Then you can fast track the useful ones with a clue - they may actually spot problems (and maybe even solutions) faster than inhouse staff (who might be busy with other stuff).
The other advantage to something like this is that it could actually helpissues get flagged up faster. How many times when calling for ISP support and getting a "There are no known faults" might possibly be because the first few reports are all still stuck at first-level because the knowledgable people aren't getting escalated fast enough?
Because somebody has to report a fault before it gets known. But there must be a scary amount of stock questions gone through before enough people are logged as having a serious issue with any given problem.
(and Ok, it's residential ISP support - I can understand most problems probably ARE the customer, but they also have to realize that some of their customers are, for example, programmers and network technicians who, strangely enough, have internet at home).
Exactly. This is one of the main problems I've had on accasion. Working in IT support myself I know that sometimes problems arise because the User doesn't know what they're doing. And I know that the majority of Not-User-Error issues can also be ones dealt with by a simple walkthrough script.
But I am a techie. When I've had ISP problems in the past I've already tried everything on the script. I've probably tried more than's on the script. I'm calling up because either I need to talk to someone who knows more than I do, or it's a technical issue that has to be done at their end.
So I psyche myself up for a phone-call. Then I get on the hold-queue. Then I get the hold music (badly-looped). Then I get through to first-line support. I know it's necessary, but having to re-go over less than I've already tried before it getting escalated further can just be frustrating.
I know there's no excuse for being impolite or flat-out rude, and I try my hardest to be civil, but it can be infuriating when you've been on-hold for 20 minutes effectively unable to do anything. And you're right, it would be nice if more ISPs and other companies would allow for the possibility of support calls coming from people with technical skills and experience.
In addition, several of the apps I use are getting outdated as the developers no longer support Panther (including some Apple ones). And to top it all off, I'd like to get a new machine and was naturally waiting for Leopard to come out so I don't have to pay another $150 dollars in 6 months. So the delay is somewhat of a big deal to me.
I'm in a similar position. I got my iBook just before the free-upgrade date, and Tiger just didn't have enough extra features in it to justify the extra outlay... at the time.
I'm now getting to the point where Panther is missing a few features that would be useful, and developers are as you say starting to phase out Panther compatibility. Because I don't want to be in the same position next time around, I have been waiting on Leopard before upgrading and then doing a double-jump. I can't afford to update twice, but hanging on for pretty much half a year sorta bugs. Especially when the delay is stated be be down to the iPhone which [a] has not yet got a confirmed date/provider (unless it's very well-hiddenon Apple's website) and [b] will be way outside of my price-range anyway. And I'm sure I'm not the only person in this position - along with those wanting new machines soon-ish.
Yes, I'm sure that the delay will be worthwhile and yield a polished final product. But personally I think they're shifting resources in the wrong direction. People have been waiting on (and waiting for) Leopard before the iPhone was even confirmed. So anyone waiting for the upgrade and not interested in super-duper-ultra-phones is going to feel just a little bit let down right now. Leopard will be worth the wait (I hope), but that doesn't make the wait any less infuriating at this point in time.
Video/audio clips?
There are some jobs where you need to be able to do that as often (if not more so) than go into meetings.
I work for a University and although many of our Academics do keep their volumes permanently down/off, some use audio-visual presentations in their lectures and classes. Some show DVD content from their laptops. Some use various voice chat software to communicate with international colleagues. (OK, I do suspect a fair bit of chatting-to-friend also)
They do also need to attend meetings and conferences, however, where keeping the volume low is essential. So there are jobs where both are needed.
On the flip-side, the laptops we use at work have hardware volume switches on the case. So it is possible to turn the volume way down until actually logged/logging in.
The important thing to encourage paid subscriptions can often be making sure that ad-free browsing is not the only advantage to subscribing. It's a great bonus, but hardly the main selling feature that some sites would make out.
The sites I subscribe to have useful features, like the ones you mention. Extra/larger avatars. Bonus material. One site has better browsing options when searching content. The fact that I then get to skip the adverts is merely an added bonus.
The ones I don't subscribe to are where ad-free is the only advantage, where the other advantages aren't worthwhile or (like in the case of Slashdot) the adverts are generally innofensive, relevant and even potentially useful.
The whole adverts/subscription thing where it's one or the other and no other advantages is something I've never understood. If you're on limited funds, or simply averse to paying, then paying to get rid of the adverts (or having to watch/hear - damned Flash - adverts to avoid paying) isn't a viable option.
Now in the case of musician/band websites, getting the balance right should be easy enough - in theory. Where adverts are used, keep them sane. Advertise stuff from other bands that are likely to have either similar or compatible fanbases. Advertise for a movie that the band (or a label-mate) is on the soundtrack for.
Subscriber bonuses could include cheap-but-limited merchandise. Early access to newsletters. Access to additional promotional deals and competitions. Stuff like that.
This is the 21st century. It is time artists and labels got with the new program.
