People said the iPod was entering a mature market with more established, larger competitors whose products were universally cheaper and many of which had more features?
Wow, I'd forgotten that. I feel so dumb for buying an iPod now.
Or he could call Dishnetworks or Directv and have them come and install a satellite setup for him.
There are tradeoffs with every TV service. The parent said he was waiting for FiOS... which I have, so I can tell you from experience that there are tradeoffs with that too. I've also had DirecTV in the past.
With FiOS, you pay the highest prices anywhere. Oh, they advertise "$95 a month" for their three service package (TV, phone, internet), but they nickel and dime you to death. They charge $12.95 for an HD-DVR - same box was $5 from Cablevision. They have tons of little extra fees tacked on that they don't tell you about. My "$95 a month" plan ended up quoted to me at $121 a month over the phone, and I actually pay at least $155 a month when all is said and done. With Cablevision, getting the same package of services I was paying $126 a month. So FiOS is an expensive option.
FiOS is also the least reliable of all the services I have used. Cablevision was honestly rock solid for all three services - no problems. With FiOS, I have channel breakups almost every day, I get audio dropouts, and my router dies at least once a week (you have to use their router).
You may as well ask why I switched... at this point, I really don't know. I'd heard FiOS had the best picture quality, and that may be true, when it's working properly. I had no problem with my Cablevision picture quality, though I moved to FiOS at the same time as I moved from a 26" HDTV to a 42" HDTV so I can't really say for sure which has the better PQ. But now I'm locked into a year contract. And I don't want to change my phone number again.
As for DirecTV, you know what they say about it going out in the rain? Well, it's true. Oh, it's not as big of a problem as their competitors' commercials make it out to be, but it does happen. It may not be an issue if you live in a dry state like Arizona, but I live in the northeast and we get some wicked thunderstorms in the summer. My DTV was going out about once a week, sometimes for hours at a time when I had it.
Also, DirecTV is well known for awful picture quality. They're the standard-bearers of "HD-lite" - taking a 1920x1080 signal and down-rezzing it to 1280x1080. They were sued in court over their commercials that advertised the "best picture quality" and they lost - they were forced to withdraw the ads. They've recently launched a few new satellites that give them greater data capacity, but everybody knows that they'll just add more channels rather than improving PQ - it's what they've always done when they've added capacity. At the very least, they are re-compressing MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, which is an inherently lossy process even keeping the same resolution.
So, you pick your poison. There is no "perfect" TV service, only whatever you personally consider to be least bad.
But if they can't sustain themselves, why would you continue paying to produce it?
I understand your point, but it's not really a valid one. If it was, not only would you only ever hear Britney Spears on the radio, it's all you *could* ever hear *anywhere*.
The problem is a lot of stuff starts out "indie" that becomes mainstream later. Almost by definition, most experiments fail. The ones that succeed, though, are the ones that drive the mainstream forward. So a lot of money must be lost in order for money to be gained over the long term. How do you think bands like Coldplay and U2 were initially financed? They didn't pay for themselves at first; they were financed by people like Madonna and Kylie Minogue. Same goes for TV talent. You've gotta run before you can walk.
With a-la carte pricing, I guarantee channels like IFC and Sundance Channel will die. You may not watch those channels, so you personally may not care. But is the point of a-la carte pricing to bring us less choice? Is that the goal we should be working towards?
Guns have little to do with motive. Motive is what should be dealt with; if the goal is to keep this from happening again.
Japan has about 40 gun crimes per year. That includes misdemeanors like possession. They have less than ten gun deaths per year. You really think nobody there has "motive" to commit random mass murder? (And what possible "motive" could there be for such an action?)
Funny how taking away guns takes away the potential for gun crime, isn't it?
Let me put it another way - which would you rather lose, your guns or your privacy? Losing your guns only affects gun owners; losing privacy affects everyone. And I don't want to give up my privacy so some caveman in Virginia can keep his guns.
Arguments like yours are the way gun owners try to pretend they don't have blood on their hands.
If the Windows conventions were good, I'd agree with you. However, anything is an improvement over Windows conventions.
Come on; it's shocking as a Mac user to see all you Windows guys suddenly defending Safari now that it's available on your PC's. A lot of Mac users hate Safari. Many of us use Firefox.
Safari on Mac doesn't follow Mac conventions either. It just received its first update in like a year, and it doesn't seem to have helped much. Safari:Mac = IE:Windows. We feel pretty much the same way about it.
I use Safari on Mac only to test; that's about all it's good for, but its rendering engine always makes things look significantly different than any other browser so, like IE, as a designer you kind of just have to accept its quirks. I run Firefox as my primary browser on both Mac and PC.
btw, I did try Safari on Windows. The first time I opened more than 10 tabs simultaneously, it froze. Yes, it's a beta, but a pretty unusable one if it fails at its basic core function.
You can't on the one hand promote games like Halo 3 and Gears of War as your premiere games (and whoever actually publishes them, MS has gone out of their way to promote the system using them) and then on the other hand try to market your system as a "family system". It's one or the other.
I know everybody wants to live in a world where everything is all things to all people, but it doesn't work like that. The fact is there is competition out there doing the family thing better than MS ever will - namely Nintendo. So why would a parent buy an Xbox 360 to play games with their kids when the Wii exists?
I hate to tell MS, but the 360 is going to meet the exact same fate as the original Xbox - it's the system for hardcore gamers. If MS wants it to be anything else, then they need to focus like a laser beam on making it something else - they can't throw all their weight behind MA-rated violent shooters like they have been, then whine about how families aren't buying the system. That's a bit like a porn movie publisher wondering why people keep spending money going to Disneyland instead of buying porn movies.
MS can't be the "family game" company as long as they keep promoting themselves with MA-rated shooters any more than Nintendo can be the "hardcore gamer" company as long as they keep promoting themselves with Mario and Pokemon. Companies have to make choices, and these are the choices they've made. It just so happens that Nintendo's strategy is working and MS's isn't - but if MS wants to change their strategy, then they need to actually change their strategy. Just saying they want some of that audience isn't going to accomplish anything.
I agree that presenting Vista as only being applicable to a software trademark isn't realistic. For example, if someone were to have registered the trademark "Coke" for use with a TV station, people would expect it to be affiliated with the gargantuan beast that is Coke. Vista is a gargantuan beast much like Coke and will influence everyone's perception of the word. It's big enough, in other words, to be applicable outside of software.
Not if it isn't registered as such, it isn't.
Look, the law is what it is. You can say whatever you want about what people might think about a TV station named "Coke"; if Coke (whichever one) hasn't registered the trademark for that purpose, then they have no claim over it.
There are plenty of examples of different companies using the same trademark. Westinghouse, for example - the maker of Westinghouse TV's is a wholly different company than the maker of, say, Westinghouse solar landscape lighting kits. It really doesn't matter if the TV maker is afraid that the solar light company is sullying their reputation; if they didn't register the trademark, then they didn't register the trademark.
