I am the proud owner of a remmy 870, which can probably provide more home-defense with a single working of the action than any comemerical alarm system ever invented.
There is much to be said for this. The threat of deadly force is often enough. The sound of a shotgun being loaded/pumped in a darkened and quiet house is chilling to say the least. Even if you're anti-gun, having a shotgun in the house with no ammo could still provide a nice deterrent. Heck, if the pump action doesn't send an intruder running to the door, grab the barrel and whack 'em in the head with the stock.
From personal experience, I know that my wife never felt secure when I was travelling, despite having a fairly advanced and comprehensive alarm system. It wasn't until we adopted an abandoned/abused German Shepherd that my wife felt safe when alone in the house at night.
It was pretty amazing to watch the dog's protective instincts go to work. Almost immediately I noticed her getting up at night to check the doors or investigate a sound she didn't like. Also, we have a glass front door which used to make me nervous. Now I like having it a lot because even solicitors tend to skip the house with the "insane police dog" barking at them on the other side of the glass. Even the ones who do ring the doorbell are normally standing off the front porch about 6' away when I come to the door, and I never get high pressure anymore as I hold the dog's collar and poke my head through the barely opened door.
It might not keep the car from getting stolen, and I have to vacuum a lot more often, but I feel much more secure with a 65 pound mass of claws and teeth who loves me, distrusts anyone I haven't introduced her to, and who can hear a mosquito across the house with the air conditioning on...
But, since he just took somebody else's work and made fairly transparent changes to it, he's got a few extra marks on him besides the "convicted felon" thing:
Yeah... like "Future Director, Microsoft R&D" maybe?
Interestingly, it turns out that many truckers are huge fans of wireless access and, when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. These folks are on the road for the majority of every month, but they still have to run their lives, communicate with friends and family, etc.
After a recent road trip I did a google for "PrePass" to see if it was connected to sensors I kept seeing over the highway (it is). Among the hits I got was a site run by a married pair of truckers. The relevant part:
How do you go on-line from your truck?
I use a wireless device which allows me to connect at impressive speeds to the web. The device is a product of Novatel and is available through Sprint. Ask for the PCS Connection Card. Unfortunately the service is expensive and is not available everywhere but for the most part, if I am on an Interstate I have access to the Internet.
The first ten delineated are inalienable rights. They can't be amended. They are at a different standard from the rest of them.
I wasn't aware that the first ten couldn't be changed. All the better. =-) My point was simply that much of what the Federal government does today is in violation of the Constitution. It doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't be doing it (although most of the time it does, only that they need to get the amendment passed to give them the legal authority to do it.
It should be hard for the Federal government to expand... not to prevent change, but to make sure that the change is truly mandated. But over the years we've watched the Constitution erode to the point where presidents can effectively wage war without Congress, legislation can be purchased by the largest association, and the courts can more or less change the law to their liking, I don't hold high hopes for the foundations on which the country was built when all three pillars are crumbling so badly.
The Amendments to the Constitution were made to protect the citizens from the GOVERNMENT, not each other. Remember, corporations are considered private single person entities. Even though these very same airlines got a shitload of money back in 2001 because of lack of passengers.
your point? This information was given to the GOVERNMENT.
-----
I wouldn't presume to put words into his mouth, but since coming up with convoluted justifications is a tradition here, let's pretend that this ended up in some kind of lawsuit. I can easily see lawyers for the government and airlines saying something to the effect of:
When you gave your personal information to the airline, you did so voluntarily and it is no different than when you give your information to a neighbor or other individual. Thus, the Constitutional protections don't apply.
When the government asked the airline to provide this information, it was merely engaging in a standard contractor relationship and purchasing/requesting data from a corporation/entity. The airline was not required to give the information (product) but did so voluntarily. Thus, Constitutional protections were not violated because the government did not seize information or take it without the permission of the owners of that data.
Now then... this might open up the airline to a lawsuit based on a violation of its own published privacy policy, but I'd be really surprised if there isn't weasel language in that indemnifying them to sale of your information...
Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone is even the least bit surprised at these types of governmental behaviors, and it's not just a Bush administration thing (although I'm very bothered by the accelerating erosion of civil rights recently).
I'm not sure when it happened, (I suspect around the early 1900s and culminating with FDR) but the American populace shifted from viewing the Constitution as a document granting very specific powers to the government and forbidding it to do anything else (with the Bill of Rights acting as further clarification to some very specific examples) to viewing the Constitution as a list of rights the people. If the people only have certain rights, then the government must have the rest of them. Or so the thinking goes...
That's not to say that some government programs don't do a lot of good, but think about all of the things that are blatantly unconstitutional: national speed limits and drinking ages*, the department of education, the ATF, that sweet $450,000 grant to study the mating habits of aboriginal fruit flys in Southern Idaho.
(*Note that I recognize that the government doesn't necessarily pass national laws for these things, but it does extort the states by taking tax revenues out of the states, then holding that money hostage in the form of education and highway funds until the states comply with the will of the Feds... it becomes a de facto federal law.)
Again, I'm not saying that some national programs and laws aren't useful or beneficial, simply that they're unconstitutional because they aren't specifically allowed for by the Constitution which clearly states that any powers not granted within the document are reserved to the states and/or people.
And I'm not against granting the Federal government additional powers, but if they're needed, they damn well better be provided for in a Constitutional amendment, otherwise they're invalid.
I'll use a hot-button topic to illustrate: gun control. If the majority of the American people truly want the federal government to legally control the sale of firearms (of whatever type), that's fine. The framers allowed for the Constitution to be amended in order to accommodate the times. But there needs to be a Constitutional amendment revoking the 2nd amendment and establishing the new powers, because otherwise, any gun control
And... (not sure if Texas has this by the NJ/NYC metro area does) they could log online to check latest traffic reports.
Well, if they're headed to Houston, they can. The Houston Real-Time Traffic Map now covers nearly every stretch of metro-Houston's highway system including toll-roads and HOV lanes, and provides information on accidents, etc. The map is auto-refreshed every 3 minutes.
The system uses sensors placed on over-road to read the "easy-pass" toll road transponders that many people have and establishes average speeds for each stretch of road. My only gripe about the system is that, as of the last time the topic was discussed online, the system does not anonymize the data.
Obviously the system has to have uniquely identifiable data points, but most people who have these toll tags aren't aware that the tags are also providing a record of their speeds to the transit authority that can be directly linked to their automobile. During the testing phase, I also seem to remember that they were using the system to determine where people were going to identify the most common routes. Like any tracking system, this could be used to figure out where to add bus services (or build commuter rail lines instead of our idiotic downtown light-rail system), but given the track record of most governmental agencies for using these types of systems, I doubt that will be the first use.
