I never buy into the whole "it was never meant to..." argument. I feel as though the keyboard is an excellent input device for games. There's so many options.
I don't think it needs to be any more "ergonomic." When you use a keyboard, you're sitting at a desk (usually.) Your hand stays in one place, generally. Most games now a days (at least first person shooters) use the same keys to perform the same basic functions. You don't need to be a master to figure them out.
A gamepad has only a small set of buttons because it's designed to be held. Because of that, every game developer has to figure out what buttons should be used for what, and you end up with the same issue as a keyboard. Unless you design the controller for a particular game, it will never be perfect.
I do not think the Wiimote is revolutionary and I don't think it will be the control of future FPS titles. I mean, think about it - people play these games for hours at a time. I know I don't want to hold my arm up, twisting and contorting my wrist, for two hours.
The keyboard/mouse combination is a very good one, and it will take more to convince me otherwise. ps. They do make special sub-keyboards for use with games, that have keys with "spacial relationships" to each other, but provide much of the benefit of a keyboard - and that's a key-based system that you don't hold and can very, very quickly switch between. You can do a left/right switch on a keyboard in much less time then you ever can on a d-pad. They can do all the research they want - it's because they need to make a controller as flexible as possible with a very limited set of controls. It's not because it's technically superior then a keyboard/mouse.
But if Dvorak is as accurate as a broken clock, I guess you'd have to hope that this isn't one of those two times a day..
The point is that it doesn't matter who said it - I don't think he's wrong on all points. It will be interesting to see how Apple does with their phone in the long run. It might be the only one we see from them. Hey, companies can have failed products, and Apple has their share of them. It's not the end of the world and won't be the end of Apple.
And you can't really count all of DirectX - certainly not OpenGL. DirectX is (at least was) very similar to OpenGL except, of course, only working on Windows.
The Xbox was really just a PC - but yes they did indeed create that product. In fact, I was talking with a colleague at work today about it and I think the only good product that Microsoft has right now is the Xbox. The Xbox 360 does what it sets out to do, and doesn't have too many problems doing it. Amazing.
I've been using Vista for the last few days and I can't believe how busted it is. Not that it doesn't so what it's supposed to - but the one thing that people DID NOT complain about was the usability of XP. Seriously, XP is pretty easy to use, as easy as anything else. It was the stability, performance, and security that concerned people the most, and what did they do? They completely re-arranged the UI so much that a seasoned Windows user has to search Google to figure out how to change the damned colors! And it appears to be as unreliable and security issue prone as other Windows. Software shouldn't crash the system, and a lot of it still can.
Office 2007 is a joke, and IE7 has serious usability problems that just don't exist in competing products. What gives? Are we supposed to just eat everything that Microsoft feeds us?
Obviously I have no great love for Microsoft, but I have made a good living from supporting their products. It's just getting very, very old to deal with this crap every time.
Just because there's better players then you doesn't mean they all take it way too seriously.
A mouse and keyboard has *serious* advantages over a gamepad, whether you're serious or not. A mouse allows extremely fast and accurate aiming, and a keyboard allows for 100+ buttons.
Unfortunately, while it is an actual product that has been shown, it's from a really shitty company with a CEO that is under investigation by the SEC. Who knows if you'll ever be able to get one.
So, the fact that the Razr is several years old now changes the fact that it was once a very expensive phone that quickly came down in price once the early adopters were finished?
I would venture to say that people don't just buy phones once. They buy many of them, because you take them everywhere and they break or just wear out. While it's true that the iPod is also a device you carry around - it's not carried around nearly as much as a cell phone. If people never replaced them, or only replaced them every five years, then there would be no market for cell phones.
Perhaps the margin on the iPhone is higher then other devices (though I doubt it's nearly as high as any iPod or most of what Apple sells) but the device simply can't stay $500 for very long. The initial rush of sales will die off, and people will wait for the price to come way down like they do with every other phone. If they do not, then Apple will just not sell as many.
There's only so many things Apple can do with a cell phone, whether they reject the market or not. What do you think they could do with it that others have not done?
