Yesterday, I received five e-mails from "inlove@lovebox.com" - a spam campaign apparently going since May. The Love Box Company is less than impressed. The text of the e-mail is along the lines of "Someone you know has asked us to send you this e-mail. They think you are: sweet, attractive, charming, exciting. To find out who this person is, call this number: 090xxxxxxxx. (calls charged at 2.5p/sec)
However, I have managed to trace this guy to a limited company, and trace the premium rate number that he asks you to dial. Hopefully, the premium rate number will be shut down, his company can be had for false advertising, and his ISP's account will also be shut down.
With ATI and Nvidia taking the lion's share of the market, but putting their main publicity on their top-end products, it wouldn't be unusual for a not-quite-so-high-end graphics chip to find its way into a lot of cheaper systems. If the performance is reasonable, I should think it'd be a welcome addition to the tiny Shuttle computers, for example.
At the time of the Rabbit phone, mobile phones were firstly a great luxury, and secondly not commonplace. Now, however, laptop computers and PDAs are widespread. The opportunity to have a high-speed internet connection available at various access points (railway stations, cafes, etc) seems a good idea.
The thing that will differentiate the amount of success that such access points have is the fact that there is a captive market. Because mobile phones were not thought necessary back in the 80s, the Rabbit phone was not a success. Whereas, with 802.11, you have a large group of people who feel lost without their internet connection.
All it comes down to is the convenience with which one can use the WiFi networks.
It's probably because the command is an example of a non-command user interface
This is a fine example of how Nielsen's work is, in my eyes, nothing more than a load of buzzwords, contradictory in places, but ultimately not meaning much. Tactile interfaces? Those would be interfaces using touch. We have those. Just because Nielsen is called a 'usability guru' doesn't mean that we should listen every time he opens his mouth.
Having studied Usability, I have to say that it's probably one of the most useless parts of a Computer Science degree. Interface design, and usability, has always been about making things intuitive - there's not much more that you really need to say about it, as long as you have half a brain and you know some users with significantly less.
The point of a computer is that it is a very easy way to implement interfaces for various different applications. I don't want a Barney-style "Punch your computer's head to reboot". Barney is a toy. My computer is designed to do things far superior to playing peek-a-boo. And, consequently, it has a more complex interface, consisting of two components: one designed for speed (keyboard), and one designed for ease of use (mouse). I'd like to see anyone here try typing at 50wpm by squeezing the relevant parts of a large purple dinosaur, although I can see it now... you want to type B so you squeeze Barney's bo!!ocks... speaking of which, that is, I'm afraid, a lot of what Nielsen spouts.
...is a few more artists to rally behind Janis Ian. Remember when artists were split pro/anti Napster? Well, it'd be good to see the same kind of thing happening over the RIAA in general. However, I can't help thinking that the pro-Napster bands were, at least partly, doing it for the image.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I mainly code Java. Last time I did anything with VB was way back in the day of VB2... and I didn't use no steenking capitalisation either.
it might be better to say that we have things that we are not required to disclose
Yes - and having a system in place which enforces that things are not to be disclosed to people has to be a good thing. In my view, such a system can be used for the benefits of those who want to safeguard their information - there is no reason why it would not be possible for the owner of the data to set the amount of access they grant or deny, above and beyond the obviously necessary (medical details to the health service, criminal record to the police etc.)
Where do you think those telemarketers and spammers are getting your contact information in the first place? There are several states (Michigan comes to mind immediately) that have no law prohibiting the state government from selling the data they collect to any business who buys it.
Over here in the UK, we have the Telephone Preference Service which punishes unsolicited cold-callers. We also have the Data Protection Act, which means that you have the right to know exactly what data each company stores on you, and also the right to order them to remove all data about you. Violation of it is a serious crime. Were it found out that the Government were selling data on to third parties, it would not remain so for long.
Your post only further points out that it is control that is required. I'm glad such controls exist over here.
I shan't even begin comments relating to the US's reaction to terrorism, save to say that it is turning the land of the free into the exact opposite.