Nobody's gotten a ticket from this (yet), but with so many major cities scrambling to find new sources of income to shore up their budgets, I wonder how long it will be before the police departments identify this as an easy source of revenue. All it will take is a few cameras to provide a positive ID of the driver along with the speed record from the system and bingo! Instant income for that new initiative that they couldn't get the voters to approve.
As for wireless hotpoint in rest areas, I say it's a pretty cool idea. West Texas is especially hard to drive through - there are some places where you really do have to pay attention those "last gas for 200 miles" signs. Of course, that's offset by the fact that you can see the cops coming long before you're in radar range.;-) If I can take a break and check my email on the way... cool.
Er... I thought that was kind of my point. Apple has intentionally removed cross-compatibility. 4.5, 4.2, and 4.0 libraries won't work with each other. This is not a change in the library structure but a limitation in the software itself. This necessitates keeping multiple versions of iTunes in your archive to enable the features you're interested in using at the time.
You have to use the appropriate version on all of your machines at the same time which is a pain, but worth it if you really want to listen to your home library when you're traveling or at work on another LAN.
The good news is that the library data itself isn't different. A "4.0" library is just the same as a "4.2" library - it's just that the client and server check versions to ensure that they're compatible with each other. All you have to do is run the appropriate executable - the library doesn't change, and neither do the playlists.
It's pretty trivial to keep the old versions, though; simply m
ake a copy of iTunes and rename it "iTunes 4.2" (or whatever) before you start the software update process.
The logic is fairly easy to understand: Apple's leadership position in the downloadable music market hinges entirely on its ability to get the labels to license the tracks for download. If Apple doesn't go way out of their way to keep DRM irritatingly hard to work around, the labels yank the music and head over to Redmond which is more than happy to screw the consumer.
Apple is walking a fine line here... Without the tracks, it has nothing to sell. Without fairly liberal license terms, people just head back to the latest peer-to-peer client and nobody makes money.
So the logic in breaking backwards compatibility is that if there's no penalty to keeping a 4.2 or 4.0 version running, people will still be able to use Fairplay or stream to non-lan IP addresses while enjoying all of the benefits of the new 4.5 version.
What's going to end up happening is that everyone will maintain a full library of iTunes versions (like I do) and use the version that's most appropriate for their needs. Want to listen to your home library at work or on the road? Fire up 4.0 before you leave. Want to get rid of the DRM on your tracks? Run 4.2 and FairPlay, then switch back to 4.5 and enjoy the new features.
I'm sure these older versions will break with a system upgrade down the road, but by then, there might be an even cooler jukebox out there.
To me, the larger question is how long it's going to take the media industry to schedule a rectal craniotomy and figure out how to deal with the 21st century instead of hanging out in the 1990s.
I agree that getting some of the outsource and layoof walking-dead into teaching is a great idea. In fact, it was an idea that I flirted with myself.
But despite my enthusiasm, I quickly ran into reality. Many school districts only let you teach a subject in which you have a degree. So even though I'm quite confident that I could teach an English, History, or other Liberal Arts class, I wasn't able to because my degree was in another field.
Oh yeah, there's also that teaching certificate that most nerds don't have. Some districts let you teach while getting your certificate, but there's still often at least a 6 month ramp-up before you can get into the classroom.
Between the internal politics, the "mandated" teaching curriculums, the abysmal salaries (only a $6k difference between a starting teacher with a BA/BS and one with a Ph.D. and average annual raises of around $600), and the breathing apparatus necessary to wade through all the hormones floating around the average high school/middle school, I decided that it wasn't worth it.
I see it as only a temporary advantage, though. Our current dial-up system didn't just pop into being - it took years/decades for the infrastructure (copper wires, fiber trunk lines, satellites, etc) to get rolled out. Most slashdotters probably don't remember a time when a "long distance" call was a really big deal.... They probably also don't remember a time when finally getting that 1200bps modem made one feel like a god among men.
By comparison, broadband access is becoming accessible much more quickly. Most of the hotels I stay in already offer free broadband access. I plug in an ethernet cable, my computer gets an IP address via DHCP and I'm good to go. No searching for the local access number, no surcharge for using the 800 number... just a connection. Heck, even the corner coffee shop (not even a Starbucks) offers Wi-Fi access.
My point was simply that dial-up's only current advantage over broadband is that it's already completely rolled out, while broadband infrastructure is still being constructed. Once broadband access is as ubiquitous as dial-up (in either wired or wireless forms), I doubt many people will be choosing to use the slower, less capable connection.
At that point, the only advantage I see dial-up access providing will be enhanced security - broadband requires that your data travel over someone else's system whereas a dial-up connection can deliver you directly into the system you need. Advances in encryption and tunneling will negate even this advantage, though.
I recognize that dial-up is currently a more universal access method and that broadband is more of a luxury. I just don't think that's going to last very long, especially as content and applications begin demanding more bandwidth.
I certainly wasn't trying to portray people who use 56k as moronic or clueless, merely pointing out that like many other technological advances, the true benefit of broadband isn't necessarily apparent without getting some first-hand experience.
And in my follow-up post to another reply, I was pointing out that many of my friends and relatives aren't computer-saavy and don't know how to deal with the threats that an always-on connection brings. Heck, they probably don't even realize that there are threats/dangers in having an always-on connection. So I let them know.
Yes, there are some slashdotters who snort in derision at the non-technical. That's how they maintain a fragile sense of superiority. I can't compile my own linux kernel or get my soundcard working with Mandrake, so I guess I'm one of the little people, too.
As you pointed out, every field does this... it's part of human nature, I suppose - part of the same bit of DNA that requires us to defend our choices by proclaiming, with decals of a urinating Calvin, that Ford or Chevrolet or Mac or Windows or France sucks. Which is all pretty ludicrous.
Well... except for maybe the part about France...;-)
And that's why I'm a rabid proponent of mandatory speed governers on cars that limit people to driving just 15 mph. If you can't be bothered to make sure that your brakes work, it's a lot better for everyone else.;-)
Seriously, though, I haven't really had any problems with a 24/7 connection. For grins I occasionally watch for the knob-rattlers and see the usual script-kiddie junk, but my off-the-shelf firewall does a great job of keeping those off my LAN.
And as any geek worth his or her salt would do, I forbid my friends and relatives to get broadband unless they have such a firewall as well. Well, I don't actually forbid them, but I do tell them that I won't provide any more tech support if I don't see a blue or silver box between their computer and the DSL or cable modem... which has pretty much the same effect. =-)
There is something to be said for removing your machine from the net when it's not needed, but I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. If you're really paranoid, just unplug the ethernet cable... getting back online will be a lot faster than with a modem...