The cell phone market is already a utility market. Except for a small number of people (comparatively) most people just want your basic phone to make calls on, and don't expect to pay much for it. I'm not a market expert, but I'd almost agree that the market for a big expensive cell phone is less then the market for the iPod.
- A touchscreen mac. A Macintosh actually runs free/paid for apps you can download from the Internet. The iPhone will only have limited software available via "approved" (and paid for) apple online cell phone store. Expect to pay for each and every little utility, app, or game on that phone. - Again, it's not a Mac, and it's only a 4G iPod. - I could be running Windows, for all it matters. It's locked down. You can't put your own software on it. Ever. - Camera function is a "me too" function. It would certainly fail without it. What it won't do is anything special. You'll need a real digital camera to take anything good. - Unless they introduce group-ware integration (aka Exchange/Groupwise/Notes integration) then Blackberry people won't drool over anything.
It will be a neat phone, no doubt about it, but because of the locked down nature of it, it's just a glorified SideKick if you ask me.
I don't think Apple should pull out with the iPhone - I agree that it's too late. But this IS NOT a computer, it is only a cell phone, and the big difference is that it is a completely closed system. I don't mean that it's closed source (which it is) I mean nobody can develop openly for it.
He's wrong on occasion - but that doesn't mean he's ALWAYS wrong. I happen to agree with him here, although I don't think that it will ruin Apple or anything. I think they will release the iPhone, it will be a big seller for a little while and a status symbol (kinda like the $600 razr phone, which is now $50 or free with a plan.) But, the margins are very slim, the phone is kinda big and fragile in comparison to a flip-phone (big screen, like the PSP.. with a very shiny surface) and expensive as all hell. In the long term, I don't see Apple producing too many phones.
To top it all off, they aren't really introducing anything new that would be a "even if they fail, at least they brought us..xyz." Touch screen on a portable phone is novel, but not necessary in any way. The device is still locked down to all hell.
I wish them luck, and I think they're going to need it.
You're getting modded down, and it's just too bad. I'll offer a piece of advice: Don't get suckered in. These people made a $300 - $600 purchase on something, and so they all feel like they're experts.
I purchased a PS3 last week and it's a pretty damned neat box. It does way more out of the box then any other game console I've ever had. You can hook up USB devices no problem, the controllers are BluTooth and USB, the machine connects to the WiFi network, it can run Linux, it's cool! The controllers are really sweet with their motion sensitive stuff - flying planes is great.
I went to several stores when I got it - a few said in stock, but they didn't have any when I showed. I finally got one at a Circuit City. And pretty much without fail, every single sales person told me how the PS3 is no good, how it's getting "crushed" by Nintendo or Xbox (for completely stupid reasons, and all different.) The guy I got it from gave me shit because I said I still wanted it even though he said it didn't come with an HDMI cable (which is the reason he stated that the Xbox 360 "killed the PS3 launch" - a $10 cable can do all that?)
You'll never, ever, NEVER make a difference with these people. If the PS3 could turn into a playboy model and blow you - the anti-Sony fanboys would complain that it uses too much electricity, and Sony is "arrogant."
The very idea of a Star Wars MMORPG just sucks anyways. I played SWG for awhile, and it was enjoyable (except for the fact that.. you know.. there was no space travel.) But the more I played the more I realized how utterly impossible it is to create a game that has so many absolute fanatics picking it apart in every direction.
Then the MacOS folks said that the next version of Apple Milk is going to have a much superior Milk, that's easier than ever to drink, and it will only cost $129 a glass.
First of all, I'm interested in what studies you're referring to.
Where do you get your numbers? Bullshit like "over half of the people who rely on TV think Iraw was behind WTC" - who buys this shit? I don't. I give people a little bit more credit. You obviously think everyone is an idiot. If you hold such contempt for us, why don't you move somewhere you'd feel less superior?
Besides, what the hell do you expect from people? Some people don't have time to read 8 hours of fucking news every day to meet your standards. They're find getting by on the news blurbs on the headlines and the evening news. If something sparks their interest, they can look deeper, but some people have long hours, families, and other things they need to do.