You commit an indiscretion and contract an STD. It gets treatment, and you're clean again. Do you want every IT worker in the health system (doctor's office, hospitals, insurance companies) accessing this record? Maybe one of them knows your parents...
My local doctor's surgery already has a computerised system; any doctor can see my details and all my past medical history. However, this further highlights my point: Controls on what people can and cannot view are more important than the details themselves. Why should an insurance company be given details? But look on the other side of the coin: suppose you're diabetic. If the hospital doesn't know this instantly from your records, it's a lot of wasted time.
You have a conviction for assault on your record. It's 10 years old... Does every prospective employer need to know about this?
Would such information be granted to anyone outside the police? As it is, many employers ask you to state whether you have been convicted within the last three years. There is no reason why a check (returning merely yes/no, no details) is an invasion on your privacy. If you're honest, you have nothing to hide.
You are checking out certain material from the library, or buying certain books from the store...does law enforcement need to know what you're reading?
Is your ID card also your library card? No. Is this relevant to the law enforcement process? No. Therefore, are law enforcement going to find out what I'm reading? No. In any case, if I want sensitive information, do I get it over the net? Yes.
Systems are put in place to track purchases of alcohol and tobacco against the Number.
I sense more than a little clutching at straws here. Such a bill would not get passed. You may need to show your card to prove your age, but there is no reason for it to be recorded.
All the posts you have made to certain politics newsgroups get gathered and analyzed by the police, against your email address, which is then correlated to you by asking your ISP. And you've not been complementary about the government...you get paid a visit by the cops.
You don't get paid a visit by the cops if you (a) use a fake e-mail, or an e-mail not tied to your ISP; (b) don't say anything you don't mean. When on the internet, type as you would speak directly to that person. It's a good lesson to learn. And being paid a visit by the cops just because you make disapproving comments about Bush? Everyone I know has said something disparaging about him.
Best to err on the side of common sense sometimes. If there's public outcry, it shouldn't get through. If it still gets through, you don't have to live in (wherever you live).
If the Government chooses to keep such information about you, that's fine. I for one would find life much easier if my health records were accessible to every doctor's surgery - when I come home from uni, I have to re-register if I want a doctor's appointment.
Far, far more important that the storage of such data is who is allowed to retrieve it. For example, if there were to be a medical study, you might expect that your health records (relevant parts thereof), gender, age, region and the kind of conurbation you live in (village/town/city etc) were made available, but no personal identifiers.
I find it far more of an invasion of privacy that my telephone and e-mail contacts are abused by people or companies wanting to sell their wares for me. The only reason we might be afraid of a centralised data repository is that it could be hacked. I would contend that, providing appropriate measures are taken, and that photographs are not stored on the database, there is nothing to be afraid of.
You haven't read my post properly. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but what I said is that there is no reason why changing it should be illegal and also that, however, there is a reason why using it on a GSM network should be illegal.
Using your analogy, it's fine to change MAC addresses around on your own network in your home, but once you start hooking things up to the internet, it becomes an entirely different kettle of fish.
If the uniquity of a software setting is required (and here it is demonstrated that, at least on each individual network, although not necessarily all over the world, it is), it is arguable that such settings should be in hardware, like I said previously.
Other than copyright of the internal code of the phone, there is no reason why changing the IMEI number of a phone should be illegal (and the copyright reason is a dubious one at that).
However, there should be a law in place to prevent phones with an incorrect IMEI number being used on GSM networks.
As has been pointed out, there is no genuine reason, other than research, to want to change the IMEI number of a phone - usually, the reason is to avoid blacklisting by networks such as Orange and T-Mobile (Vodafone and O2 do not operate such a scheme currently.)
If there are problems with people changing the IMEI number of a phone, perhaps the IMEI should be hard-coded into one of the chips in the phone - it would then make it a lot harder to successfully, and transparently, change a phone's IMEI number.
Essentially, what those who are attempting to introduce this law are saying, is that there is a need to do something about people changing IMEI numbers. And this remains the case.
When I transfer files between my PCs at home, I either use SMB fileshares or FTP, because it's simple and it's quick. When I want to install an OS, it boots off CD. When I'm at work and I need to reimage someone's PC, the image is on the network, and the newer boxes boot off it.