Exactly. You understand what the companies seem to miss. There's nothing wrong with bands/companies/etc making money from content, just as long as they're doing it consistantly with the age we're in - not the age they're stuck in. Work with the technology, rather than against it, and many will be willing to pay for things. (And those that aren't wouldn't have anyway, so there's no real loss there). But try and restrict technology with artificial limitations for no tangible benefit and there are those who would pay who will instead rebel against it just because. (That, or downloading the non-restricted version is often seen as easier than working around the DRM)
I do find that music clips, whether on Amazon or iTunes or similar, are vital. Especially where some songs can't be easily itentified by knowing the song itself. (Either where the lyric doesn't appear in the itle, or it's an intrumental)
Being able to scan through audio clips can be the only way to see if a particular album has the particular track you're looking for. Similarly, when a lot of tracks these days have different remixes and arrangements it's good to know if the one you're looking for (or looking to avoid...) is on the album you're after.
Plus it also gives the only way of giving the other tracks on an album a listen. If artists was you to buy an entire album, sometimes it's good to at least have an idea of what the other tracks sound like. I will look into an album on the strength of a song, but I tend to actually buy it when the rest of the album is actually good.
Yes, you have to install iTunes to get an iPod to work with a PC. But it comes included on a CD with the unit. Or you can download it from Apple's site. Not ideal, but pretty much equivalant to the drivers and other assorted software stuff that you need to get most hardware working with Windows these days.
As to Linux iPod support, I don't know enough to comment. But I'm guessing that it's not as simply as the auto-syncing thing that iTunes does. Yes, many power-users prefer the drag and drop approach. But it is nice to be able to sort everything out computer-side before even plugging in the iPod. Plus I'm sceptical about how a non-technical user who already uses iPod/iTunes would take it.
Yes, iTunes for Linux would be sweet. Closed software or not, it'd make things a whole lot easier. I'm not sure how easy that would be, though. Would a statically compiled binary solve the multiple-distros problem?
And this is coming from me as a Windows-cynical Mac-using Linux fan. You have valid points and I'd love to be able to say that Linux support for iPOod (or any really popular hardware) was totally there. But, sadly, the grandparent post is right. Full compatibility just isn't there yet.
I find the actual packaging slightly smaller - but bloody awkward to open. But then our work supplier will stick a single card in the same sized box that a shipment of 10 would come in. Yet for other stuff they'll use a sturdy envelope.
I fail to see how going on a long-haul journey with nothing at all to occupy oneself can be seen as "normal behaviour". It's taking away freedoms, yes and conveniences, in the name of "security". If anything, it all comes across as being expected to change what is considered "normal" behaviour in order to suit The Powers That Be. Reading a book, or listening to music or having a drink are normal behaviour on a journey.
Are travel conveniences a total necessity? In and of themself, probably not. Are they a right? I'd say not.
Dos that mean that I beleive they're expendable? Definitely not. Flying's a privilege, not a right. Fine. Same about hand luggage. But to lose privileges because of someone else's actions? That's a victory for the other side most ways you can look at it.
However much it seems justified, it's one step further down a path that has a very worrying end. It's not a step too far, not yet. But where does it stop? How many freedoms do we give up before it actually is too much? How long before bags and pockets are seen as being unacceptable in public areas. I hope it doesn't go that far. I'd like to believe that the world leaders wouldn't let it get that far. But news like what went out this morning makes it slightly harder to justify that belief. And the amount of people who were fully supporting the safety measures makes me worry about how bad things could get before people even start to question.
In the case of reading a book, the earlier news reports this morning said that even books weren't being allowed. And if that was true (at the time, anyway), then they'd probably not want pen & paper. Which is non-electronic and really old way of passing the time.
As for the other sugegstions, they're all totally valid but you have to also allow for the exceptions. Those scared of flying. The midly claustrophobic. The socially anxious. Small children. Just because some things aren't actually medical doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons for wanting one's attention diverted.
Also, in the case of sleeping, I remember last time I flew I couldn't sleep on either leg of the journey.
Unless these restrictions are lifted, I don't think I'll ever be able to fly anywhere. Yes, I understand the need to a sensible level of security, but I see this as going too far.
I used to suffer from depression, and it has left me with the remnants of social anxiety. I can function out and about quite easily, but with very definite limits. Crowds still mess my head up. Queues fill me with dread. I need to travel with something to take my mind of things - often to shut out the world and people around me.
I also have a fair bit of not-exactly-cheap equipment that goes with me everywhere. There are things that do not get let out of my site. My laptop, for example, comes to work with me when I have a house-inspection. I trust my colleagues more than an inspector I've never met. Yet I'd be expected to fly long-haul without carrying it in my arms?
Yes, I know I'm probably slightly paranoid. But for one thing I've had things broken before when they were with people I didn't know or trust. And secondly, it's another holdover from my depression.
And right this very minute I feel extremely uncomfortable. I see an all-too-possible threat of increased security measures invading our lives to a greater extent, where the existing ones already feel too much.
Plus the idea of being stuck taking my holidays without ever leaving the UK[*] kinda fill me with dread.
[*] 'Cos I can't see these measures not spreading to Eurostar, somehow.
