"People still go to theaters because there is currently no other method to see these movies the way they're meant to be seen"
Ah, so you mean if people could have better quality warez, they'd stop supporting the MPAA. That's exactly what we *don't* need.
What we need is a fair way to compensate the studios, not theater-resolution DivXes. (well actually we do need those, but distributed by the MPAA, and not some self-proclaimed hax0r in a basement)
"20 million phones, say only 1% active at a time means 200,000 phones active, each streaming at 256 kilobits means 6400000 kilo bytes of bandwidth required. In other words that is 6.4 GigaBYTES of bandwith required by the mobile network."
Only if you route all traffic through one point, which would of course be terribly silly...
As some people have pointed out, it is good that someone is trying to get bad administrators to secure their networks.
However, that they are doing it because of yet another terrorism threat is definitely not good. The way terrorists are used as a reason for anything nowadays is very scary.
Even if they'd use these tactics to disband Microsoft, I'd still be against them.
Whenever there's a story about mobile phones on slashdot, I always see all these posts proudly claiming either
A) They don't need a cell phone/normal people don't need a cell phone
B) All these new features are unnecessary.
C) They need a cell phone only for making calls.
The main motivation seems to be to distinguish themselves from "ignorant teenagers" and such. Well I thank God for those ignorant teenagers. Sure, making your phone look like it belongs in a circus isn't stylish, but if it weren't for these teenagers we'd have no technological advancement whatsoever. At least not if left with the demand curve of the average slashdotter.
To group A I simply say this: For five years I haven't had a single meeting with friends that hasn't been set up by saying "Come to town, somewhere, sometime around 13:00. I'll call you when I'm free from my previous appointment." A few months ago, I had to meet someone who didn't have a cell phone, and it was somewhere I'd never been before. We had to set a very rigorous schedule with an exact but unknown location and it took us half an hour to find each other. Damn right normal people don't need cell phones, huh?
And that's just one argument, I didn't even mention safety etc.
To group B: I am currently going to college one Atlantic ocean away from my family. I'd kill for a video phone. No, webcams aren't enough. I can't whip out my laptop whenever I'm doing something fun I want my parents to see. There IS demand for advanced features beyond that of the "look what I have" factor.
To group C, these are the additional features of my current phone:
Ring tones for voice and SMS - very useful, I never have to check my phone when another one rings. My tone is tasteful.
Alarm clock - the only alarm clock I need.
Games - ok, unnecessary, but they can kill time, and who cares if they're there.
Java - I could write my own applications if I wasn't too lazy.
Calculator - Has saved me several times.
Unit converter - Invaluable having moved to the promised land of non-base10 conversions.
Calendar - Wouldn't remember anything without my always ready to alert calendar. Oh and I can sync it with my PC too.
Infrared - Hey, I can use my phone as a wireless modem!
Bluetooth - Wow, this is even easier than infrared.
Voice recorder - Never embarrass yourself looking for a pencil and paper again.
Countdown timer - faster than setting the alarm, very convenient for short periods of time.
Stopwatch - I use this every week to time things.
WAP - not really useful, but I can't wait 'til I get a phone that can browse the real internet.
Anyone saying that you can find these functions on other devices should remember that I have all of them in the volume of a few matchboxes. Think about it.
Not to disparage the original submitter, but the whole idea of burning a CD to make MP3s is retarded.
Wow, dual lossy compression and a chance to pollute the environment. Who can say no?
Seriously, when are these companies going to get out of the whole CD-mindset? Here we have a record company backed download service, and it's tailor made for burning CDs. This isn't a download service, folks, it's a speedy form of mail order.
I am not paying for the disc!! I do not want to burn the tracks onto polluting removable media just to listen to the music wherever I want to!
(oh and I do realize it said you can move the files to another computer, but come on... using their software, only on approved devices. Yuck.)
"Now, I consider this worse - you can expect policy to breach privacy - but you are not supposed to expect that from a major telco....or...actually...are you?"
No, you aren't, but to be fair Sonera seems to have handled this incident pretty gracefully instead of covering up for the few employees that are suspected of the crime: "The NBI investigation was launched recently at Sonera's own request". I think this says more about the company than the breach itself.
"By some act of manufacturing or quirk of human nature, cell phones seem to have this inherent ability to turn otherwise friendly, considerate people into inconsiderate jerks."