Now that doesn't mean I think people shouldn't stay informed but jesus, you don't like any of the television news outlets - and not all of us work for an "arch-conservative." He probably got his news listening to Rush anyways.. You probably hate Radio (what's the difference?) and so then what? Newspapers aren't exactly more in depth, and the Internet is out of control.
You have the same news on all outlets, so I don't see how TV is any worse then anything else.
One should take in all sources of news and make up their own minds.
Ohh, and explain what you mean by "nuance" in the news? Or is that just something you read somewhere?
I've got the fastest plan Cox RI has, and it's 15Mbit/2Mbit. Not too bad. So yea I've easily downloaded over 300GB in a month. I've left my upload pegged at 2Mbit for a week at a time.
It's never been a problem.
They don't advertise what they have for a "limit" and although I've seen other people say Cox will limit bandwidth I've experienced none. Of course, Cox has purchased up a lot of regional cable providers, and they don't consolidate the systems.
I certainly don't disagree with you, and obviously I'd prefer people not to be in "ignorant bliss" if it is bad for society at large but I was mostly counter-pointing the parent's propaganda about how (paraphrased) "EVIL AND BAD AND SATAN" the government and TV is.
I don't believe TV is a bad thing at all. I think it gives a lot of people something to do. The Slashdot crowd might be a younger bunch that believes in wilderness hikes every other day, but let's face it: Life isn't this happy joy nature walk every day. Sometimes it's just plain boring. And TV is a great way to pass the time until the next day. What's wrong with that? What about older folk, it's fantastic for them. My grandfather absolutely loved TV. When you can't move around much, it's great!
I don't think TV prevents people from aspiring, and I don't think it's for "quelling the masses." If it was, it would be heavily censored. And I don't mean from a nudity standpoint, I mean from a political one. I think television an INSPIRE people, really make you think. It can show you an alternate reality, a different point of view, something that makes a difference. Not all TV is "Friends" and CNN. There's some really great programming out there, and I just love the Discovery channel. The History channel is also one of the greats, and although I find WW2 fascinating they do cover it a little too much IMO.
As much as TV might hurt one person, it's helping another. People are going to do what they're going to do, TV or not.
Blaming shit on TV is just a way to push (whatever) blame on anything but ourselves.
Look, you make this sound like propaghanda is a new thing invented with the TV. It's not.
People have to make their own decisions no matter what medium they get information from. The paper, a friend, the TV, or the Internet. Last I checked, there's all sorts of different views on TV about things like the war in Iraq, the president, global warming, immigration, you name it. I tune to one channel, and I see this guy say this. Another channel has a guy saying the opposite.
You're extremely naive if you think that TV is this evil government machine bent on placating the public.
God, what's next? Complete Luddite movements? I mean, what about the Internet? What is it other then simply more of what you get on TV? If you think you're enlightened because you look online for news, well here's one for you: A LOT OF IT COMES FROM THE SAME PLACE. And get this: many millions of us use the Internet for news.
You're sounding rather prickish to me. Why NOT help the people without the means to buy expensive new TV's? HAVE you actually looked at TV's lately, and which ones support digital broadcasts? I'm guessing not, because if you did you'd see that there's quite a big barrier to entry.
Plus, I have a 36" Sony Trinitron TV from 2001 in the other room that works great. Just like it did new. That's old ass obsolete? It cost $900 at the time. It wasn't THAT long ago, you know.
I use broadcast to receive digital channels that Cox doesn't provide over cable. But I have an expensive HDTV.
The idea behind "free" broadcast media is that everyone can receive it. You don't have to pay a cable tax to get access to it. I think most people have cable, but I do believe there's a LOT of people that use OTA still, because they might only ever want to watch a few programs on the major channels. Local news, etc.
Ohh, so you're another one of those people that thinks TV is bad. You know, my grandma used to say that too. And her mother said it about radio. And her mother probably said it about the telegraph or using locomotives.
If the TV went off, people would find something else to do. That's all. No riots.