Finally, I'll give you yet another advantage conventional ovens have over microwaves: tape baking.
While the "premium channel" analogy has validity, I'd say that broadband is more like a microwave oven in the late 70s.
Many people (my grandmother, for example) said that they didn't see the need for a microwave. The stove and oven were more than sufficient for their needs.
Until they actually got one.
My grandmother was a holdout until 1992, when she finally bought one. A week later, she mentioned to me that she couldn't believe she'd waited that long, and that it had changed the way she cooked (and she was always a really good cook).
However, unlike a conventional oven (which is still better than a microwave for certain things like turkeys, bread, and pizza), there's not really anything a 56k connection does better than a broadband connection. Dial-up's only real advantage is that it requires no additional equipment or infrastructure, but that won't last long as the equipment becomes more common.
Another example would be the cell phone or a TiVo... something that doesn't seem all that necessary until you actually use it, then you can't stand dealing with the old way. I'm not chained to my desk anymore because I can always forward my phone to my cell. I can't stand watching "live" tv now, because TiVo has unshackled me from the temporal fetters of the network programming droids.
And I shudder inside when I have to stay in a hotel that doesn't have a broadband connection in the room... even text-email seems to take forever to download. I don't bother with web sites much when on dial-up.
Spoiled? Yeah... but then I don't see many folks using rotary phones these days, either.
While Jugalator's parent post has been modded up as "funny," I think this is a highly insightful point. Why should the goal always be to match the current leader in a field? The goal should be to surpass what's currently "best."
I love my Macs. OS X is a really cool operating system, and the first one that I've gotten really excited about using in a long time. I actually enjoy moving around in it quite a bit.
Windows XP is the point where I can finally use a PC without wanting to chuck the machine out the door more than once every few days - that's high praise from me. Windows still tries to do too much interpretation of "what I really meant" to do, but it's tolerable now, and has been pretty stable. If only it weren't a swiss cheese for security issues...
I just recently delved into the Linux world and, while I'm enjoying my time playing with it, there's a long way to go. If I had no unix knowledge at all, I would have given up already. Simple things like getting a new sound card to work, or telling the machine to recognize a modem card have turned into all-day exercises for me, and it shouldn't be that hard.
As I see it, Linux's greatest strength is its community. There are literally thousands of people who are eager to help people learn it - the same culture that makes Macintosh work, in my opinion. Linux doesn't need a fancy new GUI metaphor as much as it needs easy-to-use documentation and OS feedback. It needs accessibility and a better out-of-box experience.
I think the 3d interfaces have incredible potential, but only if they speed up our current process - not slow it down. Things like attaching notes to the backs of documents is a very cool idea... I'm the king of taking notes on envelopes while I work. This is a great example of taking a real-world activity and improving it in a virtual space. (Just make sure that I don't accidentally send my notes to other people with the document unless I want to...:-)
On the other hand, while I like the eye-candy of "flying" through my file system as a city or solar system, it's sloooooow. Navigation needs to be lightening quick and when you get right down to it, I shouldn't really have to do it. The machine should do it for me.
Apple's classic navigator video is what I dream of for the future. Once the computer is interacting with me on my terms instead of the other way around, we'll have made a true step forward.
In the meantime (and getting back to the original point)... we should all be working to be better than the best... not just "as good."
Heh heh. That's true (about The Wall) and I had meant to mention that. Thanks for the pointer on the Roger Waters DVD... I'll have to look that one up.
First off, let me make clear that I'm not positing "Binky's Infallable Law of Music and Film Distribution Economics" but simply pointing out that direct comparisons between CD and DVD pricing don't take into account the fact that films have a much broader set of revenue streams.
I am in no way saying that CDs are appropriately priced, nor am I trying to defend the RIAA or any of its policies.
That said, I'd say that concert videos costing less than their respective CD would most likely be attributable to simple market forces. In this case, the consumer is used to paying $12 - $20 for a typical CD and $15 - $30 for a DVD. Remember about ten years ago that you could buy a laserdisc of a movie for $35, but the same movie on VHS would cost significantly more... sometimes as much as $150+!
Then DVDs came out and the value bar got raised. Quality, features, and ease of use/convenience became available for a much lower price point and the consumer noticed. As a result, most VHS movies plummeted in price. Had the direct competition not been there, tapes would most likely still be expensive.
Interestingly, I note that the DVD of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" costs the same as the CD at Amazon: $27.99.
Things are priced at what the market will bear. Consider Dark Side of the Moon. That album paid for itself decades ago, but it still costs about $14 (or $40 if you want to pop for the "Limited" 20th anniversary edition). Why? Because the label charges that much and people are willing to pay that much.
For that matter, why are used CDs (that's "certified pre-owned" for you car salesmen) generally priced $4-$6 cheaper than one with the shrinkwrap, even if they're in identical condition? It's digital information - there's been no degredation in the quality of the product. Used CDs are cheaper because the market won't support a "used" cd that costs the same as a new one. There's perceived value in a shrinkwrapped package.
Now, add in the demand for the product. Why is "The Wall" (DVD or CD) still selling for almost $30? Because people want it. Live albums are often cheaper than studio albums because they don't sell as well. Further, the demand for a concert video is generally going to be lower than the demand for the CD.
The CD is (well - has been to date, anyway) more versatile in terms of where it can be utilized; most people still don't have DVD players in their cars or at work, and it's kind of hard to download DVD tracks into an MP3 player. Will that change in the future? Probably, but as the world is today, the CD can be enjoyed in a wider variety of settings than a DVD.
Finally, let's say that the record label (or one of its special market affiliates/subsidiaries) is also publishing the concert DVD (not always the case). It's most likely going to fall under the "promotional" category like videos are and is considered a recoupable expense. In other words, whatever the label pays to make the DVD gets reimbursed out of the artist's cut of the profits for the CD (!). It's therefore a relatively low-risk strategy for the label to have a low MSRP on the DVD.
As an aside, there's an interesting bit from Motley Fool about Apple's forthcoming music service that says what I tried to say in an earlier reply (only much more succinctly):
Apple is the music industry's last hope, and possibly vice versa. The prerecorded music sector needs to be reinvented, and no one paints prettier makeovers than Apple.
It will never be the way it once was. Even if every last decentralized trading ring were effectively shut down tonight, the perceived worth of music has been permanently devalued. The new model for the music industry will involve taking marketing advantages of the wider free audiences and having contractual interests in the performances and merchandising revenue streams that will only run deeper with the heightened exposure.
The music industry is going to have to do something. Even if it isn't fair to directly compare CD and DVD costs, the perceived values of one is going to impact the other...
I think you missed my point and your attempt at "sneer" quotes was both incorrectly executed and uninformed.