But supposing that, on one of the PCs on a network, the network connection has stopped working, and you can't get to your files because they're on the network, and you can't get to the network config because of the system policy...
that'll be the day you realise that getting rid of the floppy drive was a bad idea.
All these alternatives are great, but $10 to save you the frustration has got to be worth it for me.
The record industry cannot see what it's doing wrong. From the RIAA themselves:
the most significant cost of a CD today is the marketing and promotion of that music.
And, as we all know, releases of tracks are far too over-promoted these days - why should we pay for promotion of music? The very fact that tracks are available on the internet before they're released indicates that somewhere, the track has been released, but not to the public. So, if the industry is being killed, this is what's killing it. The fact that so many people download the music before public release indicates that the amount of promotion could be scaled back, too.
Perhaps if music were released to radio stations and the public at the same time, sales would go up, as people keen to get their hands on new music would actually have to go to the shop and buy a CD, owing to the fact that they wouldn't be able to download it at first. The radio, rather than the Internet, would become the listening post for new music.
So much can be put down to poor management these days, it seems.
Approval Enables Hop-On to Move Ahead with National Carriers and Retail Distribution
Garden Grove, CA, July 25, 2002 - Hop-On (OTC: HPON), the leading developer of disposable and fully recyclable cell phones, today announced that it has received approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the world's first CDMA disposable cell phone.
(end quote)
Possibly just a typo, but still, it does make you wonder.
Over in the UK we had disposable mobile phones not so very long ago - pay-as-you-go handsets were being subsidised so much that you could go into a shop and buy one for £20 with £5 or £10 of credit pre-loaded on to the phone. When you'd finished with it, you could chuck it, or just sell it on Ebay.
What is it about the Hop-On phones that makes them more recyclable than standard mobiles, anyway? I can't see that there's going to be much of a difference in terms of what they're made out of.
I'm also slightly concerned that the phones have a one-touch emergency call button. After the problems we've had in the UK with people's phones accidentally dialling 999 or 112 (I know, I had my mobile in my pocket with keylock on and I received a call from the police checking that everything was OK), a one-touch emergency button should never be put on a communications device. Especially when said device is readily disposable - imagine the possibilities for prank callers.
Apparently these devices will be capable of receiving incoming calls - but, if the phones are disposable, where are all the phone numbers going to come from? Presumably, once a phone number is finished with, i.e. all the credit on it is used up, it is deactivated and can be used again. But the issue of incoming calls raises another issue - surely, if the phone were to accept incoming calls, it would have to keep permanent contact with a base station, and consequently the phones would have very short life - this makes them almost unsaleable.
Finally, who needs a disposable mobile phone when there are perfectly good payphones placed at regular intervals across the world, probably more readily available than the nearest convenience store selling disposable mobiles?
Anyone who thinks that they can introduce watermarking, copyright protection, and so on, into a market where we have more than adequate technologies without such limitations, has to be off their rocker.
Sure, you can introduce a WMA-a-like, which has restrictions on your ability to download, but you're not going to stop people ripping it to MP3. Don't ya just love being able to record what your sound card's playing out?
Sure, you can make music players that won't play MP3... but you'll lose 95% of your market if you do. So you make the players backward-compatible with MP3... everyone copies the protected media to MP3, and you're back where you were before.
You could build DRM into hardware... only you'll get less buyers than if you circumvent, exclude, or otherwise, DRM. And if you do build it into hardware, there's always going to be a mod-chip available. See Sony PlayStation.
Essentially, they can try all they want - but as long as there is software that can capture what's being played out on the screen and through your speakers - which there always will be - you will always be able to make copies for your own -AHEM- personal use.
Sounds like you have a pretty nice setup - but I bet you didn't just go out and buy it from a shop, all set up nicely like that. Sure, people make nice home entertainment systems, but there aren't (m)any available off the shelf.