So... spending $20 for an innovative title by itself is cool...
but spending $20 on an innovative title, a revisioned old game and an expansion to a new game is a bad deal?
Yes, very much so, and for two definite reasons that I have against game bundles in general. (Although if it's a really short game I'd prefer a slightly cheaper price - but it's the bundling not the price that I'm really talking about here)
One, having to buy buy a game (or games) I don't want to get one that I do is annoying. I'd rather put that money towards more of the games that I do want. So it's $20 (or pounds, in my case) for one game I want and two I don't, as opposed to three that I would actually play.
Two, it becomes a sale for that other game. Especially if the unwanted game is the major part of the bundle. So, in this case, any sales purely for Portal by non-FPS players become sales HL2:E2. They won't be registered as Sales for just Portal. So when the sales figures come it, it skews the figures towards FPS sales and away from puzzle-based sales. Whereas a standalone version would more accurately reflect what people are actually spending their money on.
Actually, it does come over to me as a slightly cynical stab at getting people who otherwise would avoid FPS games to actually buy one.
Portal is three hours of single-player gameplay, you probably wouldn't want it as a standalone game.
Actually, I would. I like short, pick-up-and-play puzzle-based games. (I like RPGs mostly, but they're less use for a quick burst of gaming, and puzzlers fill that niche)
This is exactly what Portal looks like, and hence something I would want on its own.
So, basically, you can get it without having Steam but you can't actually get Portal as a standalone game. Unless I'm reading the page wrong.
This is a shame, really, as there are people (myself being one of them) who have no interest at all in standard FPS games who would like Portal - as it's not a standard FPS. But without a way of buying it on its own, the fact that you also have to buy it with HL2:E2 is pretty much a dealbreaker.
Well, if nothing else the as-written lyrics will be more official than the often-inaccurate ones that end up on many sites. As, at the very least, they'll have the meaning if not the word-perfect nature. Badly-guessed lyrics often have neither.
Plus it's often interesting to see how lyrics differ from what they wrote and what they sing. Also, if nothing else, it's easy enough to convert between the two.
going round to a mates house "oh, I got this ace game, but my PS3 is too big to carry with me and it won't play on yours... but we can look at the box".
This is going to be one of the major reason why no (sane...) games company would dare implement something like this. Console games are effectively portable as the only part that's the game itself is the media - whatever it is. If you have the same console as a mate, and you want to show them a enw game you bought (or vice-vera), it doesn't matter who visits who. Unlike a PC game (or a game on a different platfrm) where the person with the game can't do the travelling, unless they lug all their kit with them.
Also take one other possibility. Students.
You go off to college/uni/whatever. One of your flatmates has the same console as you. Bingo! You can play games without needing to bring the console itself.
Or replacing a broken console.
Etc. etc. etc.
There are so many reason why companies have to realise that actually implementing this (outside of development or review copies) would be the kiss of death for their game system.
Of course, decisions like this are often made despite them being really dumb. (not exactly part of the point I'm trying to make, but if I don't point out that I do know/accept this then someone will be "helpful" and do it for me)
Each sanity trick works once, and then it's mostly an annoyance for the rest of the game (except for some of the cheap scare tactics like you get in most horror movies these days--these are situational and you don't tend to come across them more than once, anyway).
Oh, I dunno. Some of them had repeat value. The size-adjusting ones, for example. Because it was a gradual change there was always this moment of thinking your eyes were tried before realising what was going on.
Also I found the basic insanity was really qutie creepy. Tilted screen, windchimes in the background and a constant buzz of screams and voices. If nothing else, I found it quite unsettling. It certainly conveyed the feeling of "something's not quite right", and gave a visual barometer of insanity without needing to see the green meter.
What I can't figure out is why MS needs to monitor the legitimacy of your copy of Windows XP in real time. Is a valid copy suddenly going to become illegitimate for some obscure reason?
Actually yes, kind of. Well, no "kind of" about it, but I'm not so sure if it's in a way that WGA could tell about.
If the corporate volume licensing is such that employees can install stuff on their own machine then there's a very definite reason why a vaid copy could become invalid. Such licenses usually only cover you as long as you remain an employee of the organisation. No job, no license. But, also, no physical way of MS being able to know this unless they also tap into your company's HR database. And even I'm not so cynical as to give that idea much credence.
Problem I think is that Microsoft's new plugin does all this too. Microsoft has in effect shut Adobe out of a market where Acrobat faired pretty well.
The real problem is that this is all that a lot of people want. They don't want/need the full Acrobat functionality. They just want to be able to "print" their document to the de-facto standard. Yes, there are alternatives out there but, sadly, none of them have the convenience of the export/print-to-PDF function that having Acrobat installed has. But that mere convenience is not worth the pricetag.
In a way, Adobe probably priced themselves into a corner. Unless it's really well hidden on their website, I can't find a cheap "export only" PDF available from Adobe themselves. If one was available, though, I know that organisations would at least consider it. Especially as, rightly or wrongly, "Made By Adobe Themselves" probably carries more weight that "Plugin Written By Some Guy Or Small Company Somewhere".