Wrong, they give *seemingly* considerate people a *means* to be inconsiderate. There's a difference.
"On top of the obvious rudness of leaving your cell phone to ring in a movie"
Yes, this is rude. The last time I heard a phone ring in a theater was years ago. People have now learned what the vibrate-function does, so this is a non-issue and personally I'm sick of hearing it used as an argument.
"It says, "Not only are you not interesting enough to talk to, but you're so insignificant, I'm not going to feel any qualms about interrupting your ride by talking at the top of my voice.""
Um, sorry, but you *are* insignificant. Why should I show interest in some total stranger just because he's sitting next to me? I agree I should not use an above normal voice, but if you want to feel offended because I have something better to do than talk to random people, be my guest.
Why don't you do something productive yourself, like read a book about self-esteem or whatever.
As several people have pointed out, locking the mouse would still leave us with keyboard access.
Of course, the keyboard could also be locked, but who the hell would want to type with one hand on the mouse?
Since neither of those options are good, the only thing left is to use it for authentication at the beginning of a session. So if I'm only going to use it as a fancy password (which is stupid anyway, considering the error rate), what benefit is there to having it on the mouse? None.
And I believe we can all see the negative side-effects of sticking even more stuff on something we move rather aggressively all the time...
"I've often wondered why operating systems today require so much RAM in the first place. Most people just want to browse the web, check their email, and perhaps play some music. Why does Windows, or any other OS, require such resources to pull off these relatively simple tasks?"
Because surfing the web at 640x480x4bpp with one font loaded and a UI that looks like it's from the 80's isn't all that enjoyable:-)
But seriously, if we start listing all the small improvements in Windows XP since Windows 3.1 (ok so that's not the first version, but the first I've used) we end up with a large amount of used resources even though one improvement in itself doesn't require all that much.
Here are some OS-level functions I really wouldn't want to live without even when just surfing:
>=1600x1200x32 desktop with multiple monitor support Cleartype Pre-emptive multitasking with good memory management NTFS features 32-bit icons (no, seriously, those eat memory too) The option of running apps as another user Knowing that pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del will always bring up the Windows UI and not some spyware pretending to be a logon prompt. (ok, so that's probably hackable too, but...) Firewall (ok so it's debatable whether one wants to use the MS one...)
It is of course true that normal users don't know what half of these things are, but at the same time they're using them all the time. These things bring them security, stability, and convenience. If MS were to lower the memory requirements of Windows, most people would be screaming at them for making the OS uglier and less convenient.
And please, no MS jokes. I'd apply the same reasoning to all OS's. Advanced users may of course browse the internet from a command prompt after having loaded Linux into the memory space of a wristwatch, but that's not what the average user wants.
"There is nothing we have to take away, so no need to force agreement to the terms. In fact, the GPL says as much."
A lot of people seem to be saying this, but there are a few parts of the GPL I would like users to see even if they don't agree to the rest of it:
"Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software."
"11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION."
and
"12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."
The United States has a very, very, very large land mass compared to Japan or Finland, or any other country in Europe that has cooler cell phone technology than we do.
IMHO that's not the issue. First of all, Finland has a population of roughly five million with a density of about 17 people per square kilometer.
Why's that important? Because if these services can be rolled out (profitably) in Finland, then the following technique could be used in the US:
1. Define one single national standard.
2. Try it out in one city that has an insane population density.
3. If it's profitable, start expanding to other places based on the already defined national standard. Each and every company could compete using the same standard.
Instead, this is what I think has happened:
1. Company A decides to implement a standard of its own for voice calls. Company B does the same.
2. Very few people buy phones because of major interoperability issues. (This is not the case in Finland, to continue using it as an example. A Finnish GSM phone will work anywhere in Europe, and around most of the world. Virtually everyone has one.)
3. Because of the slow growth, a mobile phone culture hasn't yet formed in the U.S, slowing down the growth even more. Thus operators have less resources to implement new features, and even if they did they'd probably be proprietary, worsening the already bad situation.
What we need is a worldwide standard that everyone would adhere to. What we have now is a bunch of companies trying to out-Microsoft each other. And yes, I do realize that's easier said than done, but it should at least be given some thought.
First of all, I'd like to emphasize that I in no way condone actually talking while watching a movie, having the sound on, or having the sound on in a restaurant etc. I just believe more considerate people shouldn't be blocked simply to stop the inconsiderate ones.