Currently, computers cannot, and will not, simply fit in with home entertainment setups. There are several reasons why:
1. Inconvenient input devices. Though wireless keyboards and mice (and integrated wireless keyboard/trackball) are all very well, what you're after most of the time is simply a remote control. There was a device made by Animax called the Multimedia Magic, which was perfect for the job - it even allowed you to control the mouse and type addresses into IE - but it doesn't have W2K drivers at the moment, and it relies on an external IR receiver. Perhaps some universal IR input device standard should be made, so that you can have an IR input port on the front of your PC, and use any input device you wish with it. Difficult to set up, I know, but it's an idea.
2. Appearance - whilst there are many nice PC cases around at the moment, getting one small enough that looks nice is difficult. That said, the Dell Optiplex GX150 is a sleek little thing - I can't get on with its laptop-style drives though. Also, it's not configured for home entertainment.
3. Graphics systems - some PCs don't come with TV-out, which is pretty much a necessity, unless you want to buy a very big monitor and shove a standalone TV tuner in.
4. Noise - covered by previous posters, getting a silent PC is nigh on impossible. It would be possible in theory, but you'd need some hefty heatsinks sticking out of the back, which could compromise the appearance.
5. Squeezing it all in the box - for a decent HEPC, you'll be wanting 5.1 sound output, a decent graphics card with S-Video out, a reasonable processor, large hard drive to store your (il)legal MP3s and DivXs, DVD reader, decent processor, etc etc etc... the Shuttle SS51 looks good for this, but again, it's only one system and it's not ideal. It does look quiet though...
6. Not many people want one - whilst I feel I am making a circular argument here, there must be little demand for HEPCs because there aren't any ideal devices.
In order to ensure that the web pages my browser receives are entirely standards-compliant, I use WebWasher and set the browser tag to "Don'tYouSnoopMyBrowserTag-Bitch!" - of course, that's neither IE nor Netscape/Mozilla. It weeds out all the evil sites that chuck code in that they think specific browsers can handle, and it means that I don't have to view sites where they say "Ah - your browser's too old".
There's nothing wrong with building features in, as long as they're supplementary to the browsing experience - anything critical to browsing must be done in HTML. IMHO window.open() should be categorically banned from all browsers - there is no need for popups to open on page load or close, and, if a page needs to be opened in a new window, you can always use <A HREF="whatever" TARGET="_new"> - of course, if the browser doesn't support the TARGET attribute, you get to view the page anyway, just in the same window.
With so much need, the dominant positions of MEN are anything but guaranteed...MEN are vulnerable...go beat the crap out of MEN...MEN's dominance could soon be over...
Is 'Dan' Briody actually (a) a pseudonym; (b) a feminist?
Suddenly all those EULAs become legally binding contracts
cexx.org has a campaign for a Software Vendors' License Agreement somewhere - basically, you get the software vendor to agree to it (and I think that getting a T-shirt saying "By selling computer software to me, you are agreeing to the terms of the Software Vendors' License Agreement", and pointing to a website, is sufficient for agreement, providing you wear the t-shirt when you buy the software in the store), and it overrides terms in the EULA.
Of course, I'm not sure whether it's legally binding, but it could be tried...
That leaves the inexperience of the drivers about the only explanation. Driving is a skill. It takes time to learn and many teens try to do things in a car that they're not experienced enough to do safely.
Whilst you're correct about driving taking time to learn, I think that, in many instances, it's the fact that, if you're in a full car, you're more inclined to want to show off, that causes accidents. Also, other people in the car are a distraction.
From what I've seen, it seems that male drivers are too over-confident and attempt manoeuvres that they can't do, and female drivers too panicky. I have known female drivers who either instantly slam on the brakes (often the wrong thing to do), or let go of the wheel (always the wrong thing to do), as soon as they get remotely near trouble. Sorry if this offends anyone, but gender differences aren't sexism.
Slashdot Mirror
Yesterday, I received five e-mails from "inlove@lovebox.com" - a spam campaign apparently going since May. The Love Box Company is less than impressed. The text of the e-mail is along the lines of "Someone you know has asked us to send you this e-mail. They think you are: sweet, attractive, charming, exciting. To find out who this person is, call this number: 090xxxxxxxx. (calls charged at 2.5p/sec)
However, I have managed to trace this guy to a limited company, and trace the premium rate number that he asks you to dial. Hopefully, the premium rate number will be shut down, his company can be had for false advertising, and his ISP's account will also be shut down.