The movie industry, while spending more to create its product, has a much greater arsenal of tools to recoup its costs than the music industry, including:
Forced monopoly "lease" period of at least six months. When a film is in theatrical release, you have to pay every time you view it. And depending on where you live, the price of a movie is up to 75% the cost of a new-release CD (assuming you're smart enough to shop at loss-leader outlets and not the mall).
Pay-per-view/Premium Channel Licensing
Broadcast Royalties
Merchandising (Spaceballs the T-Shirt. Spaceballs the Toilet Paper)
Cross-promotional tie-ins (Burger King cups)
Video game licenses and royalties
Home video and rental store sales
Now, let's look at a record label's profit centers (not the band, but the label):
Album sales
Publishing royalties
Licensing fees (to films, other labels, compilations).
Keep in mind that the remunerative potential of the last two depends entirely on the contract with the artist. Some artists keep all or most of their publishing. And yes, I know that there are other smaller revenue streams for both music an film - I primarily wanted to hit the big ones.
As far as concerts go, that's almost always a profit center for the artist/band and not the label. Very few labels pay for touring costs any more (hence the arrival of corporate tour sponsorship), especially if the artist isn't a major force on the charts.
Just so you don't think I'm pulling this info out of thin air, let me quote from "This Business of Music" (8th Edition) by Krasilovsky and Shemel:
Touring is an excellent means of promoting an artist's album, as sales consistently increase in areas in which the artist performs. However, for most newer artists, the costs of touring exceed the income derived from the engagements.
Record companies sometimes subsidize tours on the theory that the tour will promote sales of the record, which in the long run will provide more income than is disbursed for the tour. But some recording agreements may provide that tour support is recoupable against future artist royalties. The artist should negotiate to make tour support nonrecoupable or only partially recoupable. The development of video as a promotional tool has reduced the importance of conventional tour support.
Krasilovsky, M. William and Shemel, Sidney. "This Business of Music: The Definitive Guide to the Music Industry 8th Edition." New York: Billboard Books, 2000.
In other words, the label rarely pays for a tour, and when it does, only does so in order to drive up CD sales - it gets the cost of the tour back from the artist's cut of CD profits. For labels, tours are expenses, not profit centers.
To reiterate my original point: I don't disagree that the music industry needs to both improve their product and rethink their pricing structure. The major labels exercise undue monopolistic controls over artists due to their entrenched distribution network, campaign donations to state and national legislators and executives, and a decades-old "good-ol-boy" media network relationship.
But comparisons between the music and film industries need to take into account the number of revenue streams each has at its disposal. I'm not arguing that a DVD isn't a better value than a CD. I'm just saying that if we're going to argue relative value, we have to take the full economic picture into account.
I've seen this DVD price comparison trotted out quite a bit. DVDs are definitely a good value for the money, and I definitely agree that CDs are overpriced, but the DVD comparison leaves out one part of the equation:
With a DVD, the cost-recovery for the initial project has normally already been done in the form of a theatrical release. This is where the studios normally recoup the costs of making the film. The DVD has some additional production costs, but those are generally built into the price of the DVD. You could hold up straight-to-video releases as an exception, but those are normally dogs anyway (or at least films that don't warrant the expense required for a full theatrical release), and wouldn't support a higher price. These "bargain-bin" releases are an attempt to recover at least some of the film's production costs.
With CDs, however, there is no theatrical release. CD sales are the only (well, primary anyway) means for the label to recover not only the costs of recording that album, but to support artist discovery and all the bands they paid for that didn't make it (essentially the same as R&D costs factored into the cost of software or computer hardware).
I agree that the RIAA is corrupt, screws the majority of their artists, and that CDs are overpriced. I also agree that lowering the price of a CD would do wonders for the music industry; the ease of digital transfer has lowered the effective value of music, but the industry has refused to acknowledge that, instead resorting to purchasing legislation that supports their outdated business model.
The best solution would be for musicians to realize that they truly have more power than they used to. The major labels are still needed for promotion and distribution, but they certainly aren't doing the work they used to do, specifically artist development*. As a result, they shouldn't be making the same profit/cut they used to. Unfortunately, we're dealing with a group that has immense political and economic power, that is extremely resistant to change, customer-hostile, and entrenched.
And that's never an easy thing to change.
*There are a few exceptions like Britney, but the only way to get real artist development these days is to either be signed directly by the CEO or have a multi-platinum first album. Many bands that are now considered classics (especially in the no-airplay album rock field) wouldn't survive today's environment.
I used to think that being cyber (like Johnny Mnemonic, etc.) and having a port behind my ear would be the ultimate in coolness.
But given what the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA have shown themselves capable of doing... no thanks. All I need is some punk-ass Hollywood lawyer telling me my brain is violating DRM and shutting me down.
"Attention: your synaptic processing unit has executed a forbidden instruction or unauthorized code base. Reboot will take place in thirty seconds. If you are driving a vehicle or utilizing heavy machinery, stop immediately and make your way to a safe location. You will be held liable for any damage caused while your SPU reboots. Thank you for being a customer of VivendiMicroDreamSoft."
I'm assuming that the two-button mouse thing is just a tongue-in-cheek jab - it's easy enough to get a two-button mouse and plug it in. The Mac OS has recognized two-button mice for a while now, but Steve still believes that Ma and Pa Kettle are going to get confused, so you don't get one in the box. Personally, I couldn't live without my IntelliMouse Explorer - 5 buttons and a wheel, baby!
More interesting to me, however, is that the Mac might be a better fit and a lot more useful to the military than it would appear at first blush. With its Unix underpinnings, it lends itself nicely to mission-critical applications when needed, and a lot of the Unix geeks I know really like the PowerPC chips. I'm sure the military has been recruiting a lot more Windows programmers over the last 10 years or so, but its foundations lie in the older "big iron" OSs. There are probably a lot of soldiers that would feel comfortable knowing that a Unix shell is just a click away.
Not that I know that for sure... but it seems logical to me.
This actually could be the logical extension of the arcade model if they do it right. In the mall closest to me, the comic book store currently has 8 or 10 networked PCs and charge an hourly fee. I don't think they even have an internet connection - just a LAN with copies of Warcraft, Age of Empires, Unreal Tournament, etc.
The comic book store normally has about the same number of people playing as the arcade in the same mall (and half of the arcade customers are there for DDR.
So if arcades can recognize the potential and provide a distinct advantage over the backroom LAN setups and Internet Cafes, they might just survive. Immersive sit-down enclosures with surround-sound and tactile feedback would sure beat a folding metal chair and a beige box PC on a card table... Some sort of communication protocol for team play would also be a big advantage.
