I don't get it. They tried to do real world performance tests and the newest, "coolest" of the bunch ended up middle of the pack. How does this equate to perpetuating "silly myths" and pushing "shiny pebbles"?
Though I'm not familiar with that exact site, it's easy to see it's one of the type that try to give people the exact info they actually need: Whether or not the things you do every day are going to show a human-noticable increase in speed if you buy the "shiny pebble".
I personally think they deserve a little more respect for providing this useful public service, even if they do get some of the terminology wrong.
For the same $50,000 you can buy a "flying-car" that won't fall out of the sky if the motor stops working.
But it won't fit in your garage or take off from your driveway. Good luck convincing your wife to build that airstrip you've had your eye on.
In fact the airscooter is the first one of these things that I thought made a good run at the flying car concept. It's the only one of the lot that's priced similar to a car, takes up about as much space as a car, is (suposedly) as easy to "drive" as a car and even has more favorable licensing than a car. It also happens to be the one most likely to hit market first.
I know, it's got a lot of downsides too, but at least it comes close. The Mollar, though beautiful, at 200k and needing a rather impressive license wont be close to my driveway for a very long time.
Dell probably does not see enough additional revenue from AMD sales to justify the increased support costs.
It's doubtful that's the issue. Dell is big enough that it's always looking for something they call "incremental revenue". Basically they want to make and extra 2% here or 5% there. That's why they went into the handheld and printer markets. They didn't intent to make a killing, just to make more than they did in the past.
The only way they could see this as not making enough money is if they expected all of their AMD sales to be canabalization of their Intel market. If they expected even a few percent of new sales because of AMD then they would almost certainly go for it.
So, they either don't expect any new sales, or they expect they'd have other fallout. Based on the excitement over the 64-bit AMD chips, my guess is the problem is the fallout. From Intel.
Your analysis may vary, but I think Dell is effectively an Intel partner and AMD sales dollars have little to do with their decision.
Sounds like a felony in progress to me. You could certainly take down the website for that.
But why does the goverment have any interest in keeping prisoners from advertising for pen-pals on some lonely heart site? They may be prisoners, but they're still human beings.
The solution is pretty simple to me. If they're sending snail mail or using the phone to add content to web sites, leave them alone. If they're using the phone or snail-mail to prosecute another crime like witness intimidation or solitciation of a feloney then shut their asses (and their acomplice's asses) down.
Basically, they should just treat this like any other kind of communication. The fact that it's going on the web is pretty much irrelivant.
I appreciate the help. Could you expand on how I might have helped the driver and group policy situation? Maybe It's my fault for buying unreliable brands like Lexmark, HP, Microsoft and Apple? I'll only go for the major brands that "just work" next time.
So it's just bad luck and even though I have problems Macs really do "just work" for everyone else?
Serious question: If you're a Mac user in real world settings you're saying you don't have any times of frustration that stuff isn't working how you'd like it to work? You just plug everything in and it "just works" regardless of the equipment or the network?
It's a serious question, but I don't expect a serious answer. Network after network that I've tried to use had frustrations when Macs were plugged into them. No, these frustrations were not greater than those for Windows or Linux users, but the Macs most definately did not "just work".
Heck, we had to look in Readme's and go into server text configuration files just to get my CEOs Mac to connect to our Citrix farm. It was a problem only in the 10.28 verion of OS X. News flash: that's just the kind of shit everyone else deals with on their Windows and Linux systems, obscure, version dependent bugs that stop them cold while they figure out a solution.
The chutzpah of Mac users to claim they "just work" is totally amazing to me, but then again you seem to be claiming that I'm the Bermuda Triangle of Mac problems that no one else has. Could be true. But I doubt it.
Furthermore, suppose I have formed a powerful political party, the NAIPle (Nonviolent Advertising-Ignoring People), one million members strong, who all have made the same solemn vows that I have. We're not doing anything illegal. But our presence in the system seriously degrades the value of advertising. Are you going to say that we should be thrown off the internet, merely because we make a certain way of making money unprofitable?
Thrown off the internet? Heck no! In fact, I think that political party is totaly cool. Part of the advertising social contract is the ability of the viewer to totally ignore ads. Advedrtisers have no one to blame but themselves if their ads are so invasive and utterly boring that people tune them out. I've personally been using ads as bathroom break time since long before Tivo ever existed.