With ATI and Nvidia taking the lion's share of the market, but putting their main publicity on their top-end products, it wouldn't be unusual for a not-quite-so-high-end graphics chip to find its way into a lot of cheaper systems. If the performance is reasonable, I should think it'd be a welcome addition to the tiny Shuttle computers, for example.
At the time of the Rabbit phone, mobile phones were firstly a great luxury, and secondly not commonplace. Now, however, laptop computers and PDAs are widespread. The opportunity to have a high-speed internet connection available at various access points (railway stations, cafes, etc) seems a good idea.
The thing that will differentiate the amount of success that such access points have is the fact that there is a captive market. Because mobile phones were not thought necessary back in the 80s, the Rabbit phone was not a success. Whereas, with 802.11, you have a large group of people who feel lost without their internet connection.
All it comes down to is the convenience with which one can use the WiFi networks.
It's probably because the command is an example of a non-command user interface
This is a fine example of how Nielsen's work is, in my eyes, nothing more than a load of buzzwords, contradictory in places, but ultimately not meaning much. Tactile interfaces? Those would be interfaces using touch. We have those. Just because Nielsen is called a 'usability guru' doesn't mean that we should listen every time he opens his mouth.
Having studied Usability, I have to say that it's probably one of the most useless parts of a Computer Science degree. Interface design, and usability, has always been about making things intuitive - there's not much more that you really need to say about it, as long as you have half a brain and you know some users with significantly less.
The point of a computer is that it is a very easy way to implement interfaces for various different applications. I don't want a Barney-style "Punch your computer's head to reboot". Barney is a toy. My computer is designed to do things far superior to playing peek-a-boo. And, consequently, it has a more complex interface, consisting of two components: one designed for speed (keyboard), and one designed for ease of use (mouse). I'd like to see anyone here try typing at 50wpm by squeezing the relevant parts of a large purple dinosaur, although I can see it now... you want to type B so you squeeze Barney's bo!!ocks... speaking of which, that is, I'm afraid, a lot of what Nielsen spouts.
...is a few more artists to rally behind Janis Ian. Remember when artists were split pro/anti Napster? Well, it'd be good to see the same kind of thing happening over the RIAA in general. However, I can't help thinking that the pro-Napster bands were, at least partly, doing it for the image.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I mainly code Java. Last time I did anything with VB was way back in the day of VB2... and I didn't use no steenking capitalisation either.
try{t ring.length());
fixInconsistentCapitalisation();
makeMethodsTakingNoInputsNotRequireBrackets(e,g,S
changeBrackets{
soYouDon'tHaveCurlyOnes(orSquareOnes[either]);
}
finally{
StopTeachingItInTheUniversities();
}
it might be better to say that we have things that we are not required to disclose
Yes - and having a system in place which enforces that things are not to be disclosed to people has to be a good thing. In my view, such a system can be used for the benefits of those who want to safeguard their information - there is no reason why it would not be possible for the owner of the data to set the amount of access they grant or deny, above and beyond the obviously necessary (medical details to the health service, criminal record to the police etc.)
Where do you think those telemarketers and spammers are getting your contact information in the first place? There are several states (Michigan comes to mind immediately) that have no law prohibiting the state government from selling the data they collect to any business who buys it.
Over here in the UK, we have the Telephone Preference Service which punishes unsolicited cold-callers. We also have the Data Protection Act, which means that you have the right to know exactly what data each company stores on you, and also the right to order them to remove all data about you. Violation of it is a serious crime. Were it found out that the Government were selling data on to third parties, it would not remain so for long.
Your post only further points out that it is control that is required. I'm glad such controls exist over here.
I shan't even begin comments relating to the US's reaction to terrorism, save to say that it is turning the land of the free into the exact opposite.
You commit an indiscretion and contract an STD. It gets treatment, and you're clean again. Do you want every IT worker in the health system (doctor's office, hospitals, insurance companies) accessing this record? Maybe one of them knows your parents...