'Cos if you have 100+ people who need to output to PDF, but none of Acrobat's higher functions, then a cheap plugin would be an option where 100+ full licenses is not.
It's an interesting situation, this one. Although maybe it's just because, for once, the other side is another company who is often seen as overcharging for their software.
But, like other situations, here we have MS wanting to include something that would pretty much make their stranglehold on office software even tighter. And would definitely jeopardise the competition. In this case, Adobe. And in most of those situations I find myself loudly wishing that Miscrosoft would FOAD.
Yet, this time, I find myself on Microsoft's side. Or, more accrately, against Adobe's.
PDF is used a lot these days. For some reason, in education, it seems to be the preferred method of sending an electronic document around. Of course, you then get the scenario where more people want to create PDFs than you have licenses for Acrobat. This happens a lot where I work. The kicker, though, is that they don't need the full PDF-authoring capabilities of Acrobat itself, they only need to convert from Word document to PDF. So definitely not worth shelling out for a copy for every Academic in the department.
Having said all of that, we also do take licensing seriously. So every so often we have to try and figure out who does and doesn't need it installed. And, when someone doesn't need Acrobat, it's often us IT bods who then have to take the file and convert it.
Not too big a deal on the one hand. But, as a user of Open/NeoOffice and also a Mac user, I'm used to being able to print directly to PDF as supported by the software/OS itself. So, to me, it's a complete waste of my time. And every time another Academic wants to convert to a PDF I'm one step closer to suggeting to the IT Manager than OpenOffice becomes a part of the standard build.
Just about every organization I have consulted for has assigned the shared drives to high drive letters.
Something like S: for global shares, T: for team shares, P: for personal network storage, O: for organizational forms and memos.
Just come up with something that makes sense within your company.
That's all well and good if you're in a mostly-centralized organisation. The problem can come, however, when there are different departments each with their own servers in additional to the central ones.
It's the problem with the Windows concept of letter-mapping the drives. Now we have network shares, removable drives, all these sort of things yet there are still only 26 available letters.
It wouldn't be so bad except that, as has been discussed here, Windows can only "see" physical drives when assigning the next letter. It is oblivious to network shares, and even searching Microsoft's knowledgebase turns up that this is as it is and isn't really going to be fixed. Not any time soon, anyway.
I'm pretty much similar. I don't go to the cinema that often anymore, for various reasons. Dislike of crowds, dislike of being in a room full of noone I know, and difficulty in scheduling to go with a friend and have us both/all be free before the film leaves the movies being the main problems.
I'd much rather wait until a film comes out on DVD, watch it with some friends (or alone if necessary). Cheap food. Loo breaks. Ability to comments, or not-comment, without it bugging people who prefer otherwise.
Main problem at the moment, though, is having to find a time when I'm free and my movie-watching friends are free. And with theater-runs being measured in mere weeks in some cases it can happen that a movie has stopped running anywhere near me by the time meetups are possible. (Things like Christmas, family visits and people having the next semester start can mean that the entire run has been and gone between convenient weekends).
To be honest, I don't really want to go to the cinema anymore. I don't have a problem with aying to see films, though. I just wish I could pay to rent-buy a DVD during it's cinema-run, or at least immediately after. Having to wait three months 'cos the cinema timings weren't viable doesn't exactly increase my fondness of the industry in general.
More importantly is the fact that, certinaly here in the UK, the same CDs are often reduced (whether permanently or during a sale) within about 6-9 months of the original release date. So not only will I not buy as much as I used to (due to hopefully improved taste), but I also won't buy until half a year or more later.
And if the price doesn't come down? Then I pretty much don't bother buying it. Neither do I download it, or copy it off a mate. I have enough listenable music to go with. And disposable music is as easy as switching on the radio - which doesn't cost anything.
For me to pay full price on a music CD these days it has to be very special.
Sometimes I get tempted to buy off iTunes, but I've not bothered yet. It's not the DRM that's the main drawback for me (although it is a drawback). It's the common complaint that Apple's chosen bitrate/quality setting is lower than what I'd choose.
Granted on my current setup i'd hardly notice, but I'm already finding that MP3s I either obtained or ripped from my own CDs about 7 years ago sound realy crap as they were ripped with size in mind rather than quality. So until they do high-bitrate ALAC, iTunes is a no-no.
When you hit a grammatical or spelling error you cause a pipeline stall. If an incorrect word is used you can often continue for several more words before you discover that the sentence is impossible to parse forcing you to backtrack.
This is a very valid point. I know that checking through someone else's sentences can be really time-consuming, but that's exactly why I know how much of a wall bad spelling or grammar can be.
I've been checking through a friend's writing for about a year now and, yes, at times the editing feels like a chore. However it's because of this that I know why I prefer writing to be checked. Quite often the changes I suggest are where a word or a piece of grammar suggest something other than what the sentence actually means. It can take me two or more additional readings to work out what the sentence actually means and even then sometimes I have to ask.
There is also the issue about the word "editor" implying, well, someone who edits submissions if necessary. Yes, Slashdot is basically a glorified Blog and not a high-brow newspaper. But it also reaches a lot of people. And it is nice if an article has better spelling and typing.