Most large companies will register as many trademark uses as they can think of for just this reason. They're smart enough to realize this. Here is, for example, the defined uses on just one of Coca Cola's many trademarks on the word "Coke":
Board games; checker sets; playing cards; card games; puzzles; balloons; hand held unit for playing electronic games; Christmas decorations and accessories of all kinds, namely, Christmas tree skirts, artificial Christmas garlands; Christmas tree ornaments; Christmas stockings; Christmas tree decorations; snow globes; sporting equipment and accessories for soccer, namely, soccer balls; sporting equipment and accessories for golf, namely, golf balls, golf tees, golf ball markers, ball cleaners, golf putters, divot repair tools, golf bags; sporting equipment and accessories for skating, namely, in-line skates, skate boards; elbow pads for athletic use; knee pads for athletic use; shin pads for athletic use; badminton game playing equipment; sporting equipment and accessories for fishing, namely, fishing lures; billiard cues, billiard balls, billiard game playing equipment and accessories, namely billiard bridges, billiard bumpers, billiard chalk, billiard cue racks, billiard cushions, billiard nets, billiard tables, billiard tally balls, billiard tips, billiard triangles, cue sticks for billiard or pool; snow sleds for recreational use; pinball machines; sport balls; toy vehicles; toy electric trains; toy model train sets; train set accessories, namely, artificial trees, turf, foliage, ballast, buildings, figurines, billboards, lichen and grass; toy banks, toy mobiles, multiple activity baby toys; dart board cases; dart boards; dolls and accessories therefor; plush toys; yo-yos; flying discs; inflatable toys
Another one:
Plates; cups; drinking glasses; tankards not of precious metal; mugs; tumblers; drinking steins; pitchers; decanters, goblets; ice buckets, coasters not of paper and not being table linen; serving pieces, namely, serving tongs, serving platters; serving trays not of precious metal; salt and pepper shakers; condiment holders, sugar dispensers and basins, toothpick holders; napkin holders; dispensers for paper towels; holders for facial tissue; fitted picnic baskets; trivets, cookie jars; canister sets, storage containers for household and kitchen use not of precious metal; party bowls; floral containers; bottle openers; straw dispensers; dinnerware, bottles sold empty; dishware, namely, plates, bowls, cups and saucers; creamer pitchers; candy dishes; spoon rests; flower pots; corn cob holders; cutting boards; cookie cutters; candle holders not of precious metal; bread boxes; bird houses of wood; cooking utensils, namely, grill covers; utensils for barbecues, namely, forks, turners; stove burner covers; recipe boxes; coffee pots not of precious metal; tea pots not of precious metal; utensils fo
Sure, FFXII's story was a bit light, but the combat system was the best ever seen of any jRPG. You could do everything manually or litterally program the AI of the party members with the gambit system.
I for one loved it, and most reviewers did too.
When was the last time any big game got bad reviews? Game reviewers get caught up in hype just like everybody else, and maybe more importantly, they're often afraid to criticize games that they know have a lot of evangelists. They may not personally like a game, but they take the attitude of "well, if you like Japanese RPG's, then you'll love this game." In fact, you see statements just like that in game reviews all the time. It really is basically bullshit. A game's either fun or it isn't; there's no "if you like this kind of game, then you'll like the game." If that were a valid way of looking at things, then every game should get a perfect score.
So the fact that reviewers liked FFXII is meaningless. The fact that you liked it probably has more relevance; at least you're not trying to please your readers.
But I did not like FFXII, and I'm a pretty hardcore FF fan. I didn't think it was awful, but it never grabbed me - I never felt any emotional connection to it, and I never really felt like I wanted to play it. I'd come home at night and think "oh god, I'd better play some FFXII... I guess." Because of that, it ended up one of only two FF's since VII that I never finished. The story was probably the main problem, but I'm sorry, I did not like the battle system at all - it was like Grandia Lite. It had no real strategy; it was all action. It was clearly a case of "be careful what you wish for", because it was exactly the kind of battle system some FF fans have been clamoring for for a long time, but it was the perfect example of why real-time battle systems don't really work. It *felt* like a hack and slash.
FF's battle system has always been about strategy, and for that reason the battles themselves have always been somewhat abstracted. FFXII got rid of the abstraction and made the battles feel more "realistic", which as is often the case just ends up being more boring.
I don't agree with the parent poster that S-E needs to "kill" the series, but I do agree with him that the last two FF's have been subpar, especially after the gorgeous FFX, probably my second favorite FF ever. I'd even go further and say the last three numbered FF's have been subpar - FFXI, FFX-2 and FFXII.
Still, the series is still a system-seller in both the US and Japan, and it will help PS3 sales in a big way when FFXIII is released. Especially if, as has been S-E's modus operandi lately, the first numbered FF on a new system ends up really setting the standard. FFVII and FFX were both great, while the FF's in between were mediocre at best; hopefully FFXIII will continue the tradition of VII and X.
Seriously, has any highly anticipated game ever NOT been delayed?
Original GTA games (as opposed to ports) are never delayed. And I only make the "port" caveat because I do recall GTA for the GBA being delayed, and I'm not sure about the PS2 releases of the PSP games.
But Rockstar takes a lot of pride in being one publisher that does *not* delay major releases once a release date has been announced.
I said this on Kotaku as well, but I worked for several years at Rockstar and through the release of six or seven different GTA titles, and there is no way in hell Rockstar will ever, ever, ever postpone the release date of GTAIV. It is too big of a game with too well-publicized of a release date.
Pachter doesn't know how Rockstar thinks (and I'm making the distinction between Rockstar and Take 2, because while they are the same company really, the decision-making between each is handled differently). First of all, there's no chance whatsoever of them delaying a game because of the competition. None. Because they don't think they have any competition. They think of GTA as the #1 game series in the world (and I'm not sure if that's true, but it may be over the last 7 or 8 years). If anything, they're wondering if Bungie is going to delay Halo 3 because of GTAIV, not the other way around.
Second, they don't delay games because they're not ready. Never happens. They're one of those game companies that work their developers to the bone to make milestones. This is completely different from Take 2 - we all know about the DNF saga. Rockstar doesn't operate that way. They pride themselves on discipline, and they will work 20 hour days for six months straight if that's what it takes to release a game on time.
The only *possible* reason they would ever delay a game was to move it into another fiscal quarter. I think they actually did that with one game while I was there... maybe Max Payne 2. I don't remember exactly. But never a numbered GTA game. They would never spend millions promoting a release date and then change it. They've considered all the fiscal considerations long ago, before setting that date.
Note that there's also a difference between "delaying" a game that never had a release date (like The Warriors, which came out about 2 years later than original internal schedules had it) and delaying a game that does have an announced release date. Rockstar thinks of themselves as above doing the latter, and they also just consider it suicidal in terms of publicity and eventual sales. To them, delaying a game 2 weeks in October just means 2 fewer weeks worth of Christmas season sales, not to mention garnering them an air of incompetence and generating questions among the public about the game's state of readiness.
I have been wrong once or twice in my life, but I will seriously cook and eat the Rockstar shirt that I'm currently wearing if they delay GTAIV. There would have had to have been a complete sea change in attitude at Rockstar since I left for that to ever happen, and I know the people who are still there from when I was there - and the real decision makers at Rockstar are among them. It would take direct involvement from the Zelnick to delay GTAIV, and even then it would be strenuously argued against, literally to the point of threats and near-violence. I have seen it happen before - there are reasons why Take 2's CEO churn rate is so high that go beyond simple fiscal issues.