But for gosh sake man, don't be whining and crying about how people shouldn't be advertising to begin with. It's their right to have that business model as much as it's your right to ignore it.
So it's ok for him to want to read my views but not ok for me to get some money to pay for bandwidth? Huh. Interesting. What if so many people are coming to my site that I'm getting charged like, you know, a whole lot for bandwidth? Like, say, a couple thousand dollars a week? Could I put ads up then? Ya still don't think so? Bummer. I might as well go do something other than put up a web site then. Maybe my life work should be working at K-Mart rather than put up another Slashdot, AnandTech or The Onion.
You don't like that deal? Well, I got this nice "social contract" for you that you don't even need to sign. How about if I let you read my views for free, but you need to look at some ads too? Will that work for you? Of course, if you "violate" this contract there will be no court, no cops and no reprecusions.... except that you will be stuck, once again, with not seeing my views (or the views of Time, the New York Times, MSNBC, etc.) If that's fine with you then it's fine with me.
Yeah, that's what everyone says, but that's not what actualy happens.
-The Lexmark printer hooked up through an HP print server wasn't her Powerbook's problem. The default drivers didn't work at all unless the printer was directly connected to her box. Some GIMP drivers actually worked for her, but they weren't elegant.
-The Win Server 2003 default settings that required a change in group policy for Macs to use it wasn't her Powebook's problem. MS had changed an obscure security policy that keeps Macs from anthenticating. Easy to change back, but took a lot of time to find out what needed changeing. MS didn't have anything on it and, for some reason, Apple help didn't have anything easy to find in their knowledge base either. Finally found it through Google using a different search term that looked abosolutely nothing like the wording of the actual error message.
-The fact that she hadn't ever used PHP or MySQL and didn't want to learn it actually really wasn't her Powerbook's problem at all, but she somehow managed to make it my Linux server's problem and patiently explained to me how Macs don't use "funky" stuff like that.
You can read all that and say, "duh, it was a poorly written driver and a Microsoft file server problem and a stupid web admin" but it misses the point. The point is that Macs need to work with everyone else and Mac users have no business going around blaming everyone else if there are problems in that working relationship. If you hide in your Apple hole and say, "no one else is playing fair! Our stuff works great by itself!" then you'll get exactly what you have now... a tiny market share. If you accept that it's a COMMON problem, that everyone needs to come to the table and solve these problems and that getting the word out how to interoperate is more important than just saying, "well, WE'RE cool" then maybe you'd end up with what Linux has... a growing market share.
Good luck with that. It'll take a change in attitude more than a change in technology. Theorectically it should be an easy change, but my money is on the Mac Fanatics continuing to tell everyone else that it's their problem.
You're right, depression is a real issue and people need quality drugs to help them out. My daughter has suffered from depression and the combination of medicine and counseling have helped her tremendously.
However, antidepressant drug commercials and, especially, the _horrible_ Zoloft commercial that makes it seem like a medical problem simply to be sad, are a real problem in our society.
I have no problem whatsoever with public service announcements telling people the signs of clinical depression. I have no problem with drug companies making quality medicine to help clinically depressed people in need. I have a MAJOR problem with drug companies boosting their bottom line via advertising that will make just about anyone feel like they need to be "fixed" because they're "sad".
If the makers of Zoloft simply wanted to help people out, they'd keep their drugs out of the commercial and simply tell people to go see a doctor if they fit the medical signs of depression. But they don't want that. They want people to buy their drugs and make them more money. They could really care less if you need them or just want them.
The Viagra manufacturers did't make millions off of people in need, they made millions off of people in want. For the Zoloft manufacturers to shoot for the same market is simply wrong.
1. One reason OS X (and Mac OS's through the ages) 'just work'... etc
The "just work" thing is a myth. Period.
Apple products exist in the world of computer networks. Those networks are filled with non-apple products. I'm reasonable confident that Apple products might "just work" as you say if they only interacted with Apple equipment and software, but nobody works that way anymore.
My Mac girlfriend walked into my Windows/Linux world about two years ago and I'm here to tell you that her equimpent was an exercise in frustration for me. She had a strong tendency to blame my equipment for it. The reality is that that was the rough equivelant of Nazis blaming Jews for their problems in the 30s. You can sit there go on about how there would be no conflicts if everything was Apple, but we don't live in that kind of society. The internet is a hetrogeneous network. Apple boosters need to realize this before claiming their homogenized solutions are somehow supperior.
