also be nice to include some factual data with your point.
This is where I think teaching should focus FIRST. I agree with you 100%, both are neccesary. My org. post was to offer a theory on why the essay has a negative context to it for some people. There is no language without rules, and there is no communication without language.
I think that the essay rules ruined the essay.
In school we focus on the rules, in terms of how an essay should be structured, and what it should contain.
Rules like spelling and grammar ARE important, but not as important as the content. I'd rather read an easy by a brilliant person with English as a second langauge, who doesn't write very well, opposed to an essay written perfectly by a random bloke.
This is where the English class ruined the essay. It was graded on those rules, and seldom on content.
They should focus on free thinking, creative writing, as much, if not more than the structure.
Good point, but that's like saying: Ford created the first truck just last year!*
*On their new F150 chassis platform that is.
Microsoft created the first console! To be based off the windows 2000 kernel, that is.
http://www.archos.com Archos has been at this for well over a year.
If an open source product gets sued for patent infringement, it only seems to kick the development community into gear to find a better solution.
I say sue at the drop of a hat and keep spurring innovation!
Right. The best evil people will look just like the good ones. 9/11 might have beed a tad bit different if the hijackers had horns, hooves, and a forked tail.
Like Microsoft or not, they do know a thing or two about business in general. They're only one of the most sucessful companies in the world.
Business sense (and government sense too, apparently) would say that security is a hot topic right about know. I would wager that Microsoft is all over security. Not because it will make their product better, but because it will make the product sell more. More buzzwords to impress account managers ect.
Concerning the OS market share wars, expect to see security continue to be a hot topic well after we're all tired of it. Much like the current presidential election. FUD sells.
If Microsoft ignores the issue long enough for worms to become malicious enough to do "real" damage, it won't be due to bone-headedness. It'll be to lobby for more trusted computing and to sell additional security products. Much like current election.
Either way, I would wager a dollar that says in 3-4 years we'll be complaining about too much security in windows. There will be articles in your rights online crying foul on Microsoft for locking everything down too much.
So... just what IS the right amount of security (aside from user common sense)?