Uhh, bullshit. We haven't been able to buy affordable digital receivers, ever. In fact, there's still no affordable digital receivers - they're all built into expensive HDTV's.
It's not "just fucking television." It's a MASSIVE consumer market. The government would do this as much for the consumer as for the industry that doesn't want a good fraction of their viewer base cut off. The government makes a lot of tax money from TV businesses.. or did you think it was all Wayne's World?
I'm obviously not as pessimistic at the world as you are because I think that's complete garbage, but assuming you're correct: If a person thinks they are happy, who cares? Are you going to try and prove to a happy person that are, in fact, just as angry and boring as you are? What's the point? Leave them in their happiness.
The federal government is requiring that the analog channels be shut down, and consumers have invested billions of dollars in the technology that's going to become obsoleted at the flip of a switch.
So, because of their doing, they are taking a little responsibility and offering people a more painless way to make the switch. Whether or not $40 is going to be enough, remains to be seen (they might sell the boxes for $300, who knows.)
I don't think it's a waste of money. I think things like.. ohh, you know, going on this Iraq war was a ridiculous misuse of funds. And the numbers are absolutely staggering for that. This is a drop in the bucket.
If you say the best source of help was Usenet, then..? Was this in 1993? Usenet doesn't count, IMO.
I've never experienced "RTFM Noob" because I've never asked a redundant question without trying to search first. And searching these days almost always gets you the answers you need because there's so many thousands of sites dedicated to supporting Linux.
The thing is, these support forums are a free service and all you have to do is use some common sense. The busier forums can get out of hand fast if everyone could just post the same old bullshit problems without trying to search. I really can't blame people for getting frustrated with that, and you find that it's not limited to Linux help forums.
While "mass adoption" of Linux and OSS would be nice, I don't really care if you use it or not. A lot of OSS fans feel the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
I never buy into the whole "it was never meant to..." argument. I feel as though the keyboard is an excellent input device for games. There's so many options.
I don't think it needs to be any more "ergonomic." When you use a keyboard, you're sitting at a desk (usually.) Your hand stays in one place, generally. Most games now a days (at least first person shooters) use the same keys to perform the same basic functions. You don't need to be a master to figure them out.
A gamepad has only a small set of buttons because it's designed to be held. Because of that, every game developer has to figure out what buttons should be used for what, and you end up with the same issue as a keyboard. Unless you design the controller for a particular game, it will never be perfect.
I do not think the Wiimote is revolutionary and I don't think it will be the control of future FPS titles. I mean, think about it - people play these games for hours at a time. I know I don't want to hold my arm up, twisting and contorting my wrist, for two hours.
The keyboard/mouse combination is a very good one, and it will take more to convince me otherwise. ps. They do make special sub-keyboards for use with games, that have keys with "spacial relationships" to each other, but provide much of the benefit of a keyboard - and that's a key-based system that you don't hold and can very, very quickly switch between. You can do a left/right switch on a keyboard in much less time then you ever can on a d-pad. They can do all the research they want - it's because they need to make a controller as flexible as possible with a very limited set of controls. It's not because it's technically superior then a keyboard/mouse.
But if Dvorak is as accurate as a broken clock, I guess you'd have to hope that this isn't one of those two times a day..
The point is that it doesn't matter who said it - I don't think he's wrong on all points. It will be interesting to see how Apple does with their phone in the long run. It might be the only one we see from them. Hey, companies can have failed products, and Apple has their share of them. It's not the end of the world and won't be the end of Apple.
And you can't really count all of DirectX - certainly not OpenGL. DirectX is (at least was) very similar to OpenGL except, of course, only working on Windows.
The Xbox was really just a PC - but yes they did indeed create that product. In fact, I was talking with a colleague at work today about it and I think the only good product that Microsoft has right now is the Xbox. The Xbox 360 does what it sets out to do, and doesn't have too many problems doing it. Amazing.