Plus although many people can easily parse bad English, not everybody can. Some people are dyslexic. Some are grammar nazis. Some of us are neither, but still have problems parsing bad English. Also anyone who has to check writing for legibility, whether as a job or othewise, will have a "Bad English Alarm" more or less hardwired.
I also speak as someone who has a rather high typo-rate. I know that there's usually at least one error that I miss, which is why I always get someone else to check through important documents and stuff before I send or print them. But that does mean that if I were to submit an article to/. then however hard I checked there'd still be something likely to slip through. Especially as I know what I meant to write, so my brain will parse it correctly.
I hate to reply to AC postings but I have to correct this.
WMA-AAC conversion via iTunes only works on iTunes for Windows. Unless things've changed recently without me noticing, it's not possible in OS X iTunes.
And if things have changed recently, please let me know as although I don't use WMA it'd be nice to know.
Slashdot Mirror
The other advantage to something like this is that it could actually helpissues get flagged up faster. How many times when calling for ISP support and getting a "There are no known faults" might possibly be because the first few reports are all still stuck at first-level because the knowledgable people aren't getting escalated fast enough?
Because somebody has to report a fault before it gets known. But there must be a scary amount of stock questions gone through before enough people are logged as having a serious issue with any given problem.
Exactly. This is one of the main problems I've had on accasion. Working in IT support myself I know that sometimes problems arise because the User doesn't know what they're doing. And I know that the majority of Not-User-Error issues can also be ones dealt with by a simple walkthrough script.
But I am a techie. When I've had ISP problems in the past I've already tried everything on the script. I've probably tried more than's on the script. I'm calling up because either I need to talk to someone who knows more than I do, or it's a technical issue that has to be done at their end.
So I psyche myself up for a phone-call. Then I get on the hold-queue. Then I get the hold music (badly-looped). Then I get through to first-line support. I know it's necessary, but having to re-go over less than I've already tried before it getting escalated further can just be frustrating.
I know there's no excuse for being impolite or flat-out rude, and I try my hardest to be civil, but it can be infuriating when you've been on-hold for 20 minutes effectively unable to do anything. And you're right, it would be nice if more ISPs and other companies would allow for the possibility of support calls coming from people with technical skills and experience.
I'm in a similar position. I got my iBook just before the free-upgrade date, and Tiger just didn't have enough extra features in it to justify the extra outlay... at the time.
I'm now getting to the point where Panther is missing a few features that would be useful, and developers are as you say starting to phase out Panther compatibility. Because I don't want to be in the same position next time around, I have been waiting on Leopard before upgrading and then doing a double-jump. I can't afford to update twice, but hanging on for pretty much half a year sorta bugs. Especially when the delay is stated be be down to the iPhone which [a] has not yet got a confirmed date/provider (unless it's very well-hiddenon Apple's website) and [b] will be way outside of my price-range anyway. And I'm sure I'm not the only person in this position - along with those wanting new machines soon-ish.
Yes, I'm sure that the delay will be worthwhile and yield a polished final product. But personally I think they're shifting resources in the wrong direction. People have been waiting on (and waiting for) Leopard before the iPhone was even confirmed. So anyone waiting for the upgrade and not interested in super-duper-ultra-phones is going to feel just a little bit let down right now. Leopard will be worth the wait (I hope), but that doesn't make the wait any less infuriating at this point in time.
Video/audio clips?
There are some jobs where you need to be able to do that as often (if not more so) than go into meetings.
I work for a University and although many of our Academics do keep their volumes permanently down/off, some use audio-visual presentations in their lectures and classes. Some show DVD content from their laptops. Some use various voice chat software to communicate with international colleagues. (OK, I do suspect a fair bit of chatting-to-friend also)
They do also need to attend meetings and conferences, however, where keeping the volume low is essential. So there are jobs where both are needed.
On the flip-side, the laptops we use at work have hardware volume switches on the case. So it is possible to turn the volume way down until actually logged/logging in.
The important thing to encourage paid subscriptions can often be making sure that ad-free browsing is not the only advantage to subscribing. It's a great bonus, but hardly the main selling feature that some sites would make out.
The sites I subscribe to have useful features, like the ones you mention. Extra/larger avatars. Bonus material. One site has better browsing options when searching content. The fact that I then get to skip the adverts is merely an added bonus.
The ones I don't subscribe to are where ad-free is the only advantage, where the other advantages aren't worthwhile or (like in the case of Slashdot) the adverts are generally innofensive, relevant and even potentially useful.
The whole adverts/subscription thing where it's one or the other and no other advantages is something I've never understood. If you're on limited funds, or simply averse to paying, then paying to get rid of the adverts (or having to watch/hear - damned Flash - adverts to avoid paying) isn't a viable option.
Now in the case of musician/band websites, getting the balance right should be easy enough - in theory. Where adverts are used, keep them sane. Advertise stuff from other bands that are likely to have either similar or compatible fanbases. Advertise for a movie that the band (or a label-mate) is on the soundtrack for.