I would very much like to see a solution like a Bluetooth-network inside the theater that would flag the area as silenced. If this setting couldn't be overridden, phones would still work, but all sounds would be forcibly turned off. It could also prevent the making of calls.
Now for some more ranting!
No, just movies in theaters.
Ah, but the problem is that people disturbed by phones would also get disturbed at places like restaurants etc. Where would you draw the line?
If your friends can't understand a desire to not annoy others, you need new friends.
They would understand that desire. However, saying that I can't go to movies with them (all the time) cause I need to have an operating cell phone with me would instead sound like a very lame excuse not to see them. And even if they understood totally, they'd inevitably start classifying me as boring company ("never goes anywhere").
If you weren't running a glaring backlit mobile phone to draw attention to your crotch, it would be a lot easier for those around you to watch the film.
I could cover the screen with my free hand, allowing only myself to see it.
Because it makes noise and I have heard them in meetings, theaters, offices, and restaurants.
OK. This portion of the argument is subjective, even though I've never noticed the noise. There is a third option, though: wearing a hands-free device throughout the movie. Any alert could be played directly into the user's ear. And yes, I am willing to do this in order to be available.
It's not up to you to decide whether you should inconvenience and discomfort me.
Yes and no, actually. If everyone could decide for themselves, anything could be defined as discomforting. You should also notice that being without a phone would inconvenience *me*, so the same argument could be applied in the other direction.
Your company can hire multiple people to rotate the "on-call" responsibilities.
Yes, but I'm also planning on having kids some day. No one can rotate that responsibility with me.
And I suppose you think it's fine if some idiot sysadmin running through a crowd runs into a pregnant woman, small child, handicapped, or elderly person while rushing to get www.petfoodmart.com back online?
Bad analogy, sorry... I can't come up with a better one right now, but my point was that I'm willing to endure a little discomfort to help other people. Letting people receive text messages in movie theaters couldn't hurt pregnant women:-)
Obviously, your car is on cinder blocks in your front yard, but rest assured that my car is perfectly mobile.
So whenever you're out of your house you always stay in your car? A mobile phone will reach its peak potential only when carried around like a body part.
Sorry if I sound a bit fanatic comparing phones to body parts, but I love the sense of freedom that always being available gives me;-) Granted, some people feel it's a ball and chain, but I view it as something that lets me be in contact with anyone, anytime. It's great.
1) RGB, or any other color space -- can create any color if you look at it from far enough. besides, even if panda can only see two primary colours like dogs -- the TV image will still look the same as real world -- unless they can see into beyond the visible spectrum (i do not think this is the case, by the way), because the TVs are calibrated for the visible spectrum, and any near-infrared / uv will come off totally screwed up.
I am not familiar with the operating principles of rods and cones, so I'd like someone to discount the possibility I'm going to describe. As it is now, I can't be sure if the person I'm quoting is correct.
OK, so let's say human cones are calibrated to one of three frequencies, x,y,z. Thus, xyz-colorspace monitors would be able to produce any color within that range by emitting varying amounts of photons.
If the color FF,00,ED (using a 24-bit colorspace for convenience) is to be produced, the monitor would emit FF x-frequency photons, 0 y-frequency photons and ED z-frequency photons. The x, y and z receptors would notice their respective photons and the brain would compile the perceived color into a single type of photons of frequency (FFx+0y+EDz)/3.
This would work perfectly, of course, unless suddenly someone would develop a set of eyes that would sense the frequencies x+1,y+1,z+1. They'd still work in real life, since photons of all frequencies are present (the brain could just use the algorithm (x-1,y-1,z-1)/3.)
Monitors, however, would no longer work properly, since the receptors tuned to different frequencies would no longer fire at all when hit by the limited number of different photons emitted from the monitor. The screen would look black.
OK, so this is probably *not* how it works, but I'd be very interested if someone would care to explain how it *does*! Thanks.
If you can't be without your cell phone long enough to see a movie, then wait until the movie shows up at Blockbuster, rent it, and watch it at home.
So everyone on call should just give up their social lives, eh? (ok, so you don't *have* to go to the movies, but I can imagine the reactions of my friends if I refused every time they wanted to go)
I do not buy movie tickets so that I can listen to your cell phone doing the vibrate/buzz thing.
What makes you think you'll hear my phone doing the vibrate/buzz-thing?