I've been using Vista for the last few days and I can't believe how busted it is. Not that it doesn't so what it's supposed to - but the one thing that people DID NOT complain about was the usability of XP. Seriously, XP is pretty easy to use, as easy as anything else. It was the stability, performance, and security that concerned people the most, and what did they do? They completely re-arranged the UI so much that a seasoned Windows user has to search Google to figure out how to change the damned colors! And it appears to be as unreliable and security issue prone as other Windows. Software shouldn't crash the system, and a lot of it still can.
Office 2007 is a joke, and IE7 has serious usability problems that just don't exist in competing products. What gives? Are we supposed to just eat everything that Microsoft feeds us?
Obviously I have no great love for Microsoft, but I have made a good living from supporting their products. It's just getting very, very old to deal with this crap every time.
Just because there's better players then you doesn't mean they all take it way too seriously.
A mouse and keyboard has *serious* advantages over a gamepad, whether you're serious or not. A mouse allows extremely fast and accurate aiming, and a keyboard allows for 100+ buttons.
Something like the Phantom Lapboard would be nice - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Lapboard
Unfortunately, while it is an actual product that has been shown, it's from a really shitty company with a CEO that is under investigation by the SEC. Who knows if you'll ever be able to get one.
So, the fact that the Razr is several years old now changes the fact that it was once a very expensive phone that quickly came down in price once the early adopters were finished?
I would venture to say that people don't just buy phones once. They buy many of them, because you take them everywhere and they break or just wear out. While it's true that the iPod is also a device you carry around - it's not carried around nearly as much as a cell phone. If people never replaced them, or only replaced them every five years, then there would be no market for cell phones.
Perhaps the margin on the iPhone is higher then other devices (though I doubt it's nearly as high as any iPod or most of what Apple sells) but the device simply can't stay $500 for very long. The initial rush of sales will die off, and people will wait for the price to come way down like they do with every other phone. If they do not, then Apple will just not sell as many.
There's only so many things Apple can do with a cell phone, whether they reject the market or not. What do you think they could do with it that others have not done?
The cell phone market is already a utility market. Except for a small number of people (comparatively) most people just want your basic phone to make calls on, and don't expect to pay much for it. I'm not a market expert, but I'd almost agree that the market for a big expensive cell phone is less then the market for the iPod.
Counterpoints:
- A touchscreen mac. A Macintosh actually runs free/paid for apps you can download from the Internet. The iPhone will only have limited software available via "approved" (and paid for) apple online cell phone store. Expect to pay for each and every little utility, app, or game on that phone.
- Again, it's not a Mac, and it's only a 4G iPod.
- I could be running Windows, for all it matters. It's locked down. You can't put your own software on it. Ever.
- Camera function is a "me too" function. It would certainly fail without it. What it won't do is anything special. You'll need a real digital camera to take anything good.
- Unless they introduce group-ware integration (aka Exchange/Groupwise/Notes integration) then Blackberry people won't drool over anything.
It will be a neat phone, no doubt about it, but because of the locked down nature of it, it's just a glorified SideKick if you ask me.
I don't think Apple should pull out with the iPhone - I agree that it's too late. But this IS NOT a computer, it is only a cell phone, and the big difference is that it is a completely closed system. I don't mean that it's closed source (which it is) I mean nobody can develop openly for it.
He's wrong on occasion - but that doesn't mean he's ALWAYS wrong. I happen to agree with him here, although I don't think that it will ruin Apple or anything. I think they will release the iPhone, it will be a big seller for a little while and a status symbol (kinda like the $600 razr phone, which is now $50 or free with a plan.) But, the margins are very slim, the phone is kinda big and fragile in comparison to a flip-phone (big screen, like the PSP.. with a very shiny surface) and expensive as all hell. In the long term, I don't see Apple producing too many phones.
..xyz." Touch screen on a portable phone is novel, but not necessary in any way. The device is still locked down to all hell.
To top it all off, they aren't really introducing anything new that would be a "even if they fail, at least they brought us
I wish them luck, and I think they're going to need it.
FooFoobar isn't trolling - this is what Microsoft DOES. I can't really think of many things that they actually created from scratch.
I dare you to name five.
You're getting modded down, and it's just too bad. I'll offer a piece of advice: Don't get suckered in. These people made a $300 - $600 purchase on something, and so they all feel like they're experts.