Subscriber bonuses could include cheap-but-limited merchandise. Early access to newsletters. Access to additional promotional deals and competitions. Stuff like that.
Exactly. You understand what the companies seem to miss. There's nothing wrong with bands/companies/etc making money from content, just as long as they're doing it consistantly with the age we're in - not the age they're stuck in. Work with the technology, rather than against it, and many will be willing to pay for things. (And those that aren't wouldn't have anyway, so there's no real loss there). But try and restrict technology with artificial limitations for no tangible benefit and there are those who would pay who will instead rebel against it just because. (That, or downloading the non-restricted version is often seen as easier than working around the DRM)
I do find that music clips, whether on Amazon or iTunes or similar, are vital. Especially where some songs can't be easily itentified by knowing the song itself. (Either where the lyric doesn't appear in the itle, or it's an intrumental)
Being able to scan through audio clips can be the only way to see if a particular album has the particular track you're looking for. Similarly, when a lot of tracks these days have different remixes and arrangements it's good to know if the one you're looking for (or looking to avoid...) is on the album you're after.
Plus it also gives the only way of giving the other tracks on an album a listen. If artists was you to buy an entire album, sometimes it's good to at least have an idea of what the other tracks sound like. I will look into an album on the strength of a song, but I tend to actually buy it when the rest of the album is actually good.
Yes, you have to install iTunes to get an iPod to work with a PC. But it comes included on a CD with the unit. Or you can download it from Apple's site. Not ideal, but pretty much equivalant to the drivers and other assorted software stuff that you need to get most hardware working with Windows these days.
As to Linux iPod support, I don't know enough to comment. But I'm guessing that it's not as simply as the auto-syncing thing that iTunes does. Yes, many power-users prefer the drag and drop approach. But it is nice to be able to sort everything out computer-side before even plugging in the iPod. Plus I'm sceptical about how a non-technical user who already uses iPod/iTunes would take it.
Yes, iTunes for Linux would be sweet. Closed software or not, it'd make things a whole lot easier. I'm not sure how easy that would be, though. Would a statically compiled binary solve the multiple-distros problem?
And this is coming from me as a Windows-cynical Mac-using Linux fan. You have valid points and I'd love to be able to say that Linux support for iPOod (or any really popular hardware) was totally there. But, sadly, the grandparent post is right. Full compatibility just isn't there yet.
I find the actual packaging slightly smaller - but bloody awkward to open. But then our work supplier will stick a single card in the same sized box that a shipment of 10 would come in. Yet for other stuff they'll use a sturdy envelope.
OK, I'll bite. Purely on the subject itself...
I fail to see how going on a long-haul journey with nothing at all to occupy oneself can be seen as "normal behaviour". It's taking away freedoms, yes and conveniences, in the name of "security". If anything, it all comes across as being expected to change what is considered "normal" behaviour in order to suit The Powers That Be. Reading a book, or listening to music or having a drink are normal behaviour on a journey.
Are travel conveniences a total necessity? In and of themself, probably not. Are they a right? I'd say not.
Dos that mean that I beleive they're expendable? Definitely not. Flying's a privilege, not a right. Fine. Same about hand luggage. But to lose privileges because of someone else's actions? That's a victory for the other side most ways you can look at it.
However much it seems justified, it's one step further down a path that has a very worrying end. It's not a step too far, not yet. But where does it stop? How many freedoms do we give up before it actually is too much? How long before bags and pockets are seen as being unacceptable in public areas. I hope it doesn't go that far. I'd like to believe that the world leaders wouldn't let it get that far. But news like what went out this morning makes it slightly harder to justify that belief. And the amount of people who were fully supporting the safety measures makes me worry about how bad things could get before people even start to question.
In the case of reading a book, the earlier news reports this morning said that even books weren't being allowed. And if that was true (at the time, anyway), then they'd probably not want pen & paper. Which is non-electronic and really old way of passing the time.
As for the other sugegstions, they're all totally valid but you have to also allow for the exceptions. Those scared of flying. The midly claustrophobic. The socially anxious. Small children. Just because some things aren't actually medical doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons for wanting one's attention diverted.
Also, in the case of sleeping, I remember last time I flew I couldn't sleep on either leg of the journey.
Unless these restrictions are lifted, I don't think I'll ever be able to fly anywhere. Yes, I understand the need to a sensible level of security, but I see this as going too far.
I used to suffer from depression, and it has left me with the remnants of social anxiety. I can function out and about quite easily, but with very definite limits. Crowds still mess my head up. Queues fill me with dread. I need to travel with something to take my mind of things - often to shut out the world and people around me.
I also have a fair bit of not-exactly-cheap equipment that goes with me everywhere. There are things that do not get let out of my site. My laptop, for example, comes to work with me when I have a house-inspection. I trust my colleagues more than an inspector I've never met. Yet I'd be expected to fly long-haul without carrying it in my arms?
Yes, I know I'm probably slightly paranoid. But for one thing I've had things broken before when they were with people I didn't know or trust. And secondly, it's another holdover from my depression.