Neither do I want to see your glaring backlit display while you read your text messages.
Please stop staring at my crotch and watch the screen instead.
I don't want you tripping over my feet or my girlfriend's while you stumble out of the theatre because of your oh-so-important message.
You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that anyone voluntarily leaving a movie they've paid for probably has such a damn good reason it would override your momentary discomfort. Or perhaps you'd also object to sysadmins running through crowds because a vital datacenter's gone down? Or a mother doing the same because her child's gone missing? Both of these things could be announced by text message, and I'd gladly help these people get out of the theater as fast as possible.
Your job does not concern me in the slightest. I would sooner see you fired than have you interrupt a movie that I paid to see.
Wanker.
Clue: Important people don't have to carry cell phones into movie theatres. Schmucks that work for important people are the ones on call 24/7.
You're posting on Slashdot and basically saying that sysadmins are unimportant schmucks. Yet you get modded up as +5 insightful. Wtf??
Oh, and good managers tend to want to be reachable even when they're on vacation, in case something happens. Note how reachable doesn't equal constant communication. It's knowing that people can contact you instantly if something goes wrong that's important, not actually being in contact all the time.
P.S. Who told you that most/. posters don't keep their cell phones on vibrate "ALL THE TIME"? I don't. I normally leave mine in the car when I go in a public place.
Your self-imposed limitations are not other people's concern. If you choose to treat your mobile phone as if it weren't mobile, why did you get one?
What does "unique" refer to?
on
Techno Teddy
·
· Score: 3, Informative
If you mean unique as in "it's a teddy bear", then you're correct afaik, but using gestures to control instruments is not a unique idea.
Evil plot, that's what it actually is!
on
lowercase music
·
· Score: 2, Funny
"One recent album was so quiet, listeners wondered whether it actually contained any sound at all."
You've apparently learned nothing from the last time you revealed something about the X-Files in advance.
And don't try to explain yourselves by saying it's not a spoiler, just a rumor. For some people, rumors are too much.
I stopped visiting Star Trek boards because some people just couldn't keep themselves from accidentally revealing small details about the next movie. Those small details weren't clearly spoilers either, but eventually details pile up to form a bigger picture... One I don't want to have yet!!
Will I have to stop visiting Slashdot too? Hope not...
I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of their beancounters when someone else actually reads the market study they've obviously been adhering to and notices that they've mistakenly read that a "pong-marathon" would be good for ratings instead of "porn-marathon":-)
You applied what I said too broadly. Of course free markets are better. However, as for creating standards, imho they are not. Ideology has nothing to do with it.
Operators want as many people as possible to use as many services as possible. As it is now, cell phones are probably much less popular because of all these interoperability problems. How has the free market helped these companies?
Would you perhaps like it if air traffic control was deregulated and suddenly you'd have to stop and switch airlines in the middle of your trip because the plane you were on wouldn't have been compatible with the airspace ahead of you?
It's time the governments of the world realize a free market doesn't work everywhere.
Standards need to be set by a regulatory authority. Otherwise competing businesses will not just have the opportunity to create their own standards, they'll be forced to do so. There'll always be one business that'll use dirty tricks, so to survive, all must use them.
The U.S. cell phone market is a joke. Over here in Europe where I live I can buy any phone from anywhere. It'll work with any operator (as long as I pay for their service - duh). It will operate in any country in the world (except the U.S. and some other exceptions). There are no usage restrictions.
A few years ago when I visited the U.S. the phone I rented worked in New York, but not in Iowa! And I'll be moving to Boston next year, forcing me to get a U.S. phone. I hate you people! (well your phone companies at least...)
P.S. Is it true that text messaging doesn't always work between operators in the U.S?
"A cynic's retort might be that installing the 2012 edition of Microsoft Windows will take care of the rest, but I don't believe it's true."
So what? With terabytes of storage space, we'll *want* our operating systems to be huge. Don't you all think the Windows logo is boring? Fine, so let's display a 2048x1536 true color (a minimum, of course, like today's VGA) video in a lossless codec while booting up.
Sure, It's gonna take up a lot of space, but why should I care when my überbox will load it in a microsecond. Besides, what I really want is a holographic bootup sequence.
You all seem to agree that all these technologies are good uses of storage space, yet you don't like OS "bloat". Wouldn't you want your OS to use these same technologies to make itself look better too?