My local doctor's surgery already has a computerised system; any doctor can see my details and all my past medical history. However, this further highlights my point: Controls on what people can and cannot view are more important than the details themselves. Why should an insurance company be given details? But look on the other side of the coin: suppose you're diabetic. If the hospital doesn't know this instantly from your records, it's a lot of wasted time.
You have a conviction for assault on your record. It's 10 years old... Does every prospective employer need to know about this?
Would such information be granted to anyone outside the police? As it is, many employers ask you to state whether you have been convicted within the last three years. There is no reason why a check (returning merely yes/no, no details) is an invasion on your privacy. If you're honest, you have nothing to hide.
You are checking out certain material from the library, or buying certain books from the store...does law enforcement need to know what you're reading?
Is your ID card also your library card? No. Is this relevant to the law enforcement process? No. Therefore, are law enforcement going to find out what I'm reading? No. In any case, if I want sensitive information, do I get it over the net? Yes.
Systems are put in place to track purchases of alcohol and tobacco against the Number.
I sense more than a little clutching at straws here. Such a bill would not get passed. You may need to show your card to prove your age, but there is no reason for it to be recorded.
All the posts you have made to certain politics newsgroups get gathered and analyzed by the police, against your email address, which is then correlated to you by asking your ISP. And you've not been complementary about the government...you get paid a visit by the cops.
You don't get paid a visit by the cops if you (a) use a fake e-mail, or an e-mail not tied to your ISP; (b) don't say anything you don't mean. When on the internet, type as you would speak directly to that person. It's a good lesson to learn. And being paid a visit by the cops just because you make disapproving comments about Bush? Everyone I know has said something disparaging about him.
Best to err on the side of common sense sometimes. If there's public outcry, it shouldn't get through. If it still gets through, you don't have to live in (wherever you live).
If the Government chooses to keep such information about you, that's fine. I for one would find life much easier if my health records were accessible to every doctor's surgery - when I come home from uni, I have to re-register if I want a doctor's appointment.
Far, far more important that the storage of such data is who is allowed to retrieve it. For example, if there were to be a medical study, you might expect that your health records (relevant parts thereof), gender, age, region and the kind of conurbation you live in (village/town/city etc) were made available, but no personal identifiers.
I find it far more of an invasion of privacy that my telephone and e-mail contacts are abused by people or companies wanting to sell their wares for me. The only reason we might be afraid of a centralised data repository is that it could be hacked. I would contend that, providing appropriate measures are taken, and that photographs are not stored on the database, there is nothing to be afraid of.
You haven't read my post properly. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but what I said is that there is no reason why changing it should be illegal and also that, however, there is a reason why using it on a GSM network should be illegal.
Using your analogy, it's fine to change MAC addresses around on your own network in your home, but once you start hooking things up to the internet, it becomes an entirely different kettle of fish.
If the uniquity of a software setting is required (and here it is demonstrated that, at least on each individual network, although not necessarily all over the world, it is), it is arguable that such settings should be in hardware, like I said previously.
Other than copyright of the internal code of the phone, there is no reason why changing the IMEI number of a phone should be illegal (and the copyright reason is a dubious one at that).
However, there should be a law in place to prevent phones with an incorrect IMEI number being used on GSM networks.
As has been pointed out, there is no genuine reason, other than research, to want to change the IMEI number of a phone - usually, the reason is to avoid blacklisting by networks such as Orange and T-Mobile (Vodafone and O2 do not operate such a scheme currently.)
If there are problems with people changing the IMEI number of a phone, perhaps the IMEI should be hard-coded into one of the chips in the phone - it would then make it a lot harder to successfully, and transparently, change a phone's IMEI number.
Essentially, what those who are attempting to introduce this law are saying, is that there is a need to do something about people changing IMEI numbers. And this remains the case.
...can you integrate them with your .Mac subscription?
When I transfer files between my PCs at home, I either use SMB fileshares or FTP, because it's simple and it's quick. When I want to install an OS, it boots off CD. When I'm at work and I need to reimage someone's PC, the image is on the network, and the newer boxes boot off it.