The most important thing of all, however, is going to be a killer app. Assuming that we're talking about an internet hookup, a persistent environment would be cool... a never-ending Normandy invasion for example. Another cool scenario would be joining a space fighter wing in the hanger just before launching to attack the enemy cruiser or death star, or popping up in the Delta Force tent just in time to hear the mission briefing and catch the chopper with your 7 buddies...
The trick to all of this is that it will probably take a deep-pockets company with both the means and the will to weather the initial investment for enclosures and software, not to mention the probable low-revenue beginnings of such a venture. There aren't too many of those companies around.
I don't think the arcade concept is dead, but with the advent of relatively high-quality home machines, the bar has been raised significantly and the pay-per-play model has to provide not only a better experience, but a sufficient value.
Movie theaters are a great parallel - as VCRs proliferated, theaters had to change their customers' experience. By offering things like stadium seating huge screens, and incredible sound systems, they lured people back to the megaplex. Now that home theaters are not only high quality, but relatively affordable, it will be interesting to see what theaters do next.
Wouldn't that record belong to either some event involving most Middle Eastern governments or a meeting at the Vatican?
Geeks got nothing on religion when it comes to excluding women...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
There is much to be said for this. The threat of deadly force is often enough. The sound of a shotgun being loaded/pumped in a darkened and quiet house is chilling to say the least. Even if you're anti-gun, having a shotgun in the house with no ammo could still provide a nice deterrent. Heck, if the pump action doesn't send an intruder running to the door, grab the barrel and whack 'em in the head with the stock.
From personal experience, I know that my wife never felt secure when I was travelling, despite having a fairly advanced and comprehensive alarm system. It wasn't until we adopted an abandoned/abused German Shepherd that my wife felt safe when alone in the house at night.
It was pretty amazing to watch the dog's protective instincts go to work. Almost immediately I noticed her getting up at night to check the doors or investigate a sound she didn't like. Also, we have a glass front door which used to make me nervous. Now I like having it a lot because even solicitors tend to skip the house with the "insane police dog" barking at them on the other side of the glass. Even the ones who do ring the doorbell are normally standing off the front porch about 6' away when I come to the door, and I never get high pressure anymore as I hold the dog's collar and poke my head through the barely opened door.
It might not keep the car from getting stolen, and I have to vacuum a lot more often, but I feel much more secure with a 65 pound mass of claws and teeth who loves me, distrusts anyone I haven't introduced her to, and who can hear a mosquito across the house with the air conditioning on...
Yeah... like "Future Director, Microsoft R&D" maybe?
I KID!!! I KID BECAUSE I LOVE!!!
Interestingly, it turns out that many truckers are huge fans of wireless access and, when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. These folks are on the road for the majority of every month, but they still have to run their lives, communicate with friends and family, etc.
After a recent road trip I did a google for "PrePass" to see if it was connected to sensors I kept seeing over the highway (it is). Among the hits I got was a site run by a married pair of truckers. The relevant part:
How do you go on-line from your truck?
I use a wireless device which allows me to connect at impressive speeds to the web. The device is a product of Novatel and is available through Sprint. Ask for the PCS Connection Card. Unfortunately the service is expensive and is not available everywhere but for the most part, if I am on an Interstate I have access to the Internet.
(link)
The site is actually pretty interesting, especially the Road Stories section - it's a nice glimpse into the lives of truckers beyond the stereotypes.
The first ten delineated are inalienable rights. They can't be amended. They are at a different standard from the rest of them.
I wasn't aware that the first ten couldn't be changed. All the better. =-) My point was simply that much of what the Federal government does today is in violation of the Constitution. It doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't be doing it (although most of the time it does, only that they need to get the amendment passed to give them the legal authority to do it.
It should be hard for the Federal government to expand... not to prevent change, but to make sure that the change is truly mandated. But over the years we've watched the Constitution erode to the point where presidents can effectively wage war without Congress, legislation can be purchased by the largest association, and the courts can more or less change the law to their liking, I don't hold high hopes for the foundations on which the country was built when all three pillars are crumbling so badly.
Quote:
-----
-----
I wouldn't presume to put words into his mouth, but since coming up with convoluted justifications is a tradition here, let's pretend that this ended up in some kind of lawsuit. I can easily see lawyers for the government and airlines saying something to the effect of:
Now then... this might open up the airline to a lawsuit based on a violation of its own published privacy policy, but I'd be really surprised if there isn't weasel language in that indemnifying them to sale of your information...
Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone is even the least bit surprised at these types of governmental behaviors, and it's not just a Bush administration thing (although I'm very bothered by the accelerating erosion of civil rights recently).
I'm not sure when it happened, (I suspect around the early 1900s and culminating with FDR) but the American populace shifted from viewing the Constitution as a document granting very specific powers to the government and forbidding it to do anything else (with the Bill of Rights acting as further clarification to some very specific examples) to viewing the Constitution as a list of rights the people. If the people only have certain rights, then the government must have the rest of them. Or so the thinking goes...
That's not to say that some government programs don't do a lot of good, but think about all of the things that are blatantly unconstitutional: national speed limits and drinking ages*, the department of education, the ATF, that sweet $450,000 grant to study the mating habits of aboriginal fruit flys in Southern Idaho.
(*Note that I recognize that the government doesn't necessarily pass national laws for these things, but it does extort the states by taking tax revenues out of the states, then holding that money hostage in the form of education and highway funds until the states comply with the will of the Feds... it becomes a de facto federal law.)
Again, I'm not saying that some national programs and laws aren't useful or beneficial, simply that they're unconstitutional because they aren't specifically allowed for by the Constitution which clearly states that any powers not granted within the document are reserved to the states and/or people.
And I'm not against granting the Federal government additional powers, but if they're needed, they damn well better be provided for in a Constitutional amendment, otherwise they're invalid.
I'll use a hot-button topic to illustrate: gun control. If the majority of the American people truly want the federal government to legally control the sale of firearms (of whatever type), that's fine. The framers allowed for the Constitution to be amended in order to accommodate the times. But there needs to be a Constitutional amendment revoking the 2nd amendment and establishing the new powers, because otherwise, any gun control
Well, if they're headed to Houston, they can. The Houston Real-Time Traffic Map now covers nearly every stretch of metro-Houston's highway system including toll-roads and HOV lanes, and provides information on accidents, etc. The map is auto-refreshed every 3 minutes.
The system uses sensors placed on over-road to read the "easy-pass" toll road transponders that many people have and establishes average speeds for each stretch of road. My only gripe about the system is that, as of the last time the topic was discussed online, the system does not anonymize the data.