Slashdot Mirror
"People still go to theaters because there is currently no other method to see these movies the way they're meant to be seen"
Ah, so you mean if people could have better quality warez, they'd stop supporting the MPAA. That's exactly what we *don't* need.
What we need is a fair way to compensate the studios, not theater-resolution DivXes. (well actually we do need those, but distributed by the MPAA, and not some self-proclaimed hax0r in a basement)
"20 million phones, say only 1% active at a time means 200,000 phones active, each streaming at 256 kilobits means 6400000 kilo bytes of bandwidth required. In other words that is 6.4 GigaBYTES of bandwith required by the mobile network."
Only if you route all traffic through one point, which would of course be terribly silly...
As some people have pointed out, it is good that someone is trying to get bad administrators to secure their networks.
However, that they are doing it because of yet another terrorism threat is definitely not good. The way terrorists are used as a reason for anything nowadays is very scary.
Even if they'd use these tactics to disband Microsoft, I'd still be against them.
Whenever there's a story about mobile phones on slashdot, I always see all these posts proudly claiming either
A) They don't need a cell phone/normal people don't need a cell phone
B) All these new features are unnecessary.
C) They need a cell phone only for making calls.
The main motivation seems to be to distinguish themselves from "ignorant teenagers" and such. Well I thank God for those ignorant teenagers. Sure, making your phone look like it belongs in a circus isn't stylish, but if it weren't for these teenagers we'd have no technological advancement whatsoever. At least not if left with the demand curve of the average slashdotter.
To group A I simply say this: For five years I haven't had a single meeting with friends that hasn't been set up by saying "Come to town, somewhere, sometime around 13:00. I'll call you when I'm free from my previous appointment." A few months ago, I had to meet someone who didn't have a cell phone, and it was somewhere I'd never been before. We had to set a very rigorous schedule with an exact but unknown location and it took us half an hour to find each other. Damn right normal people don't need cell phones, huh?
And that's just one argument, I didn't even mention safety etc.
To group B: I am currently going to college one Atlantic ocean away from my family. I'd kill for a video phone. No, webcams aren't enough. I can't whip out my laptop whenever I'm doing something fun I want my parents to see. There IS demand for advanced features beyond that of the "look what I have" factor.
To group C, these are the additional features of my current phone:
Ring tones for voice and SMS - very useful, I never have to check my phone when another one rings. My tone is tasteful.
Alarm clock - the only alarm clock I need.
Games - ok, unnecessary, but they can kill time, and who cares if they're there.
Java - I could write my own applications if I wasn't too lazy.
Calculator - Has saved me several times.
Unit converter - Invaluable having moved to the promised land of non-base10 conversions.
Calendar - Wouldn't remember anything without my always ready to alert calendar. Oh and I can sync it with my PC too.
Infrared - Hey, I can use my phone as a wireless modem!
Bluetooth - Wow, this is even easier than infrared.
Voice recorder - Never embarrass yourself looking for a pencil and paper again.
Countdown timer - faster than setting the alarm, very convenient for short periods of time.
Stopwatch - I use this every week to time things.
WAP - not really useful, but I can't wait 'til I get a phone that can browse the real internet.
Anyone saying that you can find these functions on other devices should remember that I have all of them in the volume of a few matchboxes. Think about it.
Not to disparage the original submitter, but the whole idea of burning a CD to make MP3s is retarded.
Wow, dual lossy compression and a chance to pollute the environment. Who can say no?
Seriously, when are these companies going to get out of the whole CD-mindset? Here we have a record company backed download service, and it's tailor made for burning CDs. This isn't a download service, folks, it's a speedy form of mail order.
I am not paying for the disc!! I do not want to burn the tracks onto polluting removable media just to listen to the music wherever I want to!
(oh and I do realize it said you can move the files to another computer, but come on... using their software, only on approved devices. Yuck.)
"Now, I consider this worse - you can expect policy to breach privacy - but you are not supposed to expect that from a major telco....or...actually...are you?"
No, you aren't, but to be fair Sonera seems to have handled this incident pretty gracefully instead of covering up for the few employees that are suspected of the crime: "The NBI investigation was launched recently at Sonera's own request". I think this says more about the company than the breach itself.
"By some act of manufacturing or quirk of human nature, cell phones seem to have this inherent ability to turn otherwise friendly, considerate people into inconsiderate jerks."