But supposing that, on one of the PCs on a network, the network connection has stopped working, and you can't get to your files because they're on the network, and you can't get to the network config because of the system policy...
that'll be the day you realise that getting rid of the floppy drive was a bad idea.
All these alternatives are great, but $10 to save you the frustration has got to be worth it for me.
The record industry cannot see what it's doing wrong. From the RIAA themselves:
the most significant cost of a CD today is the marketing and promotion of that music.
And, as we all know, releases of tracks are far too over-promoted these days - why should we pay for promotion of music? The very fact that tracks are available on the internet before they're released indicates that somewhere, the track has been released, but not to the public. So, if the industry is being killed, this is what's killing it. The fact that so many people download the music before public release indicates that the amount of promotion could be scaled back, too.
Perhaps if music were released to radio stations and the public at the same time, sales would go up, as people keen to get their hands on new music would actually have to go to the shop and buy a CD, owing to the fact that they wouldn't be able to download it at first. The radio, rather than the Internet, would become the listening post for new music.
So much can be put down to poor management these days, it seems.
Quote from http://www.hop-on.com/fccpr.html:
Media Alert for Wednesday, July 24, 10:00 a.m.
FCC Approves Hop-On's CDMA Disposable Phone
Approval Enables Hop-On to Move Ahead with National Carriers and Retail Distribution
Garden Grove, CA, July 25, 2002 - Hop-On (OTC: HPON), the leading developer of disposable and fully recyclable cell phones, today announced that it has received approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the world's first CDMA disposable cell phone.
(end quote)
Possibly just a typo, but still, it does make you wonder.
Over in the UK we had disposable mobile phones not so very long ago - pay-as-you-go handsets were being subsidised so much that you could go into a shop and buy one for £20 with £5 or £10 of credit pre-loaded on to the phone. When you'd finished with it, you could chuck it, or just sell it on Ebay.
What is it about the Hop-On phones that makes them more recyclable than standard mobiles, anyway? I can't see that there's going to be much of a difference in terms of what they're made out of.
I'm also slightly concerned that the phones have a one-touch emergency call button. After the problems we've had in the UK with people's phones accidentally dialling 999 or 112 (I know, I had my mobile in my pocket with keylock on and I received a call from the police checking that everything was OK), a one-touch emergency button should never be put on a communications device. Especially when said device is readily disposable - imagine the possibilities for prank callers.
Apparently these devices will be capable of receiving incoming calls - but, if the phones are disposable, where are all the phone numbers going to come from? Presumably, once a phone number is finished with, i.e. all the credit on it is used up, it is deactivated and can be used again. But the issue of incoming calls raises another issue - surely, if the phone were to accept incoming calls, it would have to keep permanent contact with a base station, and consequently the phones would have very short life - this makes them almost unsaleable.
Finally, who needs a disposable mobile phone when there are perfectly good payphones placed at regular intervals across the world, probably more readily available than the nearest convenience store selling disposable mobiles?
Anyone who thinks that they can introduce watermarking, copyright protection, and so on, into a market where we have more than adequate technologies without such limitations, has to be off their rocker.
Sure, you can introduce a WMA-a-like, which has restrictions on your ability to download, but you're not going to stop people ripping it to MP3. Don't ya just love being able to record what your sound card's playing out?
Sure, you can make music players that won't play MP3... but you'll lose 95% of your market if you do. So you make the players backward-compatible with MP3... everyone copies the protected media to MP3, and you're back where you were before.
You could build DRM into hardware... only you'll get less buyers than if you circumvent, exclude, or otherwise, DRM. And if you do build it into hardware, there's always going to be a mod-chip available. See Sony PlayStation.
Essentially, they can try all they want - but as long as there is software that can capture what's being played out on the screen and through your speakers - which there always will be - you will always be able to make copies for your own -AHEM- personal use.
Sounds like you have a pretty nice setup - but I bet you didn't just go out and buy it from a shop, all set up nicely like that. Sure, people make nice home entertainment systems, but there aren't (m)any available off the shelf.