And right this very minute I feel extremely uncomfortable. I see an all-too-possible threat of increased security measures invading our lives to a greater extent, where the existing ones already feel too much.
Plus the idea of being stuck taking my holidays without ever leaving the UK[*] kinda fill me with dread.
[*] 'Cos I can't see these measures not spreading to Eurostar, somehow.
Yes, very much so, and for two definite reasons that I have against game bundles in general. (Although if it's a really short game I'd prefer a slightly cheaper price - but it's the bundling not the price that I'm really talking about here)
One, having to buy buy a game (or games) I don't want to get one that I do is annoying. I'd rather put that money towards more of the games that I do want. So it's $20 (or pounds, in my case) for one game I want and two I don't, as opposed to three that I would actually play.
Two, it becomes a sale for that other game. Especially if the unwanted game is the major part of the bundle. So, in this case, any sales purely for Portal by non-FPS players become sales HL2:E2. They won't be registered as Sales for just Portal. So when the sales figures come it, it skews the figures towards FPS sales and away from puzzle-based sales. Whereas a standalone version would more accurately reflect what people are actually spending their money on.
Actually, it does come over to me as a slightly cynical stab at getting people who otherwise would avoid FPS games to actually buy one.
Actually, I would. I like short, pick-up-and-play puzzle-based games. (I like RPGs mostly, but they're less use for a quick burst of gaming, and puzzlers fill that niche)
This is exactly what Portal looks like, and hence something I would want on its own.
So, basically, you can get it without having Steam but you can't actually get Portal as a standalone game. Unless I'm reading the page wrong.
This is a shame, really, as there are people (myself being one of them) who have no interest at all in standard FPS games who would like Portal - as it's not a standard FPS. But without a way of buying it on its own, the fact that you also have to buy it with HL2:E2 is pretty much a dealbreaker.
Well, if nothing else the as-written lyrics will be more official than the often-inaccurate ones that end up on many sites. As, at the very least, they'll have the meaning if not the word-perfect nature. Badly-guessed lyrics often have neither.
Plus it's often interesting to see how lyrics differ from what they wrote and what they sing. Also, if nothing else, it's easy enough to convert between the two.
This is going to be one of the major reason why no (sane...) games company would dare implement something like this. Console games are effectively portable as the only part that's the game itself is the media - whatever it is. If you have the same console as a mate, and you want to show them a enw game you bought (or vice-vera), it doesn't matter who visits who. Unlike a PC game (or a game on a different platfrm) where the person with the game can't do the travelling, unless they lug all their kit with them.
Also take one other possibility. Students.
You go off to college/uni/whatever. One of your flatmates has the same console as you. Bingo! You can play games without needing to bring the console itself.
Or replacing a broken console.
Etc. etc. etc.
There are so many reason why companies have to realise that actually implementing this (outside of development or review copies) would be the kiss of death for their game system.
Of course, decisions like this are often made despite them being really dumb.
(not exactly part of the point I'm trying to make, but if I don't point out that I do know/accept this then someone will be "helpful" and do it for me)
Oh, I dunno. Some of them had repeat value. The size-adjusting ones, for example. Because it was a gradual change there was always this moment of thinking your eyes were tried before realising what was going on.
Also I found the basic insanity was really qutie creepy. Tilted screen, windchimes in the background and a constant buzz of screams and voices. If nothing else, I found it quite unsettling. It certainly conveyed the feeling of "something's not quite right", and gave a visual barometer of insanity without needing to see the green meter.
Actually yes, kind of. Well, no "kind of" about it, but I'm not so sure if it's in a way that WGA could tell about.
If the corporate volume licensing is such that employees can install stuff on their own machine then there's a very definite reason why a vaid copy could become invalid. Such licenses usually only cover you as long as you remain an employee of the organisation. No job, no license. But, also, no physical way of MS being able to know this unless they also tap into your company's HR database. And even I'm not so cynical as to give that idea much credence.
The real problem is that this is all that a lot of people want. They don't want/need the full Acrobat functionality. They just want to be able to "print" their document to the de-facto standard. Yes, there are alternatives out there but, sadly, none of them have the convenience of the export/print-to-PDF function that having Acrobat installed has. But that mere convenience is not worth the pricetag.
In a way, Adobe probably priced themselves into a corner. Unless it's really well hidden on their website, I can't find a cheap "export only" PDF available from Adobe themselves. If one was available, though, I know that organisations would at least consider it. Especially as, rightly or wrongly, "Made By Adobe Themselves" probably carries more weight that "Plugin Written By Some Guy Or Small Company Somewhere".
'Cos if you have 100+ people who need to output to PDF, but none of Acrobat's higher functions, then a cheap plugin would be an option where 100+ full licenses is not.
It's an interesting situation, this one. Although maybe it's just because, for once, the other side is another company who is often seen as overcharging for their software.
But, like other situations, here we have MS wanting to include something that would pretty much make their stranglehold on office software even tighter. And would definitely jeopardise the competition. In this case, Adobe. And in most of those situations I find myself loudly wishing that Miscrosoft would FOAD.
Yet, this time, I find myself on Microsoft's side. Or, more accrately, against Adobe's.