TW
Clarification: The reason we had to jump through hoops to connect her powerbook to my printers and my file server and why she didn't like using my PHP/mySQL-powered web site were all MY problems. She never had these problems on HER network that used nothing but the stuff that Apple sold her.
If she was the only Apple-booster I've ever know, I'd blame it on her personally. But every Apple user I've ever told this story has also blamed it on my network. Funny thing is, things "just work" on my network when I hook up Windows and Linux equimpent. Interesting, no?
Brave New World was on Sci-Fi a few nights ago. No, we don't live in it right now, but our corporation-obsessed government is definatley trending that way.
We've had stories about corporations talking politicians into useing emenent domain to take land, painting open-source as anti-corporations and anti-american ("it's communist!), and, of course, any service the government might offer on its own is anti-corporation.
The implication of all this is that the companies are saying big profits are neccessary for our coutry's well being. Small profit or no profit opperations are being painted as violating the Great American Spirit. Nothing should be free. Ever. And anyone who suggests they can get along without buying very much is the economic equivilent of a pervert.
I like capitalism. I think it's generally good. But we must realise that it's not the most important pricipal we live by. Cooperation should not be demonized. If we fall for this, we will be the losers.
I wish I could shop around. Cable is the only broadband option where I live.
Ya know, forcing cable providers to lease out their pipes to third party ISPs was laughed at by a lot of people. Some seemed to think it only bennefited AOL. Others pointed out that "we don't need no fancy ISP, just a pipe!"
Well, my cable provider, COX, doesn't allow "servers", blocks outgoing SMTP (gotta use their relay) and words their TOS in such a way that they can basically shut off your service if they don't like how you smell. If I just got a bare pipe, I'd be happy, but not only do I get this pseudo bare pipe, but I get no alternative that's even close to competitively priced.
If AOL had won, then there's a pretty good chance Covad or others would give me an alternative. I might even be able to host family photos without having to worry about "enforcement of the no server rule."
Oh well. I'll continue to pay tripple for DSL with less than a third the speed. It may be relatively slow, but at least I get to use the Internet instead of just the Web.
Great. People who do something they shouldn't seeking vengence agains the snitchs who ratted them out. Personally, I'd prefer geekdom not to turn into an episode of Oz.
However, I don't go worrying about being hit by a car continuously, because I can mitigate the risk of being hit by a car, and if I do get hit by a car, the entire human race doesn't perish.
People care A LOT about whether they have any control over their life and death. I learned a bit about this while playing RPGs.
I used to play role playing games quite a lot. The group I played with liked a variety of genres including D&D, Traveller, the James Bond rpg and Twilight 2000. Twilight 2000, for those of you who don't know (probably most of you) was an RPG set in a post apocolapse world where you're all soldiers in Europe who've been told "you're on your own. Good luck."
As a game master I found Twighlight 2000 kind of frustrating. Everyone had very deadly weapons like machine guns, grenades, mortars and tanks, but, as a GM, I found I couldn't really use them to their full effect.
You see, if you're playing D&D and a player is fighting sword to sword with the bad guy, if the bad guy gets in a killing blow the player will take it pretty well. But if you roll the dice and say "you three just got hit by seamingly random mortar fire and you're dead," the players are going to lynch you.
It doesn't matter that real war is like this. People die all the time when hit by random fire that they have no contol over. It doesn't matter that regular life is like this. Many people who catch deadly diseases have no idea where the got them. But people hate it. We want to have control, even over our deaths, even though we know, logically that we have very little real control. It's an iteresting human trait.
... or, put another way, they want to sell a lot of consoles and a lot of games. In order to do that they have to hit the biggest market available. In case you folks weren't paying attention, Linux-loving uber geeks are not the current "biggest market available." This announcement is about as surprising as companies wanting to advertise during the Super Bowl.
If anyone ever thought Microsoft ever had any intention of supporting any niche community with their Xbox, they need to stop taking whatever drugs they're on. MS has been shooting for mainstream since day one. If you want a product that's designed for the geek/gamer niche then buy your products from a company that targets you, like, say, id on the PC. Console makers have no intention of going after your dollars except as an incremental revenue stream. If you stick with folks that actually care about you, you're far more likely to continue getting good games that you like.
I was about to shoot back "but after nearly 30 years, I have to see how it ends!" Then I realized I already saw how it ends 20+ years ago with episode 6.