I purchased a PS3 last week and it's a pretty damned neat box. It does way more out of the box then any other game console I've ever had. You can hook up USB devices no problem, the controllers are BluTooth and USB, the machine connects to the WiFi network, it can run Linux, it's cool! The controllers are really sweet with their motion sensitive stuff - flying planes is great.
I went to several stores when I got it - a few said in stock, but they didn't have any when I showed. I finally got one at a Circuit City. And pretty much without fail, every single sales person told me how the PS3 is no good, how it's getting "crushed" by Nintendo or Xbox (for completely stupid reasons, and all different.) The guy I got it from gave me shit because I said I still wanted it even though he said it didn't come with an HDMI cable (which is the reason he stated that the Xbox 360 "killed the PS3 launch" - a $10 cable can do all that?)
You'll never, ever, NEVER make a difference with these people. If the PS3 could turn into a playboy model and blow you - the anti-Sony fanboys would complain that it uses too much electricity, and Sony is "arrogant."
The very idea of a Star Wars MMORPG just sucks anyways. I played SWG for awhile, and it was enjoyable (except for the fact that.. you know.. there was no space travel.) But the more I played the more I realized how utterly impossible it is to create a game that has so many absolute fanatics picking it apart in every direction.
Then the MacOS folks said that the next version of Apple Milk is going to have a much superior Milk, that's easier than ever to drink, and it will only cost $129 a glass.
First of all, I'm interested in what studies you're referring to.
Where do you get your numbers? Bullshit like "over half of the people who rely on TV think Iraw was behind WTC" - who buys this shit? I don't. I give people a little bit more credit. You obviously think everyone is an idiot. If you hold such contempt for us, why don't you move somewhere you'd feel less superior?
Besides, what the hell do you expect from people? Some people don't have time to read 8 hours of fucking news every day to meet your standards. They're find getting by on the news blurbs on the headlines and the evening news. If something sparks their interest, they can look deeper, but some people have long hours, families, and other things they need to do.
Now that doesn't mean I think people shouldn't stay informed but jesus, you don't like any of the television news outlets - and not all of us work for an "arch-conservative." He probably got his news listening to Rush anyways.. You probably hate Radio (what's the difference?) and so then what? Newspapers aren't exactly more in depth, and the Internet is out of control.
You have the same news on all outlets, so I don't see how TV is any worse then anything else.
One should take in all sources of news and make up their own minds.
Ohh, and explain what you mean by "nuance" in the news? Or is that just something you read somewhere?
I've got the fastest plan Cox RI has, and it's 15Mbit/2Mbit. Not too bad. So yea I've easily downloaded over 300GB in a month. I've left my upload pegged at 2Mbit for a week at a time.
It's never been a problem.
They don't advertise what they have for a "limit" and although I've seen other people say Cox will limit bandwidth I've experienced none. Of course, Cox has purchased up a lot of regional cable providers, and they don't consolidate the systems.
I certainly don't disagree with you, and obviously I'd prefer people not to be in "ignorant bliss" if it is bad for society at large but I was mostly counter-pointing the parent's propaganda about how (paraphrased) "EVIL AND BAD AND SATAN" the government and TV is.
I don't believe TV is a bad thing at all. I think it gives a lot of people something to do. The Slashdot crowd might be a younger bunch that believes in wilderness hikes every other day, but let's face it: Life isn't this happy joy nature walk every day. Sometimes it's just plain boring. And TV is a great way to pass the time until the next day. What's wrong with that? What about older folk, it's fantastic for them. My grandfather absolutely loved TV. When you can't move around much, it's great!
I don't think TV prevents people from aspiring, and I don't think it's for "quelling the masses." If it was, it would be heavily censored. And I don't mean from a nudity standpoint, I mean from a political one. I think television an INSPIRE people, really make you think. It can show you an alternate reality, a different point of view, something that makes a difference. Not all TV is "Friends" and CNN. There's some really great programming out there, and I just love the Discovery channel. The History channel is also one of the greats, and although I find WW2 fascinating they do cover it a little too much IMO.