Wrong, they give *seemingly* considerate people a *means* to be inconsiderate. There's a difference.
"On top of the obvious rudness of leaving your cell phone to ring in a movie"
Yes, this is rude. The last time I heard a phone ring in a theater was years ago. People have now learned what the vibrate-function does, so this is a non-issue and personally I'm sick of hearing it used as an argument.
"It says, "Not only are you not interesting enough to talk to, but you're so insignificant, I'm not going to feel any qualms about interrupting your ride by talking at the top of my voice.""
Um, sorry, but you *are* insignificant. Why should I show interest in some total stranger just because he's sitting next to me? I agree I should not use an above normal voice, but if you want to feel offended because I have something better to do than talk to random people, be my guest.
Why don't you do something productive yourself, like read a book about self-esteem or whatever.
As several people have pointed out, locking the mouse would still leave us with keyboard access.
Of course, the keyboard could also be locked, but who the hell would want to type with one hand on the mouse?
Since neither of those options are good, the only thing left is to use it for authentication at the beginning of a session. So if I'm only going to use it as a fancy password (which is stupid anyway, considering the error rate), what benefit is there to having it on the mouse? None.
And I believe we can all see the negative side-effects of sticking even more stuff on something we move rather aggressively all the time...
"VNC is the one thing that makes me feel safe when I leave my computer because I know it's a broadband connection away."
Perhaps you're worshipping the wrong Linus here...
"I've often wondered why operating systems today require so much RAM in the first place. Most people just want to browse the web, check their email, and perhaps play some music. Why does Windows, or any other OS, require such resources to pull off these relatively simple tasks?"
:-)
Because surfing the web at 640x480x4bpp with one font loaded and a UI that looks like it's from the 80's isn't all that enjoyable
But seriously, if we start listing all the small improvements in Windows XP since Windows 3.1 (ok so that's not the first version, but the first I've used) we end up with a large amount of used resources even though one improvement in itself doesn't require all that much.
Here are some OS-level functions I really wouldn't want to live without even when just surfing:
>=1600x1200x32 desktop with multiple monitor support
Cleartype
Pre-emptive multitasking with good memory management
NTFS features
32-bit icons (no, seriously, those eat memory too)
The option of running apps as another user
Knowing that pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del will always bring up the Windows UI and not some spyware pretending to be a logon prompt. (ok, so that's probably hackable too, but...)
Firewall (ok so it's debatable whether one wants to use the MS one...)
It is of course true that normal users don't know what half of these things are, but at the same time they're using them all the time. These things bring them security, stability, and convenience. If MS were to lower the memory requirements of Windows, most people would be screaming at them for making the OS uglier and less convenient.
And please, no MS jokes. I'd apply the same reasoning to all OS's. Advanced users may of course browse the internet from a command prompt after having loaded Linux into the memory space of a wristwatch, but that's not what the average user wants.
"There is nothing we have to take away, so no need to force agreement to the terms. In fact, the GPL says as much."
A lot of people seem to be saying this, but there are a few parts of the GPL I would like users to see even if they don't agree to the rest of it:
"Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software."
"11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION."
and
"12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."
The United States has a very, very, very large land mass compared to Japan or Finland, or any other country in Europe that has cooler cell phone technology than we do.
IMHO that's not the issue. First of all, Finland has a population of roughly five million with a density of about 17 people per square kilometer.
Why's that important? Because if these services can be rolled out (profitably) in Finland, then the following technique could be used in the US:
1. Define one single national standard.
2. Try it out in one city that has an insane population density.
3. If it's profitable, start expanding to other places based on the already defined national standard. Each and every company could compete using the same standard.
Instead, this is what I think has happened:
1. Company A decides to implement a standard of its own for voice calls. Company B does the same.
2. Very few people buy phones because of major interoperability issues. (This is not the case in Finland, to continue using it as an example. A Finnish GSM phone will work anywhere in Europe, and around most of the world. Virtually everyone has one.)
3. Because of the slow growth, a mobile phone culture hasn't yet formed in the U.S, slowing down the growth even more. Thus operators have less resources to implement new features, and even if they did they'd probably be proprietary, worsening the already bad situation.
What we need is a worldwide standard that everyone would adhere to. What we have now is a bunch of companies trying to out-Microsoft each other. And yes, I do realize that's easier said than done, but it should at least be given some thought.