Ugh... it's "The Independent". Now we can't even copy the names of publications correctly without misspelling them, even when there is a giant logo with the correct spelling right in front of us and numerous other text versions on the page? It's called highlight/ctrl-c, people!
The whole ent/ant thing is there/their/they're for this decade, and obviously a pet peeve of mine. Get it through your heads; there's no such thing as an "independant". An independent is not something you wear around your neck.
Anyway, to get back on-topic, is it just me or the idea of teleporting "data" 89 miles not very impressive? I realize it's probably poor wording, but I'm sure once I click the "submit" button here, this data's going to be instantly "teleported" all over the world!
Yeah, the iPhone is just a cell phone. In the same vein that the iPod is just an MP3 player.
Not a valid comparison. The iPod was category-defining. The iPhone is entering a market that was already defined long ago. This is why Apple really cannot replicate its success with the iPod here - the market is already saturated.
Even the top projections put Apple at 1% of the cell phone market in a year. One percent. That's a lot of phones sold, but it still means that 99% of cell phone users will be using something else. This does not a game changer make.
The iPhone will be profitable for Apple, sure. It may even result in some more Cingular contracts (it'll be a cold day in hell before I call them "AT&T"!). But the vast majority of the world is going to completely ignore the iPhone.
With the exception of the iPod, that's how it always is with Apple products. Their fans' zealotry masks the fact that most people just do not care. That over-enthusiasm makes their products seem a lot more popular than they are. They have a 4% PC market share and they'll have a 1% phone market share.
(Obviously I'm not really in that category or I wouldn't be commenting, but it is true of most of the world.)
The bottom line is the rest of the industry will just keep right on going as it always has.
The price difference alone, regardless of any other factor, is enough to make the Pirates releases more successful in terms of units sold.
Two more factors:
* More owners of Blu-Ray machines * The Matrix set is also a Blu-Ray release (later in the year)
Given its non-exclusivity, there's no reason for anyone who doesn't already own HD-DVD to jump in just for The Matrix, even assuming there are such rabid fans out there. Blu-Ray owners will wait for the Blu-Ray edition, owners of neither format are not going to be persuaded either way.
Really, this is not even a competition. Let's put up two sets that cost the same and are exclusive to each format. Still then, Blu-Ray is going to win because it's the more popular format.
btw, I do think it's sad how much people like the Pirates series - I couldn't even make it through the first one, it was so laughably formulaic.
On the flip side, how many of those executions would it take before the passengers turned *all* the flights into flight 93?
Flight 93 was only a failure because the timing got messed up - the passengers all knew they were on a suicide mission anyway.
One of the tactics the terrorists used was telling everybody they had a bomb on board - they all had a guy stationed at the front of the cabin who they said was wearing one. Given that, I would think the result would have been exactly the same had there been locks on the cockpit door. Without the knowledge of previous attacks like those on flight 93 had, and with the assumption that there *could* be a bomb on board, and the knowledge that people *will* continue to be executed unless the pilot cooperates, I would give it a maximum of three minutes before that cockpit door is opened. It's the pilot's primary responsibility to ensure the safety of his passengers, and he's looking at a situation where on the one hand you've got a hijacking (most of which previously had ended safely) and on the other hand you've got passengers being executed if he does nothing. Really, he'd be derelict in his duties if he *didn't* open the cockpit door.
We think differently since 9/11. Don't forget that. Before 9/11, the thought was a hijacking is dangerous but generally survivable, so it would certainly be preferable to allowing a bomb to go off on board.
They're letting the people who pressured them know that they removed people who they THINK to be sex offenders based on its processes, to show that it is doing something; not that these people ARE sex offenders.) She CANNOT and WILL NOT have ANY negative entries in any databases or law enforcement records, because she HAS NOT committed any crime, and IS NOT a sex offender, no matter what MySpace says or does. Why does no one here understand that, and why are they all getting modded up?
I just have one question: what planet have you been living on the last few years? Because its zip code has gotta be pretty close to fantasy land. You are way too trusting of government to a) do the right thing, b) do their own dirty work, and c) be competent at their jobs. None of these things are always or even usually the case, especially not these days.
And I say that as a big government liberal.
You're talking about a justice department that just proposed making copyright violations - as identified by the content industry, not by government - punishable by death in certain cases. This is the mentality you're dealing with here. This is not 1776 anymore and we're no longer living in the age of intellectualism.
Avoiding 'cool' items means you can get the same function for less money.
So the Gigabeat syncs with iTunes? Really, I wasn't aware of that. It plays h.264 video? Cool!
The reason why these players are cheap is not because they're "not cool", it's because they're old and in most cases shipped with crap software like RealPlayer. They may still be functional enough for many people - in fact, I use a 4G iPod that doesn't play video and is only 20GB - but you're just plain not getting the "same functionality" as current iPods. In fact, I'd be surprised if 4G iPods were going for much more than the Gigabeat on Ebay.
But how do you really stop Google from storing all this data.
With a law.
How do you control what data they are allowed to store.
With a law.
Is yahoo somehow exempt from this because they receive less traffic?
No, Yahoo is exempt because they do not collect the same type of information. Laws only affect those who undertake the actions defined within the law.
The problem here is that how do you define too much, and what's the difference between google collecting a whole bunch of data, and your government census department collecting a whole bunch of data, and making it a crime if you don't respond to the census.
The difference is the law. Provisions for the census are in the US Constitution. It was the law of the land long before you were ever born and most likely long before your family even arrived here.
I mean, I know the/. crowd leans towards the libertarian side of things, but some people act as if they've never even heard of the rule of law around here. I guess given our current administration, that's probably not too surprising - but the fact remains that there's no inalienable right that says Google should be allowed to collect all this data on its users, which means there's no reason not to make it illegal if that's what's determined to be in the public interest.
Who makes these determinations? The people we elect specifically for that purpose. This is why we have a congress. You can call them incompetent, you're free to dislike your representatives, but it's not like it's some big mystery who gets tasked with drafting laws in our governmental system. That is your congressperson's job. If you don't like the job they're doing, then vote for somebody else next time - but this is what they're there to do, and as long as they're there, you should use them.
I think there is also a tendency for some people to turn fairly simple questions of law into larger philosophical debates. I don't really understand the reason for that. If people don't like the fact that Google is going to be collecting all this data, then we should pressure our congress to draft a law that stops them or anyone else from doing it. It's really that simple. There's no point worrying about whether it would apply to one company or another or why it doesn't apply to government or whatever. Laws are designed to address practical and specific societal issues; they're not designed to address abstract philosophical ethical questions.
Read through that, including all of the links at the bottom. Why not talk about dihydrogen monoxide while you're at it? It's responsible for everything from leukemia to water poisoning. It's so dangerous that it will literally eat away unprotected metal if exposed for a number of years. It's like an acid! Now that's powerful stuff - and powerful dangerous!
For what it's worth I'm not surprised to hear about the link between aspartame and migraines.