So, you're right. If it doesn't look like it's gonna be enjoyable, there's no real reason not to stay home.
How does this work, as death does not do any single organism any good
Single organisms aren't of ultimate importance to evolution. That's why we give up half of our DNA when we mate. The group surviving trumps any single organism within the group surviving.
Death allows for greater variety and variety is one of the key factors in evolutionary success. If we didn't die then a limited number of organisms would fill the available ecosystem thus limiting variety to the number of organisms the ecosystem can support. But if some die, than new organisms can take their place and allow evolution to continue.
Picture a plate of food. If you fill it to capacity with roast beef, then roast beef is all you have. But if you regularly remove some of the beef then you have the opportunity to put other things in its place. Death, similarly allows you to replace the current with something potentially new.
Your first paragraph, I believe, also gets it wrong for one small reason. Both Fairplay and Office can be made to be interoperable to everyone simply by publishing the standard and allowing anyone to use if for any purpose without a license. Opening the standard in this fashion does nothing to restrict features. Congress could easily require this type of open standard for all current and future file formats of any kind with greater than 50% market share and it would guarantee interoperability while allowing for unlimited innovation.
Not necessarily true. The government decides all kinds of interoperability standards for infrastructure. TV, radio, transportation and finance all have strict interoperability requirements in order to serve the greater public good.
The only thing I don't like about this is that they're picking on the little guy before requiring interoperability from the big boys. Why the hell doesn't the Monopoly we call Microsoft have to meet interoperability standards for their business critical Office software? By comparison, digital music is small potatoes.
I've been suspecting this for years. Fandom itself is more important than the thing you're a fan of.
People think geeks aren't social, but it's absolutely not the case. Why else would standing in line be more important than the thing you're standing in line for?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it. They tried to do real world performance tests and the newest, "coolest" of the bunch ended up middle of the pack. How does this equate to perpetuating "silly myths" and pushing "shiny pebbles"?
Though I'm not familiar with that exact site, it's easy to see it's one of the type that try to give people the exact info they actually need: Whether or not the things you do every day are going to show a human-noticable increase in speed if you buy the "shiny pebble".
I personally think they deserve a little more respect for providing this useful public service, even if they do get some of the terminology wrong.
TW
For the same $50,000 you can buy a "flying-car" that won't fall out of the sky if the motor stops working.
But it won't fit in your garage or take off from your driveway. Good luck convincing your wife to build that airstrip you've had your eye on.
In fact the airscooter is the first one of these things that I thought made a good run at the flying car concept. It's the only one of the lot that's priced similar to a car, takes up about as much space as a car, is (suposedly) as easy to "drive" as a car and even has more favorable licensing than a car. It also happens to be the one most likely to hit market first.
I know, it's got a lot of downsides too, but at least it comes close. The Mollar, though beautiful, at 200k and needing a rather impressive license wont be close to my driveway for a very long time.
TW
Dell probably does not see enough additional revenue from AMD sales to justify the increased support costs.
It's doubtful that's the issue. Dell is big enough that it's always looking for something they call "incremental revenue". Basically they want to make and extra 2% here or 5% there. That's why they went into the handheld and printer markets. They didn't intent to make a killing, just to make more than they did in the past.
The only way they could see this as not making enough money is if they expected all of their AMD sales to be canabalization of their Intel market. If they expected even a few percent of new sales because of AMD then they would almost certainly go for it.
So, they either don't expect any new sales, or they expect they'd have other fallout. Based on the excitement over the 64-bit AMD chips, my guess is the problem is the fallout. From Intel.
Your analysis may vary, but I think Dell is effectively an Intel partner and AMD sales dollars have little to do with their decision.
TW
Sounds like a felony in progress to me. You could certainly take down the website for that.
But why does the goverment have any interest in keeping prisoners from advertising for pen-pals on some lonely heart site? They may be prisoners, but they're still human beings.
The solution is pretty simple to me. If they're sending snail mail or using the phone to add content to web sites, leave them alone. If they're using the phone or snail-mail to prosecute another crime like witness intimidation or solitciation of a feloney then shut their asses (and their acomplice's asses) down.
Basically, they should just treat this like any other kind of communication. The fact that it's going on the web is pretty much irrelivant.
TW
I appreciate the help. Could you expand on how I might have helped the driver and group policy situation? Maybe It's my fault for buying unreliable brands like Lexmark, HP, Microsoft and Apple? I'll only go for the major brands that "just work" next time.