As much as TV might hurt one person, it's helping another. People are going to do what they're going to do, TV or not.
Blaming shit on TV is just a way to push (whatever) blame on anything but ourselves.
I believe what I see on TV *when it's the truth.*
Look, you make this sound like propaghanda is a new thing invented with the TV. It's not.
People have to make their own decisions no matter what medium they get information from. The paper, a friend, the TV, or the Internet. Last I checked, there's all sorts of different views on TV about things like the war in Iraq, the president, global warming, immigration, you name it. I tune to one channel, and I see this guy say this. Another channel has a guy saying the opposite.
You're extremely naive if you think that TV is this evil government machine bent on placating the public.
God, what's next? Complete Luddite movements? I mean, what about the Internet? What is it other then simply more of what you get on TV? If you think you're enlightened because you look online for news, well here's one for you: A LOT OF IT COMES FROM THE SAME PLACE. And get this: many millions of us use the Internet for news.
But TV is the devil. Right. I think you are.
The US government doesn't control the media. Well, not yet anyways.
You should try the Apple soap box. They're usually more successful in spreading FUD.
You're sounding rather prickish to me. Why NOT help the people without the means to buy expensive new TV's? HAVE you actually looked at TV's lately, and which ones support digital broadcasts? I'm guessing not, because if you did you'd see that there's quite a big barrier to entry.
Plus, I have a 36" Sony Trinitron TV from 2001 in the other room that works great. Just like it did new. That's old ass obsolete? It cost $900 at the time. It wasn't THAT long ago, you know.
I use broadcast to receive digital channels that Cox doesn't provide over cable. But I have an expensive HDTV.
The idea behind "free" broadcast media is that everyone can receive it. You don't have to pay a cable tax to get access to it. I think most people have cable, but I do believe there's a LOT of people that use OTA still, because they might only ever want to watch a few programs on the major channels. Local news, etc.
Ohh, so you're another one of those people that thinks TV is bad. You know, my grandma used to say that too. And her mother said it about radio. And her mother probably said it about the telegraph or using locomotives.
If the TV went off, people would find something else to do. That's all. No riots.
Uhh, bullshit. We haven't been able to buy affordable digital receivers, ever. In fact, there's still no affordable digital receivers - they're all built into expensive HDTV's.
It's not "just fucking television." It's a MASSIVE consumer market. The government would do this as much for the consumer as for the industry that doesn't want a good fraction of their viewer base cut off. The government makes a lot of tax money from TV businesses.. or did you think it was all Wayne's World?
I'm obviously not as pessimistic at the world as you are because I think that's complete garbage, but assuming you're correct: If a person thinks they are happy, who cares? Are you going to try and prove to a happy person that are, in fact, just as angry and boring as you are? What's the point? Leave them in their happiness.
The federal government is requiring that the analog channels be shut down, and consumers have invested billions of dollars in the technology that's going to become obsoleted at the flip of a switch.
So, because of their doing, they are taking a little responsibility and offering people a more painless way to make the switch. Whether or not $40 is going to be enough, remains to be seen (they might sell the boxes for $300, who knows.)
I don't think it's a waste of money. I think things like.. ohh, you know, going on this Iraq war was a ridiculous misuse of funds. And the numbers are absolutely staggering for that. This is a drop in the bucket.
I might only be a few hours before you, but I have like 1600 more posts then you =)
If you say the best source of help was Usenet, then ..? Was this in 1993? Usenet doesn't count, IMO.
I've never experienced "RTFM Noob" because I've never asked a redundant question without trying to search first. And searching these days almost always gets you the answers you need because there's so many thousands of sites dedicated to supporting Linux.
The thing is, these support forums are a free service and all you have to do is use some common sense. The busier forums can get out of hand fast if everyone could just post the same old bullshit problems without trying to search. I really can't blame people for getting frustrated with that, and you find that it's not limited to Linux help forums.
While "mass adoption" of Linux and OSS would be nice, I don't really care if you use it or not. A lot of OSS fans feel the same way.