Obviously the system has to have uniquely identifiable data points, but most people who have these toll tags aren't aware that the tags are also providing a record of their speeds to the transit authority that can be directly linked to their automobile. During the testing phase, I also seem to remember that they were using the system to determine where people were going to identify the most common routes. Like any tracking system, this could be used to figure out where to add bus services (or build commuter rail lines instead of our idiotic downtown light-rail system), but given the track record of most governmental agencies for using these types of systems, I doubt that will be the first use.
Nobody's gotten a ticket from this (yet), but with so many major cities scrambling to find new sources of income to shore up their budgets, I wonder how long it will be before the police departments identify this as an easy source of revenue. All it will take is a few cameras to provide a positive ID of the driver along with the speed record from the system and bingo! Instant income for that new initiative that they couldn't get the voters to approve.
As for wireless hotpoint in rest areas, I say it's a pretty cool idea. West Texas is especially hard to drive through - there are some places where you really do have to pay attention those "last gas for 200 miles" signs. Of course, that's offset by the fact that you can see the cops coming long before you're in radar range. ;-) If I can take a break and check my email on the way... cool.
Which is a perfect illustration of what so many other posters are saying in this thread: any technology can be used for good or evil. ;-)
Er... I thought that was kind of my point. Apple has intentionally removed cross-compatibility. 4.5, 4.2, and 4.0 libraries won't work with each other. This is not a change in the library structure but a limitation in the software itself. This necessitates keeping multiple versions of iTunes in your archive to enable the features you're interested in using at the time.
You have to use the appropriate version on all of your machines at the same time which is a pain, but worth it if you really want to listen to your home library when you're traveling or at work on another LAN.
The good news is that the library data itself isn't different. A "4.0" library is just the same as a "4.2" library - it's just that the client and server check versions to ensure that they're compatible with each other. All you have to do is run the appropriate executable - the library doesn't change, and neither do the playlists.
It's pretty trivial to keep the old versions, though; simply m
ake a copy of iTunes and rename it "iTunes 4.2" (or whatever) before you start the software update process.
The logic is fairly easy to understand: Apple's leadership position in the downloadable music market hinges entirely on its ability to get the labels to license the tracks for download. If Apple doesn't go way out of their way to keep DRM irritatingly hard to work around, the labels yank the music and head over to Redmond which is more than happy to screw the consumer.
Apple is walking a fine line here... Without the tracks, it has nothing to sell. Without fairly liberal license terms, people just head back to the latest peer-to-peer client and nobody makes money.
So the logic in breaking backwards compatibility is that if there's no penalty to keeping a 4.2 or 4.0 version running, people will still be able to use Fairplay or stream to non-lan IP addresses while enjoying all of the benefits of the new 4.5 version.
What's going to end up happening is that everyone will maintain a full library of iTunes versions (like I do) and use the version that's most appropriate for their needs. Want to listen to your home library at work or on the road? Fire up 4.0 before you leave. Want to get rid of the DRM on your tracks? Run 4.2 and FairPlay, then switch back to 4.5 and enjoy the new features.
I'm sure these older versions will break with a system upgrade down the road, but by then, there might be an even cooler jukebox out there.
To me, the larger question is how long it's going to take the media industry to schedule a rectal craniotomy and figure out how to deal with the 21st century instead of hanging out in the 1990s.
I agree that getting some of the outsource and layoof walking-dead into teaching is a great idea. In fact, it was an idea that I flirted with myself.
But despite my enthusiasm, I quickly ran into reality. Many school districts only let you teach a subject in which you have a degree. So even though I'm quite confident that I could teach an English, History, or other Liberal Arts class, I wasn't able to because my degree was in another field.
Oh yeah, there's also that teaching certificate that most nerds don't have. Some districts let you teach while getting your certificate, but there's still often at least a 6 month ramp-up before you can get into the classroom.
Between the internal politics, the "mandated" teaching curriculums, the abysmal salaries (only a $6k difference between a starting teacher with a BA/BS and one with a Ph.D. and average annual raises of around $600), and the breathing apparatus necessary to wade through all the hormones floating around the average high school/middle school, I decided that it wasn't worth it.
Which is a shame, because I like teaching.
I see it as only a temporary advantage, though. Our current dial-up system didn't just pop into being - it took years/decades for the infrastructure (copper wires, fiber trunk lines, satellites, etc) to get rolled out. Most slashdotters probably don't remember a time when a "long distance" call was a really big deal.... They probably also don't remember a time when finally getting that 1200bps modem made one feel like a god among men.
By comparison, broadband access is becoming accessible much more quickly. Most of the hotels I stay in already offer free broadband access. I plug in an ethernet cable, my computer gets an IP address via DHCP and I'm good to go. No searching for the local access number, no surcharge for using the 800 number... just a connection. Heck, even the corner coffee shop (not even a Starbucks) offers Wi-Fi access.
My point was simply that dial-up's only current advantage over broadband is that it's already completely rolled out, while broadband infrastructure is still being constructed. Once broadband access is as ubiquitous as dial-up (in either wired or wireless forms), I doubt many people will be choosing to use the slower, less capable connection.
At that point, the only advantage I see dial-up access providing will be enhanced security - broadband requires that your data travel over someone else's system whereas a dial-up connection can deliver you directly into the system you need. Advances in encryption and tunneling will negate even this advantage, though.
I recognize that dial-up is currently a more universal access method and that broadband is more of a luxury. I just don't think that's going to last very long, especially as content and applications begin demanding more bandwidth.
I certainly wasn't trying to portray people who use 56k as moronic or clueless, merely pointing out that like many other technological advances, the true benefit of broadband isn't necessarily apparent without getting some first-hand experience.
And in my follow-up post to another reply, I was pointing out that many of my friends and relatives aren't computer-saavy and don't know how to deal with the threats that an always-on connection brings. Heck, they probably don't even realize that there are threats/dangers in having an always-on connection. So I let them know.
Yes, there are some slashdotters who snort in derision at the non-technical. That's how they maintain a fragile sense of superiority. I can't compile my own linux kernel or get my soundcard working with Mandrake, so I guess I'm one of the little people, too.
As you pointed out, every field does this... it's part of human nature, I suppose - part of the same bit of DNA that requires us to defend our choices by proclaiming, with decals of a urinating Calvin, that Ford or Chevrolet or Mac or Windows or France sucks. Which is all pretty ludicrous.
Well... except for maybe the part about France... ;-)
(Pardonnez-moi, je plaisantent.)
And that's why I'm a rabid proponent of mandatory speed governers on cars that limit people to driving just 15 mph. If you can't be bothered to make sure that your brakes work, it's a lot better for everyone else. ;-)
Seriously, though, I haven't really had any problems with a 24/7 connection. For grins I occasionally watch for the knob-rattlers and see the usual script-kiddie junk, but my off-the-shelf firewall does a great job of keeping those off my LAN.