TW
So it's just bad luck and even though I have problems Macs really do "just work" for everyone else?
Serious question: If you're a Mac user in real world settings you're saying you don't have any times of frustration that stuff isn't working how you'd like it to work? You just plug everything in and it "just works" regardless of the equipment or the network?
It's a serious question, but I don't expect a serious answer. Network after network that I've tried to use had frustrations when Macs were plugged into them. No, these frustrations were not greater than those for Windows or Linux users, but the Macs most definately did not "just work".
Heck, we had to look in Readme's and go into server text configuration files just to get my CEOs Mac to connect to our Citrix farm. It was a problem only in the 10.28 verion of OS X. News flash: that's just the kind of shit everyone else deals with on their Windows and Linux systems, obscure, version dependent bugs that stop them cold while they figure out a solution.
The chutzpah of Mac users to claim they "just work" is totally amazing to me, but then again you seem to be claiming that I'm the Bermuda Triangle of Mac problems that no one else has. Could be true. But I doubt it.
TW
Furthermore, suppose I have formed a powerful political party, the NAIPle (Nonviolent Advertising-Ignoring People), one million members strong, who all have made the same solemn vows that I have. We're not doing anything illegal. But our presence in the system seriously degrades the value of advertising. Are you going to say that we should be thrown off the internet, merely because we make a certain way of making money unprofitable?
Thrown off the internet? Heck no! In fact, I think that political party is totaly cool. Part of the advertising social contract is the ability of the viewer to totally ignore ads. Advedrtisers have no one to blame but themselves if their ads are so invasive and utterly boring that people tune them out. I've personally been using ads as bathroom break time since long before Tivo ever existed.
But for gosh sake man, don't be whining and crying about how people shouldn't be advertising to begin with. It's their right to have that business model as much as it's your right to ignore it.
TW
So it's ok for him to want to read my views but not ok for me to get some money to pay for bandwidth? Huh. Interesting. What if so many people are coming to my site that I'm getting charged like, you know, a whole lot for bandwidth? Like, say, a couple thousand dollars a week? Could I put ads up then? Ya still don't think so? Bummer. I might as well go do something other than put up a web site then. Maybe my life work should be working at K-Mart rather than put up another Slashdot, AnandTech or The Onion.
TW
You want to espouse your views? Pay to do so.
Um, ok. You want to read my views? Pay to do so.
You don't like that deal? Well, I got this nice "social contract" for you that you don't even need to sign. How about if I let you read my views for free, but you need to look at some ads too? Will that work for you? Of course, if you "violate" this contract there will be no court, no cops and no reprecusions.... except that you will be stuck, once again, with not seeing my views (or the views of Time, the New York Times, MSNBC, etc.) If that's fine with you then it's fine with me.
TW
Yeah, that's what everyone says, but that's not what actualy happens.
-The Lexmark printer hooked up through an HP print server wasn't her Powerbook's problem. The default drivers didn't work at all unless the printer was directly connected to her box. Some GIMP drivers actually worked for her, but they weren't elegant.
-The Win Server 2003 default settings that required a change in group policy for Macs to use it wasn't her Powebook's problem. MS had changed an obscure security policy that keeps Macs from anthenticating. Easy to change back, but took a lot of time to find out what needed changeing. MS didn't have anything on it and, for some reason, Apple help didn't have anything easy to find in their knowledge base either. Finally found it through Google using a different search term that looked abosolutely nothing like the wording of the actual error message.
-The fact that she hadn't ever used PHP or MySQL and didn't want to learn it actually really wasn't her Powerbook's problem at all, but she somehow managed to make it my Linux server's problem and patiently explained to me how Macs don't use "funky" stuff like that.
You can read all that and say, "duh, it was a poorly written driver and a Microsoft file server problem and a stupid web admin" but it misses the point. The point is that Macs need to work with everyone else and Mac users have no business going around blaming everyone else if there are problems in that working relationship. If you hide in your Apple hole and say, "no one else is playing fair! Our stuff works great by itself!" then you'll get exactly what you have now... a tiny market share. If you accept that it's a COMMON problem, that everyone needs to come to the table and solve these problems and that getting the word out how to interoperate is more important than just saying, "well, WE'RE cool" then maybe you'd end up with what Linux has... a growing market share.
Good luck with that. It'll take a change in attitude more than a change in technology. Theorectically it should be an easy change, but my money is on the Mac Fanatics continuing to tell everyone else that it's their problem.