People looking for a connection between something they suspect to be dangerous and any potential health issues - no matter how anecdotal - are never surprised to find those connections. And those anecdotes will eventually form a "proven" theory in their minds.
This does not constitute scientific proof of anything, however. But it is the way these internet rumors get started.
Your headaches drinking diet soda were likely caused by either caffeine (which restricts blood flow) or the placebo effect. (Nobody ever thinks they're affected by the placebo effect - as if they're somehow smarter than everybody else. But the placebo effect exists, it's well documented and acknowledged by every reputable scientist.)
As for sodium benzoate, I would suspect that the FDA hasn't done anything about it because there's nothing that needs to be done about it. Not that I think the FDA never makes mistakes or isn't occasionally beholden to corporate interests, but sodium benzoate is an additive that's been used since the early 1900's and, like many such internet health bugaboos, is a naturally occuring substance in "healthy" foods you probably eat every day - including (according to Wikipedia) cranberries, prunes, greengage plums, cinnamon, ripe cloves, and apples. If it were dangerous, there are plenty of scientists out there who'd have figured it out long before now. Even if you don't believe that, you have to at least agree that over 100 years of use of this additive, we'd have seen at least some these alleged effects by now in the general populace, yes?
With all the health scares out there, you'd think our very lives were being cut short by chemical additives. Yet people continue to live longer, healthier lives even as we use more products containing these additives. I'm not saying it isn't better to eat natural foods - I try to do so myself as much as possible. But it does nothing other than add to your stress level (which does reduce lifespan) to constantly be worrying about the possible negative effects of the stuff in your food, especially when it's been neither scientifically proven nor peer-reviewed.
And with regard to diet soda specifically, there is no even alleged effect of aspartame or sodium benzoate - no matter how crackpot - that is worse than the proven health effects of drinking all the empty calories in a non-diet soda. Obesity directly kills hundreds of thousands of people every single year, yet we are constantly looking for ways to mentally justify continuing on that path. "All these chemicals are dangerous!" No, what's dangerous is being fat. So if you are (unjustifiably) worried about diet soda, your alternative is to drink 100% juice or water. Going back to drinking regular soda instead of diet because you're worried about your health just makes you a hypocrite - or an idiot.
(getting a tan? gee, that's not superficial or anything....)
The difference is it doesn't cost $19,000 or $26,000 or whatever to get a tan... and if it does, whoever spends that much deserves all the ridicule they get. You could feed a family of four on that much money for a year - and we have no shortage of needy people in this country.
I'm not the kind of guy that goes around pointing out how all these vanity things we do are bad because that money could be better used elsewhere. Hey, if it makes you feel good, then whatever. But still, there's got to be a limit... a point where you say, "you know, this is kind of a ridiculous; there are more important things to worry about." It's not as if these people are getting anything tangible for their investment. They're sending a corporation a bunch of nuts. At least if you spent $26,000 on a tan, you'd still end up with a tan to show for it. These people may as well have just taken all that money and flushed it down the toilet. And that makes the whole thing kind of offensive.
I'll bet they're all really proud of themselves too.
What's the difference between a color and the appearance of a color?
Aren't Ferraris just cars? What's the difference between a real Ferrari and a replica Ferrari?
Same thing - the difference is accuracy. Graphic designers, photographers and those in the video/film industries need their on-screen colors to be exactly as real life, or at least as close to it as possible. If a monitor is showing you a Pantone green #359, and it instead looks like a #358 swatch that you're holding in your hand, that's a big problem.
People who don't need their computers to match colors this precisely probably don't care about dithering. But Apple has always marketed their computers towards these creative types for creative tasks. It's not a question of whether or not a computer monitor should dither - a lot of LCD's (most, actually) dither and nobody complains much about them, because they're "good enough" for most people. The difference is how Apple is marketing their machines and the kinds of claims they make about them in advertising.
That's not to say I think the plaintiffs have a case... I honestly don't know how Apple marketed MacBooks specifically, I only know their general marketing strategy, as most people do. Seems to me the case is going to hinge on the specific claims Apple made. "Millions of colors" is a claim that's basically industry standard for dithered displays, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate defense.
By the way, I am happy if this case brings the dithering issue some more attention. A lot of people are focused so much on LCD response times that they don't realize it comes with a price. It's gotten to a point where I almost look for *higher* response times these days because those are generally the panels that don't dither - all panels with these 2ms or thereabouts response times are 6-bit per pixel panels, and they dither. Apple's other LCD monitors, along with a few from Dell and several from boutique manufacturers are 8 bit per pixel panels and they do not dither... but their response times are higher. You need 8 bits per pixel for the best color accuracy.
The story I heard was that walmart bought 2 Million HD-DVD players to be sold around $300.
Yeah, apparently you missed the debunking of that rumor.
Fuh Yuan, who originated the rumor, also issued their own retraction. This was not even a "no comment" by either side, it was a full on "this story is not true" by both Wal-Mart and Fuh Yuan.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, guys.
You get Jimi Hendrix on the radio? I don't know if I've ever heard him on radio in the UK:P You can't say that he has no talent or art to him, but anything gets boring if you overplay it..
Yeah, apparently you don't know the "classic rock" radio format in the US, in which the same Jimi Hendrix songs get played over and over about 8 times a day each. I listen to my local classic rock station (Q104 in NYC - one of many "Q104's" across the country) in my car because there's nothing that's any better, but it really is programmed like any other top 40 station. Same four songs fifty times a day. If you think that gets old on a top 40 station where the nature of the beast means you've at least got some turnover throughout the year, just imagine what it's like when your playlist never changes! If I hear "Hotel California" one more time this week, somebody's going to get strangled.
All the other stations in NYC play either lame urban music or some combination of modern "hits". There is college radio, but a) the reception where I am is really bad, as their power output is not very high, and I'm not near any colleges, and b) honestly, I know some people really like college radio (and I was music director of my college radio station back in the day), but I find it a little too random now that I'm getting on in years. So there really aren't any good choices. There's no such thing as a station that just plays good quality rock music that experienced DJ's pick out themselves from a massive collection of LP's or CD's lining the station walls - as used to be the norm even just 20 or so years ago. Nowadays a DJ's job is just following a playlist and filling time in between songs with some pointless one-way banter.
I hate the RIAA and I hate the modern radio industry. I really don't know who to root for here.
One thing I'm sure of, though, is that royalty payments to the RIAA will cause the radio industry to lose whatever independence it still has. It seems like a way for them to get around payola laws while still raking in some extra cash. Let's say the RIAA collects 10 cents per play of most songs, but oh, they'll "waive" the fee for a particular artist they want to promote that week. The music director of the local top 40 station thinks that artist is crap, but the accountants tell the VP of finance how filling 4 minutes every half hour with that artist will save the station $5,000 per week. And let's say it's not just one artist, but five or ten at any given time. You tell me what's going to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
(same things were said about the iPod)
People said the iPod was entering a mature market with more established, larger competitors whose products were universally cheaper and many of which had more features?
Wow, I'd forgotten that. I feel so dumb for buying an iPod now.
Or he could call Dishnetworks or Directv and have them come and install a satellite setup for him.