And as any geek worth his or her salt would do, I forbid my friends and relatives to get broadband unless they have such a firewall as well. Well, I don't actually forbid them, but I do tell them that I won't provide any more tech support if I don't see a blue or silver box between their computer and the DSL or cable modem... which has pretty much the same effect. =-)
There is something to be said for removing your machine from the net when it's not needed, but I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. If you're really paranoid, just unplug the ethernet cable... getting back online will be a lot faster than with a modem...
Finally, I'll give you yet another advantage conventional ovens have over microwaves: tape baking.
While the "premium channel" analogy has validity, I'd say that broadband is more like a microwave oven in the late 70s.
Many people (my grandmother, for example) said that they didn't see the need for a microwave. The stove and oven were more than sufficient for their needs.
Until they actually got one.
My grandmother was a holdout until 1992, when she finally bought one. A week later, she mentioned to me that she couldn't believe she'd waited that long, and that it had changed the way she cooked (and she was always a really good cook).
However, unlike a conventional oven (which is still better than a microwave for certain things like turkeys, bread, and pizza), there's not really anything a 56k connection does better than a broadband connection. Dial-up's only real advantage is that it requires no additional equipment or infrastructure, but that won't last long as the equipment becomes more common.
Another example would be the cell phone or a TiVo... something that doesn't seem all that necessary until you actually use it, then you can't stand dealing with the old way. I'm not chained to my desk anymore because I can always forward my phone to my cell. I can't stand watching "live" tv now, because TiVo has unshackled me from the temporal fetters of the network programming droids.
And I shudder inside when I have to stay in a hotel that doesn't have a broadband connection in the room... even text-email seems to take forever to download. I don't bother with web sites much when on dial-up.
Spoiled? Yeah... but then I don't see many folks using rotary phones these days, either.
While Jugalator's parent post has been modded up as "funny," I think this is a highly insightful point. Why should the goal always be to match the current leader in a field? The goal should be to surpass what's currently "best."
:-)
I love my Macs. OS X is a really cool operating system, and the first one that I've gotten really excited about using in a long time. I actually enjoy moving around in it quite a bit.
Windows XP is the point where I can finally use a PC without wanting to chuck the machine out the door more than once every few days - that's high praise from me. Windows still tries to do too much interpretation of "what I really meant" to do, but it's tolerable now, and has been pretty stable. If only it weren't a swiss cheese for security issues...
I just recently delved into the Linux world and, while I'm enjoying my time playing with it, there's a long way to go. If I had no unix knowledge at all, I would have given up already. Simple things like getting a new sound card to work, or telling the machine to recognize a modem card have turned into all-day exercises for me, and it shouldn't be that hard.
As I see it, Linux's greatest strength is its community. There are literally thousands of people who are eager to help people learn it - the same culture that makes Macintosh work, in my opinion. Linux doesn't need a fancy new GUI metaphor as much as it needs easy-to-use documentation and OS feedback. It needs accessibility and a better out-of-box experience.
I think the 3d interfaces have incredible potential, but only if they speed up our current process - not slow it down. Things like attaching notes to the backs of documents is a very cool idea... I'm the king of taking notes on envelopes while I work. This is a great example of taking a real-world activity and improving it in a virtual space. (Just make sure that I don't accidentally send my notes to other people with the document unless I want to...
On the other hand, while I like the eye-candy of "flying" through my file system as a city or solar system, it's sloooooow. Navigation needs to be lightening quick and when you get right down to it, I shouldn't really have to do it. The machine should do it for me.
Apple's classic navigator video is what I dream of for the future. Once the computer is interacting with me on my terms instead of the other way around, we'll have made a true step forward.
In the meantime (and getting back to the original point)... we should all be working to be better than the best... not just "as good."
Now we know why he switched from Titanium to Aluminum...
Heh heh. That's true (about The Wall) and I had meant to mention that. Thanks for the pointer on the Roger Waters DVD... I'll have to look that one up.
First off, let me make clear that I'm not positing "Binky's Infallable Law of Music and Film Distribution Economics" but simply pointing out that direct comparisons between CD and DVD pricing don't take into account the fact that films have a much broader set of revenue streams.
I am in no way saying that CDs are appropriately priced, nor am I trying to defend the RIAA or any of its policies.
That said, I'd say that concert videos costing less than their respective CD would most likely be attributable to simple market forces. In this case, the consumer is used to paying $12 - $20 for a typical CD and $15 - $30 for a DVD. Remember about ten years ago that you could buy a laserdisc of a movie for $35, but the same movie on VHS would cost significantly more... sometimes as much as $150+!
Then DVDs came out and the value bar got raised. Quality, features, and ease of use/convenience became available for a much lower price point and the consumer noticed. As a result, most VHS movies plummeted in price. Had the direct competition not been there, tapes would most likely still be expensive.
Interestingly, I note that the DVD of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" costs the same as the CD at Amazon: $27.99.
Things are priced at what the market will bear. Consider Dark Side of the Moon. That album paid for itself decades ago, but it still costs about $14 (or $40 if you want to pop for the "Limited" 20th anniversary edition). Why? Because the label charges that much and people are willing to pay that much.
For that matter, why are used CDs (that's "certified pre-owned" for you car salesmen) generally priced $4-$6 cheaper than one with the shrinkwrap, even if they're in identical condition? It's digital information - there's been no degredation in the quality of the product. Used CDs are cheaper because the market won't support a "used" cd that costs the same as a new one. There's perceived value in a shrinkwrapped package.
Now, add in the demand for the product. Why is "The Wall" (DVD or CD) still selling for almost $30? Because people want it. Live albums are often cheaper than studio albums because they don't sell as well. Further, the demand for a concert video is generally going to be lower than the demand for the CD.
The CD is (well - has been to date, anyway) more versatile in terms of where it can be utilized; most people still don't have DVD players in their cars or at work, and it's kind of hard to download DVD tracks into an MP3 player. Will that change in the future? Probably, but as the world is today, the CD can be enjoyed in a wider variety of settings than a DVD.
Finally, let's say that the record label (or one of its special market affiliates/subsidiaries) is also publishing the concert DVD (not always the case). It's most likely going to fall under the "promotional" category like videos are and is considered a recoupable expense. In other words, whatever the label pays to make the DVD gets reimbursed out of the artist's cut of the profits for the CD (!). It's therefore a relatively low-risk strategy for the label to have a low MSRP on the DVD.
As an aside, there's an interesting bit from Motley Fool about Apple's forthcoming music service that says what I tried to say in an earlier reply (only much more succinctly):
The music industry is going to have to do something. Even if it isn't fair to directly compare CD and DVD costs, the perceived values of one is going to impact the other...