TW
You're right, depression is a real issue and people need quality drugs to help them out. My daughter has suffered from depression and the combination of medicine and counseling have helped her tremendously.
However, antidepressant drug commercials and, especially, the _horrible_ Zoloft commercial that makes it seem like a medical problem simply to be sad, are a real problem in our society.
I have no problem whatsoever with public service announcements telling people the signs of clinical depression. I have no problem with drug companies making quality medicine to help clinically depressed people in need. I have a MAJOR problem with drug companies boosting their bottom line via advertising that will make just about anyone feel like they need to be "fixed" because they're "sad".
If the makers of Zoloft simply wanted to help people out, they'd keep their drugs out of the commercial and simply tell people to go see a doctor if they fit the medical signs of depression. But they don't want that. They want people to buy their drugs and make them more money. They could really care less if you need them or just want them.
The Viagra manufacturers did't make millions off of people in need, they made millions off of people in want. For the Zoloft manufacturers to shoot for the same market is simply wrong.
TW
The new prescription drug bennefit the government offers will give you a discount on Zoloft. Your privately purchased insurance might cover the rest.
You've seen the commercial, right? It's not good to feel sad for too long. Zoloft will fix it.
TW
1. One reason OS X (and Mac OS's through the ages) 'just work' ... etc
The "just work" thing is a myth. Period.
Apple products exist in the world of computer networks. Those networks are filled with non-apple products. I'm reasonable confident that Apple products might "just work" as you say if they only interacted with Apple equipment and software, but nobody works that way anymore.
My Mac girlfriend walked into my Windows/Linux world about two years ago and I'm here to tell you that her equimpent was an exercise in frustration for me. She had a strong tendency to blame my equipment for it. The reality is that that was the rough equivelant of Nazis blaming Jews for their problems in the 30s. You can sit there go on about how there would be no conflicts if everything was Apple, but we don't live in that kind of society. The internet is a hetrogeneous network. Apple boosters need to realize this before claiming their homogenized solutions are somehow supperior.
TW
Clarification: The reason we had to jump through hoops to connect her powerbook to my printers and my file server and why she didn't like using my PHP/mySQL-powered web site were all MY problems. She never had these problems on HER network that used nothing but the stuff that Apple sold her.
If she was the only Apple-booster I've ever know, I'd blame it on her personally. But every Apple user I've ever told this story has also blamed it on my network. Funny thing is, things "just work" on my network when I hook up Windows and Linux equimpent. Interesting, no?
Brave New World was on Sci-Fi a few nights ago. No, we don't live in it right now, but our corporation-obsessed government is definatley trending that way.
We've had stories about corporations talking politicians into useing emenent domain to take land, painting open-source as anti-corporations and anti-american ("it's communist!), and, of course, any service the government might offer on its own is anti-corporation.
The implication of all this is that the companies are saying big profits are neccessary for our coutry's well being. Small profit or no profit opperations are being painted as violating the Great American Spirit. Nothing should be free. Ever. And anyone who suggests they can get along without buying very much is the economic equivilent of a pervert.
I like capitalism. I think it's generally good. But we must realise that it's not the most important pricipal we live by. Cooperation should not be demonized. If we fall for this, we will be the losers.
TW
I wish I could shop around. Cable is the only broadband option where I live.
Ya know, forcing cable providers to lease out their pipes to third party ISPs was laughed at by a lot of people. Some seemed to think it only bennefited AOL. Others pointed out that "we don't need no fancy ISP, just a pipe!"
Well, my cable provider, COX, doesn't allow "servers", blocks outgoing SMTP (gotta use their relay) and words their TOS in such a way that they can basically shut off your service if they don't like how you smell. If I just got a bare pipe, I'd be happy, but not only do I get this pseudo bare pipe, but I get no alternative that's even close to competitively priced.
If AOL had won, then there's a pretty good chance Covad or others would give me an alternative. I might even be able to host family photos without having to worry about "enforcement of the no server rule."
Oh well. I'll continue to pay tripple for DSL with less than a third the speed. It may be relatively slow, but at least I get to use the Internet instead of just the Web.
TW
Great. People who do something they shouldn't seeking vengence agains the snitchs who ratted them out. Personally, I'd prefer geekdom not to turn into an episode of Oz.