First of all, I'd like to emphasize that I in no way condone actually talking while watching a movie, having the sound on, or having the sound on in a restaurant etc. I just believe more considerate people shouldn't be blocked simply to stop the inconsiderate ones.
I would very much like to see a solution like a Bluetooth-network inside the theater that would flag the area as silenced. If this setting couldn't be overridden, phones would still work, but all sounds would be forcibly turned off. It could also prevent the making of calls.
Now for some more ranting!
No, just movies in theaters.
Ah, but the problem is that people disturbed by phones would also get disturbed at places like restaurants etc. Where would you draw the line?
If your friends can't understand a desire to not annoy others, you need new friends.
They would understand that desire. However, saying that I can't go to movies with them (all the time) cause I need to have an operating cell phone with me would instead sound like a very lame excuse not to see them. And even if they understood totally, they'd inevitably start classifying me as boring company ("never goes anywhere").
If you weren't running a glaring backlit mobile phone to draw attention to your crotch, it would be a lot easier for those around you to watch the film.
I could cover the screen with my free hand, allowing only myself to see it.
Because it makes noise and I have heard them in meetings, theaters, offices, and restaurants.
OK. This portion of the argument is subjective, even though I've never noticed the noise. There is a third option, though: wearing a hands-free device throughout the movie. Any alert could be played directly into the user's ear. And yes, I am willing to do this in order to be available.
It's not up to you to decide whether you should inconvenience and discomfort me.
Yes and no, actually. If everyone could decide for themselves, anything could be defined as discomforting. You should also notice that being without a phone would inconvenience *me*, so the same argument could be applied in the other direction.
Your company can hire multiple people to rotate the "on-call" responsibilities.
Yes, but I'm also planning on having kids some day. No one can rotate that responsibility with me.
And I suppose you think it's fine if some idiot sysadmin running through a crowd runs into a pregnant woman, small child, handicapped, or elderly person while rushing to get www.petfoodmart.com back online?
Bad analogy, sorry... I can't come up with a better one right now, but my point was that I'm willing to endure a little discomfort to help other people. Letting people receive text messages in movie theaters couldn't hurt pregnant women :-)
Obviously, your car is on cinder blocks in your front yard, but rest assured that my car is perfectly mobile.
So whenever you're out of your house you always stay in your car? A mobile phone will reach its peak potential only when carried around like a body part.
Sorry if I sound a bit fanatic comparing phones to body parts, but I love the sense of freedom that always being available gives me ;-) Granted, some people feel it's a ball and chain, but I view it as something that lets me be in contact with anyone, anytime. It's great.
1) RGB, or any other color space -- can create any color if you look at it from far enough. besides, even if panda can only see two primary colours like dogs -- the TV image will still look the same as real world -- unless they can see into beyond the visible spectrum (i do not think this is the case, by the way), because the TVs are calibrated for the visible spectrum, and any near-infrared / uv will come off totally screwed up.
I am not familiar with the operating principles of rods and cones, so I'd like someone to discount the possibility I'm going to describe. As it is now, I can't be sure if the person I'm quoting is correct.
OK, so let's say human cones are calibrated to one of three frequencies, x,y,z. Thus, xyz-colorspace monitors would be able to produce any color within that range by emitting varying amounts of photons.
If the color FF,00,ED (using a 24-bit colorspace for convenience) is to be produced, the monitor would emit FF x-frequency photons, 0 y-frequency photons and ED z-frequency photons. The x, y and z receptors would notice their respective photons and the brain would compile the perceived color into a single type of photons of frequency (FFx+0y+EDz)/3.
This would work perfectly, of course, unless suddenly someone would develop a set of eyes that would sense the frequencies x+1,y+1,z+1. They'd still work in real life, since photons of all frequencies are present (the brain could just use the algorithm (x-1,y-1,z-1)/3.)
Monitors, however, would no longer work properly, since the receptors tuned to different frequencies would no longer fire at all when hit by the limited number of different photons emitted from the monitor. The screen would look black.
OK, so this is probably *not* how it works, but I'd be very interested if someone would care to explain how it *does*! Thanks.
If you can't be without your cell phone long enough to see a movie, then wait until the movie shows up at Blockbuster, rent it, and watch it at home.
So everyone on call should just give up their social lives, eh? (ok, so you don't *have* to go to the movies, but I can imagine the reactions of my friends if I refused every time they wanted to go)
I do not buy movie tickets so that I can listen to your cell phone doing the vibrate/buzz thing.