There are tradeoffs with every TV service. The parent said he was waiting for FiOS... which I have, so I can tell you from experience that there are tradeoffs with that too. I've also had DirecTV in the past.
With FiOS, you pay the highest prices anywhere. Oh, they advertise "$95 a month" for their three service package (TV, phone, internet), but they nickel and dime you to death. They charge $12.95 for an HD-DVR - same box was $5 from Cablevision. They have tons of little extra fees tacked on that they don't tell you about. My "$95 a month" plan ended up quoted to me at $121 a month over the phone, and I actually pay at least $155 a month when all is said and done. With Cablevision, getting the same package of services I was paying $126 a month. So FiOS is an expensive option.
FiOS is also the least reliable of all the services I have used. Cablevision was honestly rock solid for all three services - no problems. With FiOS, I have channel breakups almost every day, I get audio dropouts, and my router dies at least once a week (you have to use their router).
You may as well ask why I switched... at this point, I really don't know. I'd heard FiOS had the best picture quality, and that may be true, when it's working properly. I had no problem with my Cablevision picture quality, though I moved to FiOS at the same time as I moved from a 26" HDTV to a 42" HDTV so I can't really say for sure which has the better PQ. But now I'm locked into a year contract. And I don't want to change my phone number again.
As for DirecTV, you know what they say about it going out in the rain? Well, it's true. Oh, it's not as big of a problem as their competitors' commercials make it out to be, but it does happen. It may not be an issue if you live in a dry state like Arizona, but I live in the northeast and we get some wicked thunderstorms in the summer. My DTV was going out about once a week, sometimes for hours at a time when I had it.
Also, DirecTV is well known for awful picture quality. They're the standard-bearers of "HD-lite" - taking a 1920x1080 signal and down-rezzing it to 1280x1080. They were sued in court over their commercials that advertised the "best picture quality" and they lost - they were forced to withdraw the ads. They've recently launched a few new satellites that give them greater data capacity, but everybody knows that they'll just add more channels rather than improving PQ - it's what they've always done when they've added capacity. At the very least, they are re-compressing MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, which is an inherently lossy process even keeping the same resolution.
So, you pick your poison. There is no "perfect" TV service, only whatever you personally consider to be least bad.
You've gotta run before you can walk.
Er, uh, yeah... and vice versa.
Hopefully you know what I meant.
But if they can't sustain themselves, why would you continue paying to produce it?
I understand your point, but it's not really a valid one. If it was, not only would you only ever hear Britney Spears on the radio, it's all you *could* ever hear *anywhere*.
The problem is a lot of stuff starts out "indie" that becomes mainstream later. Almost by definition, most experiments fail. The ones that succeed, though, are the ones that drive the mainstream forward. So a lot of money must be lost in order for money to be gained over the long term. How do you think bands like Coldplay and U2 were initially financed? They didn't pay for themselves at first; they were financed by people like Madonna and Kylie Minogue. Same goes for TV talent. You've gotta run before you can walk.
With a-la carte pricing, I guarantee channels like IFC and Sundance Channel will die. You may not watch those channels, so you personally may not care. But is the point of a-la carte pricing to bring us less choice? Is that the goal we should be working towards?
Consensus science isn't science, it's politics, and that's exactly what the Global Warming debate is about: politics
So, 2+2=5?
Guns have little to do with motive. Motive is what should be dealt with; if the goal is to keep this from happening again.
Japan has about 40 gun crimes per year. That includes misdemeanors like possession. They have less than ten gun deaths per year. You really think nobody there has "motive" to commit random mass murder? (And what possible "motive" could there be for such an action?)
Funny how taking away guns takes away the potential for gun crime, isn't it?
Let me put it another way - which would you rather lose, your guns or your privacy? Losing your guns only affects gun owners; losing privacy affects everyone. And I don't want to give up my privacy so some caveman in Virginia can keep his guns.
Arguments like yours are the way gun owners try to pretend they don't have blood on their hands.
If the Windows conventions were good, I'd agree with you. However, anything is an improvement over Windows conventions.
Come on; it's shocking as a Mac user to see all you Windows guys suddenly defending Safari now that it's available on your PC's. A lot of Mac users hate Safari. Many of us use Firefox.
Safari on Mac doesn't follow Mac conventions either. It just received its first update in like a year, and it doesn't seem to have helped much. Safari:Mac = IE:Windows. We feel pretty much the same way about it.
I use Safari on Mac only to test; that's about all it's good for, but its rendering engine always makes things look significantly different than any other browser so, like IE, as a designer you kind of just have to accept its quirks. I run Firefox as my primary browser on both Mac and PC.
btw, I did try Safari on Windows. The first time I opened more than 10 tabs simultaneously, it froze. Yes, it's a beta, but a pretty unusable one if it fails at its basic core function.
You can't on the one hand promote games like Halo 3 and Gears of War as your premiere games (and whoever actually publishes them, MS has gone out of their way to promote the system using them) and then on the other hand try to market your system as a "family system". It's one or the other.
I know everybody wants to live in a world where everything is all things to all people, but it doesn't work like that. The fact is there is competition out there doing the family thing better than MS ever will - namely Nintendo. So why would a parent buy an Xbox 360 to play games with their kids when the Wii exists?
I hate to tell MS, but the 360 is going to meet the exact same fate as the original Xbox - it's the system for hardcore gamers. If MS wants it to be anything else, then they need to focus like a laser beam on making it something else - they can't throw all their weight behind MA-rated violent shooters like they have been, then whine about how families aren't buying the system. That's a bit like a porn movie publisher wondering why people keep spending money going to Disneyland instead of buying porn movies.
MS can't be the "family game" company as long as they keep promoting themselves with MA-rated shooters any more than Nintendo can be the "hardcore gamer" company as long as they keep promoting themselves with Mario and Pokemon. Companies have to make choices, and these are the choices they've made. It just so happens that Nintendo's strategy is working and MS's isn't - but if MS wants to change their strategy, then they need to actually change their strategy. Just saying they want some of that audience isn't going to accomplish anything.
I agree that presenting Vista as only being applicable to a software trademark isn't realistic. For example, if someone were to have registered the trademark "Coke" for use with a TV station, people would expect it to be affiliated with the gargantuan beast that is Coke. Vista is a gargantuan beast much like Coke and will influence everyone's perception of the word. It's big enough, in other words, to be applicable outside of software.
Not if it isn't registered as such, it isn't.
Look, the law is what it is. You can say whatever you want about what people might think about a TV station named "Coke"; if Coke (whichever one) hasn't registered the trademark for that purpose, then they have no claim over it.
There are plenty of examples of different companies using the same trademark. Westinghouse, for example - the maker of Westinghouse TV's is a wholly different company than the maker of, say, Westinghouse solar landscape lighting kits. It really doesn't matter if the TV maker is afraid that the solar light company is sullying their reputation; if they didn't register the trademark, then they didn't register the trademark.