Currently, computers cannot, and will not, simply fit in with home entertainment setups. There are several reasons why:
1. Inconvenient input devices. Though wireless keyboards and mice (and integrated wireless keyboard/trackball) are all very well, what you're after most of the time is simply a remote control. There was a device made by Animax called the Multimedia Magic, which was perfect for the job - it even allowed you to control the mouse and type addresses into IE - but it doesn't have W2K drivers at the moment, and it relies on an external IR receiver. Perhaps some universal IR input device standard should be made, so that you can have an IR input port on the front of your PC, and use any input device you wish with it. Difficult to set up, I know, but it's an idea.
2. Appearance - whilst there are many nice PC cases around at the moment, getting one small enough that looks nice is difficult. That said, the Dell Optiplex GX150 is a sleek little thing - I can't get on with its laptop-style drives though. Also, it's not configured for home entertainment.
3. Graphics systems - some PCs don't come with TV-out, which is pretty much a necessity, unless you want to buy a very big monitor and shove a standalone TV tuner in.
4. Noise - covered by previous posters, getting a silent PC is nigh on impossible. It would be possible in theory, but you'd need some hefty heatsinks sticking out of the back, which could compromise the appearance.
5. Squeezing it all in the box - for a decent HEPC, you'll be wanting 5.1 sound output, a decent graphics card with S-Video out, a reasonable processor, large hard drive to store your (il)legal MP3s and DivXs, DVD reader, decent processor, etc etc etc... the Shuttle SS51 looks good for this, but again, it's only one system and it's not ideal. It does look quiet though...
6. Not many people want one - whilst I feel I am making a circular argument here, there must be little demand for HEPCs because there aren't any ideal devices.
In order to ensure that the web pages my browser receives are entirely standards-compliant, I use WebWasher and set the browser tag to "Don'tYouSnoopMyBrowserTag-Bitch!" - of course, that's neither IE nor Netscape/Mozilla. It weeds out all the evil sites that chuck code in that they think specific browsers can handle, and it means that I don't have to view sites where they say "Ah - your browser's too old".
There's nothing wrong with building features in, as long as they're supplementary to the browsing experience - anything critical to browsing must be done in HTML. IMHO window.open() should be categorically banned from all browsers - there is no need for popups to open on page load or close, and, if a page needs to be opened in a new window, you can always use <A HREF="whatever" TARGET="_new"> - of course, if the browser doesn't support the TARGET attribute, you get to view the page anyway, just in the same window.
With so much need, the dominant positions of MEN are anything but guaranteed...MEN are vulnerable...go beat the crap out of MEN...MEN's dominance could soon be over...
Is 'Dan' Briody actually
(a) a pseudonym;
(b) a feminist?
Just so long as you can pronounce the German ladies' names, you'll do just fine...
.Pub?
Surely, given Apple's current branding scheme, your Apfelbierwanderung would have to be called something like
Suddenly all those EULAs become legally binding contracts
cexx.org has a campaign for a Software Vendors' License Agreement somewhere - basically, you get the software vendor to agree to it (and I think that getting a T-shirt saying "By selling computer software to me, you are agreeing to the terms of the Software Vendors' License Agreement", and pointing to a website, is sufficient for agreement, providing you wear the t-shirt when you buy the software in the store), and it overrides terms in the EULA.
Of course, I'm not sure whether it's legally binding, but it could be tried...
That leaves the inexperience of the drivers about the only explanation. Driving is a skill. It takes time to learn and many teens try to do things in a car that they're not experienced enough to do safely.
Whilst you're correct about driving taking time to learn, I think that, in many instances, it's the fact that, if you're in a full car, you're more inclined to want to show off, that causes accidents. Also, other people in the car are a distraction.
From what I've seen, it seems that male drivers are too over-confident and attempt manoeuvres that they can't do, and female drivers too panicky. I have known female drivers who either instantly slam on the brakes (often the wrong thing to do), or let go of the wheel (always the wrong thing to do), as soon as they get remotely near trouble. Sorry if this offends anyone, but gender differences aren't sexism.