What makes you think you'll hear my phone doing the vibrate/buzz-thing?
Neither do I want to see your glaring backlit display while you read your text messages.
Please stop staring at my crotch and watch the screen instead.
I don't want you tripping over my feet or my girlfriend's while you stumble out of the theatre because of your oh-so-important message.
You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that anyone voluntarily leaving a movie they've paid for probably has such a damn good reason it would override your momentary discomfort. Or perhaps you'd also object to sysadmins running through crowds because a vital datacenter's gone down? Or a mother doing the same because her child's gone missing? Both of these things could be announced by text message, and I'd gladly help these people get out of the theater as fast as possible.
Your job does not concern me in the slightest. I would sooner see you fired than have you interrupt a movie that I paid to see.
Wanker.
Clue: Important people don't have to carry cell phones into movie theatres. Schmucks that work for important people are the ones on call 24/7.
You're posting on Slashdot and basically saying that sysadmins are unimportant schmucks. Yet you get modded up as +5 insightful. Wtf??
Oh, and good managers tend to want to be reachable even when they're on vacation, in case something happens. Note how reachable doesn't equal constant communication. It's knowing that people can contact you instantly if something goes wrong that's important, not actually being in contact all the time.
P.S. Who told you that most /. posters don't keep their cell phones on vibrate "ALL THE TIME"? I don't. I normally leave mine in the car when I go in a public place.
Your self-imposed limitations are not other people's concern. If you choose to treat your mobile phone as if it weren't mobile, why did you get one?
If you mean unique as in "it's a teddy bear", then you're correct afaik, but using gestures to control instruments is not a unique idea.
"One recent album was so quiet, listeners wondered whether it actually contained any sound at all."
The RIAA strikes again!
You've apparently learned nothing from the last time you revealed something about the X-Files in advance.
And don't try to explain yourselves by saying it's not a spoiler, just a rumor. For some people, rumors are too much.
I stopped visiting Star Trek boards because some people just couldn't keep themselves from accidentally revealing small details about the next movie. Those small details weren't clearly spoilers either, but eventually details pile up to form a bigger picture... One I don't want to have yet!!
Will I have to stop visiting Slashdot too? Hope not...
I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of their beancounters when someone else actually reads the market study they've obviously been adhering to and notices that they've mistakenly read that a "pong-marathon" would be good for ratings instead of "porn-marathon" :-)
You applied what I said too broadly. Of course free markets are better. However, as for creating standards, imho they are not. Ideology has nothing to do with it.
Operators want as many people as possible to use as many services as possible. As it is now, cell phones are probably much less popular because of all these interoperability problems. How has the free market helped these companies?
Would you perhaps like it if air traffic control was deregulated and suddenly you'd have to stop and switch airlines in the middle of your trip because the plane you were on wouldn't have been compatible with the airspace ahead of you?
It's time the governments of the world realize a free market doesn't work everywhere.
Standards need to be set by a regulatory authority. Otherwise competing businesses will not just have the opportunity to create their own standards, they'll be forced to do so. There'll always be one business that'll use dirty tricks, so to survive, all must use them.
The U.S. cell phone market is a joke. Over here in Europe where I live I can buy any phone from anywhere. It'll work with any operator (as long as I pay for their service - duh). It will operate in any country in the world (except the U.S. and some other exceptions). There are no usage restrictions.
A few years ago when I visited the U.S. the phone I rented worked in New York, but not in Iowa! And I'll be moving to Boston next year, forcing me to get a U.S. phone. I hate you people! (well your phone companies at least...)
P.S. Is it true that text messaging doesn't always work between operators in the U.S?
"A cynic's retort might be that installing the 2012 edition of Microsoft Windows will take care of the rest, but I don't believe it's true."
So what? With terabytes of storage space, we'll *want* our operating systems to be huge. Don't you all think the Windows logo is boring? Fine, so let's display a 2048x1536 true color (a minimum, of course, like today's VGA) video in a lossless codec while booting up.
Sure, It's gonna take up a lot of space, but why should I care when my überbox will load it in a microsecond. Besides, what I really want is a holographic bootup sequence.
You all seem to agree that all these technologies are good uses of storage space, yet you don't like OS "bloat". Wouldn't you want your OS to use these same technologies to make itself look better too?