I think you missed my point and your attempt at "sneer" quotes was both incorrectly executed and uninformed.
The movie industry, while spending more to create its product, has a much greater arsenal of tools to recoup its costs than the music industry, including:
Now, let's look at a record label's profit centers (not the band, but the label):
Keep in mind that the remunerative potential of the last two depends entirely on the contract with the artist. Some artists keep all or most of their publishing. And yes, I know that there are other smaller revenue streams for both music an film - I primarily wanted to hit the big ones.
As far as concerts go, that's almost always a profit center for the artist/band and not the label. Very few labels pay for touring costs any more (hence the arrival of corporate tour sponsorship), especially if the artist isn't a major force on the charts.
Just so you don't think I'm pulling this info out of thin air, let me quote from "This Business of Music" (8th Edition) by Krasilovsky and Shemel:
In other words, the label rarely pays for a tour, and when it does, only does so in order to drive up CD sales - it gets the cost of the tour back from the artist's cut of CD profits. For labels, tours are expenses, not profit centers.
To reiterate my original point: I don't disagree that the music industry needs to both improve their product and rethink their pricing structure. The major labels exercise undue monopolistic controls over artists due to their entrenched distribution network, campaign donations to state and national legislators and executives, and a decades-old "good-ol-boy" media network relationship.
But comparisons between the music and film industries need to take into account the number of revenue streams each has at its disposal. I'm not arguing that a DVD isn't a better value than a CD. I'm just saying that if we're going to argue relative value, we have to take the full economic picture into account.
I've seen this DVD price comparison trotted out quite a bit. DVDs are definitely a good value for the money, and I definitely agree that CDs are overpriced, but the DVD comparison leaves out one part of the equation:
With a DVD, the cost-recovery for the initial project has normally already been done in the form of a theatrical release. This is where the studios normally recoup the costs of making the film. The DVD has some additional production costs, but those are generally built into the price of the DVD. You could hold up straight-to-video releases as an exception, but those are normally dogs anyway (or at least films that don't warrant the expense required for a full theatrical release), and wouldn't support a higher price. These "bargain-bin" releases are an attempt to recover at least some of the film's production costs.
With CDs, however, there is no theatrical release. CD sales are the only (well, primary anyway) means for the label to recover not only the costs of recording that album, but to support artist discovery and all the bands they paid for that didn't make it (essentially the same as R&D costs factored into the cost of software or computer hardware).
I agree that the RIAA is corrupt, screws the majority of their artists, and that CDs are overpriced. I also agree that lowering the price of a CD would do wonders for the music industry; the ease of digital transfer has lowered the effective value of music, but the industry has refused to acknowledge that, instead resorting to purchasing legislation that supports their outdated business model.
The best solution would be for musicians to realize that they truly have more power than they used to. The major labels are still needed for promotion and distribution, but they certainly aren't doing the work they used to do, specifically artist development*. As a result, they shouldn't be making the same profit/cut they used to. Unfortunately, we're dealing with a group that has immense political and economic power, that is extremely resistant to change, customer-hostile, and entrenched.
And that's never an easy thing to change.
*There are a few exceptions like Britney, but the only way to get real artist development these days is to either be signed directly by the CEO or have a multi-platinum first album. Many bands that are now considered classics (especially in the no-airplay album rock field) wouldn't survive today's environment.
I used to think that being cyber (like Johnny Mnemonic, etc.) and having a port behind my ear would be the ultimate in coolness.
But given what the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA have shown themselves capable of doing... no thanks. All I need is some punk-ass Hollywood lawyer telling me my brain is violating DRM and shutting me down.
"Attention: your synaptic processing unit has executed a forbidden instruction or unauthorized code base. Reboot will take place in thirty seconds. If you are driving a vehicle or utilizing heavy machinery, stop immediately and make your way to a safe location. You will be held liable for any damage caused while your SPU reboots. Thank you for being a customer of VivendiMicroDreamSoft."
I'm assuming that the two-button mouse thing is just a tongue-in-cheek jab - it's easy enough to get a two-button mouse and plug it in. The Mac OS has recognized two-button mice for a while now, but Steve still believes that Ma and Pa Kettle are going to get confused, so you don't get one in the box. Personally, I couldn't live without my IntelliMouse Explorer - 5 buttons and a wheel, baby!
More interesting to me, however, is that the Mac might be a better fit and a lot more useful to the military than it would appear at first blush. With its Unix underpinnings, it lends itself nicely to mission-critical applications when needed, and a lot of the Unix geeks I know really like the PowerPC chips. I'm sure the military has been recruiting a lot more Windows programmers over the last 10 years or so, but its foundations lie in the older "big iron" OSs. There are probably a lot of soldiers that would feel comfortable knowing that a Unix shell is just a click away.
Not that I know that for sure... but it seems logical to me.
This actually could be the logical extension of the arcade model if they do it right. In the mall closest to me, the comic book store currently has 8 or 10 networked PCs and charge an hourly fee. I don't think they even have an internet connection - just a LAN with copies of Warcraft, Age of Empires, Unreal Tournament, etc.
The comic book store normally has about the same number of people playing as the arcade in the same mall (and half of the arcade customers are there for DDR.
So if arcades can recognize the potential and provide a distinct advantage over the backroom LAN setups and Internet Cafes, they might just survive. Immersive sit-down enclosures with surround-sound and tactile feedback would sure beat a folding metal chair and a beige box PC on a card table... Some sort of communication protocol for team play would also be a big advantage.
The most important thing of all, however, is going to be a killer app. Assuming that we're talking about an internet hookup, a persistent environment would be cool... a never-ending Normandy invasion for example. Another cool scenario would be joining a space fighter wing in the hanger just before launching to attack the enemy cruiser or death star, or popping up in the Delta Force tent just in time to hear the mission briefing and catch the chopper with your 7 buddies...
The trick to all of this is that it will probably take a deep-pockets company with both the means and the will to weather the initial investment for enclosures and software, not to mention the probable low-revenue beginnings of such a venture. There aren't too many of those companies around.
I don't think the arcade concept is dead, but with the advent of relatively high-quality home machines, the bar has been raised significantly and the pay-per-play model has to provide not only a better experience, but a sufficient value.
Movie theaters are a great parallel - as VCRs proliferated, theaters had to change their customers' experience. By offering things like stadium seating huge screens, and incredible sound systems, they lured people back to the megaplex. Now that home theaters are not only high quality, but relatively affordable, it will be interesting to see what theaters do next.
Wouldn't that record belong to either some event involving most Middle Eastern governments or a meeting at the Vatican? Geeks got nothing on religion when it comes to excluding women... ;-)
What's funny is that I said exactly the same thing after reading the Perl Cookbook.