PDF is used a lot these days. For some reason, in education, it seems to be the preferred method of sending an electronic document around. Of course, you then get the scenario where more people want to create PDFs than you have licenses for Acrobat. This happens a lot where I work. The kicker, though, is that they don't need the full PDF-authoring capabilities of Acrobat itself, they only need to convert from Word document to PDF. So definitely not worth shelling out for a copy for every Academic in the department.
Having said all of that, we also do take licensing seriously. So every so often we have to try and figure out who does and doesn't need it installed. And, when someone doesn't need Acrobat, it's often us IT bods who then have to take the file and convert it.
Not too big a deal on the one hand. But, as a user of Open/NeoOffice and also a Mac user, I'm used to being able to print directly to PDF as supported by the software/OS itself. So, to me, it's a complete waste of my time. And every time another Academic wants to convert to a PDF I'm one step closer to suggeting to the IT Manager than OpenOffice becomes a part of the standard build.
That's all well and good if you're in a mostly-centralized organisation. The problem can come, however, when there are different departments each with their own servers in additional to the central ones.
It's the problem with the Windows concept of letter-mapping the drives. Now we have network shares, removable drives, all these sort of things yet there are still only 26 available letters.
It wouldn't be so bad except that, as has been discussed here, Windows can only "see" physical drives when assigning the next letter. It is oblivious to network shares, and even searching Microsoft's knowledgebase turns up that this is as it is and isn't really going to be fixed. Not any time soon, anyway.
I'm pretty much similar. I don't go to the cinema that often anymore, for various reasons. Dislike of crowds, dislike of being in a room full of noone I know, and difficulty in scheduling to go with a friend and have us both/all be free before the film leaves the movies being the main problems.
I'd much rather wait until a film comes out on DVD, watch it with some friends (or alone if necessary). Cheap food. Loo breaks. Ability to comments, or not-comment, without it bugging people who prefer otherwise.
Main problem at the moment, though, is having to find a time when I'm free and my movie-watching friends are free. And with theater-runs being measured in mere weeks in some cases it can happen that a movie has stopped running anywhere near me by the time meetups are possible. (Things like Christmas, family visits and people having the next semester start can mean that the entire run has been and gone between convenient weekends).
To be honest, I don't really want to go to the cinema anymore. I don't have a problem with aying to see films, though. I just wish I could pay to rent-buy a DVD during it's cinema-run, or at least immediately after. Having to wait three months 'cos the cinema timings weren't viable doesn't exactly increase my fondness of the industry in general.
More importantly is the fact that, certinaly here in the UK, the same CDs are often reduced (whether permanently or during a sale) within about 6-9 months of the original release date. So not only will I not buy as much as I used to (due to hopefully improved taste), but I also won't buy until half a year or more later.
And if the price doesn't come down? Then I pretty much don't bother buying it. Neither do I download it, or copy it off a mate. I have enough listenable music to go with. And disposable music is as easy as switching on the radio - which doesn't cost anything.
For me to pay full price on a music CD these days it has to be very special.
Sometimes I get tempted to buy off iTunes, but I've not bothered yet. It's not the DRM that's the main drawback for me (although it is a drawback). It's the common complaint that Apple's chosen bitrate/quality setting is lower than what I'd choose.
Granted on my current setup i'd hardly notice, but I'm already finding that MP3s I either obtained or ripped from my own CDs about 7 years ago sound realy crap as they were ripped with size in mind rather than quality. So until they do high-bitrate ALAC, iTunes is a no-no.
This is a very valid point. I know that checking through someone else's sentences can be really time-consuming, but that's exactly why I know how much of a wall bad spelling or grammar can be.
I've been checking through a friend's writing for about a year now and, yes, at times the editing feels like a chore. However it's because of this that I know why I prefer writing to be checked. Quite often the changes I suggest are where a word or a piece of grammar suggest something other than what the sentence actually means. It can take me two or more additional readings to work out what the sentence actually means and even then sometimes I have to ask.
There is also the issue about the word "editor" implying, well, someone who edits submissions if necessary. Yes, Slashdot is basically a glorified Blog and not a high-brow newspaper. But it also reaches a lot of people. And it is nice if an article has better spelling and typing.
Plus although many people can easily parse bad English, not everybody can. Some people are dyslexic. Some are grammar nazis. Some of us are neither, but still have problems parsing bad English. Also anyone who has to check writing for legibility, whether as a job or othewise, will have a "Bad English Alarm" more or less hardwired.
I also speak as someone who has a rather high typo-rate. I know that there's usually at least one error that I miss, which is why I always get someone else to check through important documents and stuff before I send or print them. But that does mean that if I were to submit an article to /. then however hard I checked there'd still be something likely to slip through. Especially as I know what I meant to write, so my brain will parse it correctly.
I hate to reply to AC postings but I have to correct this.
WMA-AAC conversion via iTunes only works on iTunes for Windows. Unless things've changed recently without me noticing, it's not possible in OS X iTunes.
And if things have changed recently, please let me know as although I don't use WMA it'd be nice to know.