Most large companies will register as many trademark uses as they can think of for just this reason. They're smart enough to realize this. Here is, for example, the defined uses on just one of Coca Cola's many trademarks on the word "Coke":
Board games; checker sets; playing cards; card games; puzzles; balloons; hand held unit for playing electronic games; Christmas decorations and accessories of all kinds, namely, Christmas tree skirts, artificial Christmas garlands; Christmas tree ornaments; Christmas stockings; Christmas tree decorations; snow globes; sporting equipment and accessories for soccer, namely, soccer balls; sporting equipment and accessories for golf, namely, golf balls, golf tees, golf ball markers, ball cleaners, golf putters, divot repair tools, golf bags; sporting equipment and accessories for skating, namely, in-line skates, skate boards; elbow pads for athletic use; knee pads for athletic use; shin pads for athletic use; badminton game playing equipment; sporting equipment and accessories for fishing, namely, fishing lures; billiard cues, billiard balls, billiard game playing equipment and accessories, namely billiard bridges, billiard bumpers, billiard chalk, billiard cue racks, billiard cushions, billiard nets, billiard tables, billiard tally balls, billiard tips, billiard triangles, cue sticks for billiard or pool; snow sleds for recreational use; pinball machines; sport balls; toy vehicles; toy electric trains; toy model train sets; train set accessories, namely, artificial trees, turf, foliage, ballast, buildings, figurines, billboards, lichen and grass; toy banks, toy mobiles, multiple activity baby toys; dart board cases; dart boards; dolls and accessories therefor; plush toys; yo-yos; flying discs; inflatable toys
Another one:
Plates; cups; drinking glasses; tankards not of precious metal; mugs; tumblers; drinking steins; pitchers; decanters, goblets; ice buckets, coasters not of paper and not being table linen; serving pieces, namely, serving tongs, serving platters; serving trays not of precious metal; salt and pepper shakers; condiment holders, sugar dispensers and basins, toothpick holders; napkin holders; dispensers for paper towels; holders for facial tissue; fitted picnic baskets; trivets, cookie jars; canister sets, storage containers for household and kitchen use not of precious metal; party bowls; floral containers; bottle openers; straw dispensers; dinnerware, bottles sold empty; dishware, namely, plates, bowls, cups and saucers; creamer pitchers; candy dishes; spoon rests; flower pots; corn cob holders; cutting boards; cookie cutters; candle holders not of precious metal; bread boxes; bird houses of wood; cooking utensils, namely, grill covers; utensils for barbecues, namely, forks, turners; stove burner covers; recipe boxes; coffee pots not of precious metal; tea pots not of precious metal; utensils fo
Sure, FFXII's story was a bit light, but the combat system was the best ever seen of any jRPG. You could do everything manually or litterally program the AI of the party members with the gambit system.
I for one loved it, and most reviewers did too.
When was the last time any big game got bad reviews? Game reviewers get caught up in hype just like everybody else, and maybe more importantly, they're often afraid to criticize games that they know have a lot of evangelists. They may not personally like a game, but they take the attitude of "well, if you like Japanese RPG's, then you'll love this game." In fact, you see statements just like that in game reviews all the time. It really is basically bullshit. A game's either fun or it isn't; there's no "if you like this kind of game, then you'll like the game." If that were a valid way of looking at things, then every game should get a perfect score.
So the fact that reviewers liked FFXII is meaningless. The fact that you liked it probably has more relevance; at least you're not trying to please your readers.
But I did not like FFXII, and I'm a pretty hardcore FF fan. I didn't think it was awful, but it never grabbed me - I never felt any emotional connection to it, and I never really felt like I wanted to play it. I'd come home at night and think "oh god, I'd better play some FFXII... I guess." Because of that, it ended up one of only two FF's since VII that I never finished. The story was probably the main problem, but I'm sorry, I did not like the battle system at all - it was like Grandia Lite. It had no real strategy; it was all action. It was clearly a case of "be careful what you wish for", because it was exactly the kind of battle system some FF fans have been clamoring for for a long time, but it was the perfect example of why real-time battle systems don't really work. It *felt* like a hack and slash.
FF's battle system has always been about strategy, and for that reason the battles themselves have always been somewhat abstracted. FFXII got rid of the abstraction and made the battles feel more "realistic", which as is often the case just ends up being more boring.
I don't agree with the parent poster that S-E needs to "kill" the series, but I do agree with him that the last two FF's have been subpar, especially after the gorgeous FFX, probably my second favorite FF ever. I'd even go further and say the last three numbered FF's have been subpar - FFXI, FFX-2 and FFXII.
Still, the series is still a system-seller in both the US and Japan, and it will help PS3 sales in a big way when FFXIII is released. Especially if, as has been S-E's modus operandi lately, the first numbered FF on a new system ends up really setting the standard. FFVII and FFX were both great, while the FF's in between were mediocre at best; hopefully FFXIII will continue the tradition of VII and X.
Seriously, has any highly anticipated game ever NOT been delayed?
Original GTA games (as opposed to ports) are never delayed. And I only make the "port" caveat because I do recall GTA for the GBA being delayed, and I'm not sure about the PS2 releases of the PSP games.
But Rockstar takes a lot of pride in being one publisher that does *not* delay major releases once a release date has been announced.
I said this on Kotaku as well, but I worked for several years at Rockstar and through the release of six or seven different GTA titles, and there is no way in hell Rockstar will ever, ever, ever postpone the release date of GTAIV. It is too big of a game with too well-publicized of a release date.
Pachter doesn't know how Rockstar thinks (and I'm making the distinction between Rockstar and Take 2, because while they are the same company really, the decision-making between each is handled differently). First of all, there's no chance whatsoever of them delaying a game because of the competition. None. Because they don't think they have any competition. They think of GTA as the #1 game series in the world (and I'm not sure if that's true, but it may be over the last 7 or 8 years). If anything, they're wondering if Bungie is going to delay Halo 3 because of GTAIV, not the other way around.
Second, they don't delay games because they're not ready. Never happens. They're one of those game companies that work their developers to the bone to make milestones. This is completely different from Take 2 - we all know about the DNF saga. Rockstar doesn't operate that way. They pride themselves on discipline, and they will work 20 hour days for six months straight if that's what it takes to release a game on time.
The only *possible* reason they would ever delay a game was to move it into another fiscal quarter. I think they actually did that with one game while I was there... maybe Max Payne 2. I don't remember exactly. But never a numbered GTA game. They would never spend millions promoting a release date and then change it. They've considered all the fiscal considerations long ago, before setting that date.
Note that there's also a difference between "delaying" a game that never had a release date (like The Warriors, which came out about 2 years later than original internal schedules had it) and delaying a game that does have an announced release date. Rockstar thinks of themselves as above doing the latter, and they also just consider it suicidal in terms of publicity and eventual sales. To them, delaying a game 2 weeks in October just means 2 fewer weeks worth of Christmas season sales, not to mention garnering them an air of incompetence and generating questions among the public about the game's state of readiness.
I have been wrong once or twice in my life, but I will seriously cook and eat the Rockstar shirt that I'm currently wearing if they delay GTAIV. There would have had to have been a complete sea change in attitude at Rockstar since I left for that to ever happen, and I know the people who are still there from when I was there - and the real decision makers at Rockstar are among them. It would take direct involvement from the Zelnick to delay GTAIV, and even then it would be strenuously argued against, literally to the point of threats and near-violence. I have seen it happen before - there are reasons why Take 2's CEO churn rate is so high that go beyond simple fiscal issues.