TW
However, I don't go worrying about being hit by a car continuously, because I can mitigate the risk of being hit by a car, and if I do get hit by a car, the entire human race doesn't perish.
People care A LOT about whether they have any control over their life and death. I learned a bit about this while playing RPGs.
I used to play role playing games quite a lot. The group I played with liked a variety of genres including D&D, Traveller, the James Bond rpg and Twilight 2000. Twilight 2000, for those of you who don't know (probably most of you) was an RPG set in a post apocolapse world where you're all soldiers in Europe who've been told "you're on your own. Good luck."
As a game master I found Twighlight 2000 kind of frustrating. Everyone had very deadly weapons like machine guns, grenades, mortars and tanks, but, as a GM, I found I couldn't really use them to their full effect.
You see, if you're playing D&D and a player is fighting sword to sword with the bad guy, if the bad guy gets in a killing blow the player will take it pretty well. But if you roll the dice and say "you three just got hit by seamingly random mortar fire and you're dead," the players are going to lynch you.
It doesn't matter that real war is like this. People die all the time when hit by random fire that they have no contol over. It doesn't matter that regular life is like this. Many people who catch deadly diseases have no idea where the got them. But people hate it. We want to have control, even over our deaths, even though we know, logically that we have very little real control. It's an iteresting human trait.
TW
... or, put another way, they want to sell a lot of consoles and a lot of games. In order to do that they have to hit the biggest market available. In case you folks weren't paying attention, Linux-loving uber geeks are not the current "biggest market available." This announcement is about as surprising as companies wanting to advertise during the Super Bowl.
If anyone ever thought Microsoft ever had any intention of supporting any niche community with their Xbox, they need to stop taking whatever drugs they're on. MS has been shooting for mainstream since day one. If you want a product that's designed for the geek/gamer niche then buy your products from a company that targets you, like, say, id on the PC. Console makers have no intention of going after your dollars except as an incremental revenue stream. If you stick with folks that actually care about you, you're far more likely to continue getting good games that you like.
TW
...keep in mind you're free not not to watch it.
I was about to shoot back "but after nearly 30 years, I have to see how it ends!" Then I realized I already saw how it ends 20+ years ago with episode 6.
So, you're right. If it doesn't look like it's gonna be enjoyable, there's no real reason not to stay home.
TW
How does this work, as death does not do any single organism any good
Single organisms aren't of ultimate importance to evolution. That's why we give up half of our DNA when we mate. The group surviving trumps any single organism within the group surviving.
Death allows for greater variety and variety is one of the key factors in evolutionary success. If we didn't die then a limited number of organisms would fill the available ecosystem thus limiting variety to the number of organisms the ecosystem can support. But if some die, than new organisms can take their place and allow evolution to continue.
Picture a plate of food. If you fill it to capacity with roast beef, then roast beef is all you have. But if you regularly remove some of the beef then you have the opportunity to put other things in its place. Death, similarly allows you to replace the current with something potentially new.
TW
Since about the same time the radio became infrastructure.
TW
Woops! Sorry about that link! It was ment to link from the word "patents" only.
TW
I respectfully disagree. Microsoft's patents of it XML technology limit it's interoperability for those not wishing to pay for licenses. I can certainly be argued that Apple is doing the exact same thing with Fairplay because they are, in fact, licensing it to third parties. Both are interoperable in the sense that it's _possible_ to gain access to the standard, but both are not interoperable in the sense that you have to pay a significant toll to do so.
Your first paragraph, I believe, also gets it wrong for one small reason. Both Fairplay and Office can be made to be interoperable to everyone simply by publishing the standard and allowing anyone to use if for any purpose without a license. Opening the standard in this fashion does nothing to restrict features. Congress could easily require this type of open standard for all current and future file formats of any kind with greater than 50% market share and it would guarantee interoperability while allowing for unlimited innovation.
Not necessarily true. The government decides all kinds of interoperability standards for infrastructure. TV, radio, transportation and finance all have strict interoperability requirements in order to serve the greater public good.
The only thing I don't like about this is that they're picking on the little guy before requiring interoperability from the big boys. Why the hell doesn't the Monopoly we call Microsoft have to meet interoperability standards for their business critical Office software? By comparison, digital music is small potatoes.
TW
I've been suspecting this for years. Fandom itself is more important than the thing you're a fan of.
People think geeks aren't social, but it's absolutely not the case. Why else would standing in line be more important than the thing you're standing in line for?
TW