The Independant
Ugh... it's "The Independent". Now we can't even copy the names of publications correctly without misspelling them, even when there is a giant logo with the correct spelling right in front of us and numerous other text versions on the page? It's called highlight/ctrl-c, people!
The whole ent/ant thing is there/their/they're for this decade, and obviously a pet peeve of mine. Get it through your heads; there's no such thing as an "independant". An independent is not something you wear around your neck.
Anyway, to get back on-topic, is it just me or the idea of teleporting "data" 89 miles not very impressive? I realize it's probably poor wording, but I'm sure once I click the "submit" button here, this data's going to be instantly "teleported" all over the world!
Yeah, the iPhone is just a cell phone. In the same vein that the iPod is just an MP3 player.
Not a valid comparison. The iPod was category-defining. The iPhone is entering a market that was already defined long ago. This is why Apple really cannot replicate its success with the iPod here - the market is already saturated.
Even the top projections put Apple at 1% of the cell phone market in a year. One percent. That's a lot of phones sold, but it still means that 99% of cell phone users will be using something else. This does not a game changer make.
The iPhone will be profitable for Apple, sure. It may even result in some more Cingular contracts (it'll be a cold day in hell before I call them "AT&T"!). But the vast majority of the world is going to completely ignore the iPhone.
With the exception of the iPod, that's how it always is with Apple products. Their fans' zealotry masks the fact that most people just do not care. That over-enthusiasm makes their products seem a lot more popular than they are. They have a 4% PC market share and they'll have a 1% phone market share.
(Obviously I'm not really in that category or I wouldn't be commenting, but it is true of most of the world.)
The bottom line is the rest of the industry will just keep right on going as it always has.
The price difference alone, regardless of any other factor, is enough to make the Pirates releases more successful in terms of units sold.
Two more factors:
* More owners of Blu-Ray machines
* The Matrix set is also a Blu-Ray release (later in the year)
Given its non-exclusivity, there's no reason for anyone who doesn't already own HD-DVD to jump in just for The Matrix, even assuming there are such rabid fans out there. Blu-Ray owners will wait for the Blu-Ray edition, owners of neither format are not going to be persuaded either way.
Really, this is not even a competition. Let's put up two sets that cost the same and are exclusive to each format. Still then, Blu-Ray is going to win because it's the more popular format.
btw, I do think it's sad how much people like the Pirates series - I couldn't even make it through the first one, it was so laughably formulaic.
On the flip side, how many of those executions would it take before the passengers turned *all* the flights into flight 93?
Flight 93 was only a failure because the timing got messed up - the passengers all knew they were on a suicide mission anyway.
One of the tactics the terrorists used was telling everybody they had a bomb on board - they all had a guy stationed at the front of the cabin who they said was wearing one. Given that, I would think the result would have been exactly the same had there been locks on the cockpit door. Without the knowledge of previous attacks like those on flight 93 had, and with the assumption that there *could* be a bomb on board, and the knowledge that people *will* continue to be executed unless the pilot cooperates, I would give it a maximum of three minutes before that cockpit door is opened. It's the pilot's primary responsibility to ensure the safety of his passengers, and he's looking at a situation where on the one hand you've got a hijacking (most of which previously had ended safely) and on the other hand you've got passengers being executed if he does nothing. Really, he'd be derelict in his duties if he *didn't* open the cockpit door.
We think differently since 9/11. Don't forget that. Before 9/11, the thought was a hijacking is dangerous but generally survivable, so it would certainly be preferable to allowing a bomb to go off on board.
They're letting the people who pressured them know that they removed people who they THINK to be sex offenders based on its processes, to show that it is doing something; not that these people ARE sex offenders.) She CANNOT and WILL NOT have ANY negative entries in any databases or law enforcement records, because she HAS NOT committed any crime, and IS NOT a sex offender, no matter what MySpace says or does. Why does no one here understand that, and why are they all getting modded up?
I just have one question: what planet have you been living on the last few years? Because its zip code has gotta be pretty close to fantasy land. You are way too trusting of government to a) do the right thing, b) do their own dirty work, and c) be competent at their jobs. None of these things are always or even usually the case, especially not these days.
And I say that as a big government liberal.
You're talking about a justice department that just proposed making copyright violations - as identified by the content industry, not by government - punishable by death in certain cases. This is the mentality you're dealing with here. This is not 1776 anymore and we're no longer living in the age of intellectualism.
Avoiding 'cool' items means you can get the same function for less money.
So the Gigabeat syncs with iTunes? Really, I wasn't aware of that. It plays h.264 video? Cool!
The reason why these players are cheap is not because they're "not cool", it's because they're old and in most cases shipped with crap software like RealPlayer. They may still be functional enough for many people - in fact, I use a 4G iPod that doesn't play video and is only 20GB - but you're just plain not getting the "same functionality" as current iPods. In fact, I'd be surprised if 4G iPods were going for much more than the Gigabeat on Ebay.
But how do you really stop Google from storing all this data.
/. crowd leans towards the libertarian side of things, but some people act as if they've never even heard of the rule of law around here. I guess given our current administration, that's probably not too surprising - but the fact remains that there's no inalienable right that says Google should be allowed to collect all this data on its users, which means there's no reason not to make it illegal if that's what's determined to be in the public interest.
With a law.
How do you control what data they are allowed to store.
With a law.
Is yahoo somehow exempt from this because they receive less traffic?
No, Yahoo is exempt because they do not collect the same type of information. Laws only affect those who undertake the actions defined within the law.
The problem here is that how do you define too much, and what's the difference between google collecting a whole bunch of data, and your government census department collecting a whole bunch of data, and making it a crime if you don't respond to the census.
The difference is the law. Provisions for the census are in the US Constitution. It was the law of the land long before you were ever born and most likely long before your family even arrived here.
I mean, I know the
Who makes these determinations? The people we elect specifically for that purpose. This is why we have a congress. You can call them incompetent, you're free to dislike your representatives, but it's not like it's some big mystery who gets tasked with drafting laws in our governmental system. That is your congressperson's job. If you don't like the job they're doing, then vote for somebody else next time - but this is what they're there to do, and as long as they're there, you should use them.
I think there is also a tendency for some people to turn fairly simple questions of law into larger philosophical debates. I don't really understand the reason for that. If people don't like the fact that Google is going to be collecting all this data, then we should pressure our congress to draft a law that stops them or anyone else from doing it. It's really that simple. There's no point worrying about whether it would apply to one company or another or why it doesn't apply to government or whatever. Laws are designed to address practical and specific societal issues; they're not designed to address abstract philosophical ethical questions.
Ah yes, aspartame, the health bugaboo du jour among internet users.
p
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.as
Read through that, including all of the links at the bottom. Why not talk about dihydrogen monoxide while you're at it? It's responsible for everything from leukemia to water poisoning. It's so dangerous that it will literally eat away unprotected metal if exposed for a number of years. It's like an acid! Now that's powerful stuff - and powerful dangerous!
For what it's worth I'm not surprised to hear about the link between aspartame and migraines.
People looking for a connection between something they suspect to be dangerous and any potential health issues - no matter how anecdotal - are never surprised to find those connections. And those anecdotes will eventually form a "proven" theory in their minds.
This does not constitute scientific proof of anything, however. But it is the way these internet rumors get started.
Your headaches drinking diet soda were likely caused by either caffeine (which restricts blood flow) or the placebo effect. (Nobody ever thinks they're affected by the placebo effect - as if they're somehow smarter than everybody else. But the placebo effect exists, it's well documented and acknowledged by every reputable scientist.)
As for sodium benzoate, I would suspect that the FDA hasn't done anything about it because there's nothing that needs to be done about it. Not that I think the FDA never makes mistakes or isn't occasionally beholden to corporate interests, but sodium benzoate is an additive that's been used since the early 1900's and, like many such internet health bugaboos, is a naturally occuring substance in "healthy" foods you probably eat every day - including (according to Wikipedia) cranberries, prunes, greengage plums, cinnamon, ripe cloves, and apples. If it were dangerous, there are plenty of scientists out there who'd have figured it out long before now. Even if you don't believe that, you have to at least agree that over 100 years of use of this additive, we'd have seen at least some these alleged effects by now in the general populace, yes?
With all the health scares out there, you'd think our very lives were being cut short by chemical additives. Yet people continue to live longer, healthier lives even as we use more products containing these additives. I'm not saying it isn't better to eat natural foods - I try to do so myself as much as possible. But it does nothing other than add to your stress level (which does reduce lifespan) to constantly be worrying about the possible negative effects of the stuff in your food, especially when it's been neither scientifically proven nor peer-reviewed.
And with regard to diet soda specifically, there is no even alleged effect of aspartame or sodium benzoate - no matter how crackpot - that is worse than the proven health effects of drinking all the empty calories in a non-diet soda. Obesity directly kills hundreds of thousands of people every single year, yet we are constantly looking for ways to mentally justify continuing on that path. "All these chemicals are dangerous!" No, what's dangerous is being fat. So if you are (unjustifiably) worried about diet soda, your alternative is to drink 100% juice or water. Going back to drinking regular soda instead of diet because you're worried about your health just makes you a hypocrite - or an idiot.
(getting a tan? gee, that's not superficial or anything....)
The difference is it doesn't cost $19,000 or $26,000 or whatever to get a tan... and if it does, whoever spends that much deserves all the ridicule they get. You could feed a family of four on that much money for a year - and we have no shortage of needy people in this country.
I'm not the kind of guy that goes around pointing out how all these vanity things we do are bad because that money could be better used elsewhere. Hey, if it makes you feel good, then whatever. But still, there's got to be a limit... a point where you say, "you know, this is kind of a ridiculous; there are more important things to worry about." It's not as if these people are getting anything tangible for their investment. They're sending a corporation a bunch of nuts. At least if you spent $26,000 on a tan, you'd still end up with a tan to show for it. These people may as well have just taken all that money and flushed it down the toilet. And that makes the whole thing kind of offensive.
I'll bet they're all really proud of themselves too.
What's the difference between a color and the appearance of a color?
Aren't Ferraris just cars? What's the difference between a real Ferrari and a replica Ferrari?
Same thing - the difference is accuracy. Graphic designers, photographers and those in the video/film industries need their on-screen colors to be exactly as real life, or at least as close to it as possible. If a monitor is showing you a Pantone green #359, and it instead looks like a #358 swatch that you're holding in your hand, that's a big problem.
People who don't need their computers to match colors this precisely probably don't care about dithering. But Apple has always marketed their computers towards these creative types for creative tasks. It's not a question of whether or not a computer monitor should dither - a lot of LCD's (most, actually) dither and nobody complains much about them, because they're "good enough" for most people. The difference is how Apple is marketing their machines and the kinds of claims they make about them in advertising.
That's not to say I think the plaintiffs have a case... I honestly don't know how Apple marketed MacBooks specifically, I only know their general marketing strategy, as most people do. Seems to me the case is going to hinge on the specific claims Apple made. "Millions of colors" is a claim that's basically industry standard for dithered displays, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate defense.
By the way, I am happy if this case brings the dithering issue some more attention. A lot of people are focused so much on LCD response times that they don't realize it comes with a price. It's gotten to a point where I almost look for *higher* response times these days because those are generally the panels that don't dither - all panels with these 2ms or thereabouts response times are 6-bit per pixel panels, and they dither. Apple's other LCD monitors, along with a few from Dell and several from boutique manufacturers are 8 bit per pixel panels and they do not dither... but their response times are higher. You need 8 bits per pixel for the best color accuracy.
Duh, this one is easy. Blu-ray wins.
Especially since The Matrix set is coming out on Blu-Ray too. Pirates is Blu-Ray exclusive.
So I don't see how this really ups the ante at all. It's still Blu-Ray FTW.
The story I heard was that walmart bought 2 Million HD-DVD players to be sold around $300.
Yeah, apparently you missed the debunking of that rumor.
Fuh Yuan, who originated the rumor, also issued their own retraction. This was not even a "no comment" by either side, it was a full on "this story is not true" by both Wal-Mart and Fuh Yuan.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, guys.
You get Jimi Hendrix on the radio? I don't know if I've ever heard him on radio in the UK :P You can't say that he has no talent or art to him, but anything gets boring if you overplay it..
Yeah, apparently you don't know the "classic rock" radio format in the US, in which the same Jimi Hendrix songs get played over and over about 8 times a day each. I listen to my local classic rock station (Q104 in NYC - one of many "Q104's" across the country) in my car because there's nothing that's any better, but it really is programmed like any other top 40 station. Same four songs fifty times a day. If you think that gets old on a top 40 station where the nature of the beast means you've at least got some turnover throughout the year, just imagine what it's like when your playlist never changes! If I hear "Hotel California" one more time this week, somebody's going to get strangled.
All the other stations in NYC play either lame urban music or some combination of modern "hits". There is college radio, but a) the reception where I am is really bad, as their power output is not very high, and I'm not near any colleges, and b) honestly, I know some people really like college radio (and I was music director of my college radio station back in the day), but I find it a little too random now that I'm getting on in years. So there really aren't any good choices. There's no such thing as a station that just plays good quality rock music that experienced DJ's pick out themselves from a massive collection of LP's or CD's lining the station walls - as used to be the norm even just 20 or so years ago. Nowadays a DJ's job is just following a playlist and filling time in between songs with some pointless one-way banter.
I hate the RIAA and I hate the modern radio industry. I really don't know who to root for here.
One thing I'm sure of, though, is that royalty payments to the RIAA will cause the radio industry to lose whatever independence it still has. It seems like a way for them to get around payola laws while still raking in some extra cash. Let's say the RIAA collects 10 cents per play of most songs, but oh, they'll "waive" the fee for a particular artist they want to promote that week. The music director of the local top 40 station thinks that artist is crap, but the accountants tell the VP of finance how filling 4 minutes every half hour with that artist will save the station $5,000 per week. And let's say it's not just one artist, but five or ten at any given time. You tell me what's going to happen.