I rarely look properly at the instructions unless something either breaks or I can't figure out how to use a certain function. But there are a few exceptions.
On the bus - If my shopping trip was via public transport (or someone else is driving) I will skim the instructions during the journey home. It gives me something to do - unless I also went to the comic shop
Unfamiliar stuff - If it's unlike anything I've got before then I'll read them so I don't screw up.
Research - I've downloaded a few PDFs of manuals of stuff I've not bought because it's the only way to find out whether they do what I want.
Games - Basic controls. The rest I pick up through play.
Some assembly required - If it's a physical item that needs putting together then I will read the instructions as my make-and-do skills suck.
The way to diminish piracy is to make your content more accessible, and charge a fee for the convenience. iTunes is a perfect example of this. It does booming business selling music through a medium where it's already obtainable for free. People pay for ease of use.
And for anyone who still thinks that "no-one would pay for stuff they can get online for free" don't forget that this is slowly turning around.
If no-one would ever pay for otherwise-free Internet content then dead-tree copies of webcomics and DVDs of stuff like Strongbad e-mails wouldn't sell at all.
After all they're available for free on the internet. But people still pay for them. And in the case of comics the online version is often higher visual quality. But people are paying for ease-of-use.
But people will (and do) pay for a convenient form of something they can already see online. Yes you will always get people who won't pay. But you'll also always get people willing to pay. The problem with too many copy-protection schemes is that they do very little to hinder the former but tend to piss off the latter.
Of course this has all been said before, and will be said again. Unfortunately the corporate types who make the decisions somply don't believe it - or don't wish to - and turn legitimate customers into either potential pirates (Why buy when a downloaded rip is better?) or non-buyers (Why bother, totally avoid the product instead).
Apple updated its iPod firmware and Real got locked out again. Big deal, they've been told. I might not think this very nice, but that's the way it is.
I think this about sums up the situation. The amusing thing about the discussion on here is that opinions seem polarized. The major camps are fully-pro one side and fully-anti the other, trying to make out that only one side here is acting badly.
The real outcome here is that both sides (the actual companies, not necessarily the/. camps) come over as acting a little childish about the whole thing. Both sides could have acted better - a lot better.
Apparently Real did officially ask to be allowed to use Fairplay itself to allow music purchased from them to be iPoddable. Score one for Real.
Apple said no. Well within their rights to do so, though seems a little stingy. So far this leaves Real looking a little ahead.
Real says "Screw you" and finds a workaround anyway. Has a distinct air of childishness about it. Does, however, open up iPod users to having more choice. Noble end, shady means. Not sure this was Real's smartest move.
Real says this is to do with "Freedom of Choice". Not something I think Real are qualified to say, all things considered.
The two companies I'd class as being least into "Freedom of Choice" when it comes to media formats are Real and Apple.
Apple state from the outset that future firmware would probably disable it. Not nice, but honest. No stringing the users along.
Real continue to use "works with iPod" as a selling-point on their site. Granted they do mention that only certain software (firmware, I guess) work with it but they say that future versions will be added - without a single mention that newer versions make break compatibility.
Using unguaranteeable compatilibity as a selling point - not smart.
Apple made the iPod as a closed system. Their choice, maybe not a great one. No support for Ogg Vorbis or FLAC. No official Linux client (unless they released one since I checked last week) or official plugin for Linux players. No official way of accessing their store outside of Windows or MacOS. There are certainly reasons why I don't have an iPod, and why I'm unlikely to get one any time soon. Not exactly in their favour.
Real basically hacked their way in. And press-releases aside the main reason seems to be to make a buck. It does give the customers more choice, but it does also seem like Real stand to make a fair bit by riding on Aple's popularity.
I'm not really too impressed by either side. But whereas Apple come over as snotty, Real come over as being arrogant. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of either side. I just get the feeling that Real could've handled this in a better way.
Going the "Freedom of Choice" route for a while without reverse-enginering and leaning on Apple to license them Fairplay instead might well have got them a larger amount of support.
"Hey Kyle, last Tuesday I reported an issue with Exchange inboxes in the current beta randomly dropping new messages. I distinctly remember emailing about it."
"Aah. Jim migrated the bugtest account to the new beta last Monday. I thought the number of bug reports was down recently."
OK, so maybe that exact scenario won't happen but surely you keep your active devs on the most stable system you have going? Granted this way they're more likely to get first-hand experience of any major bugs but surely it would eat into actual bugfix time if their system got hosed by a particularly severe glitch.
In business, the word customers is usually associated with the word paying.
I pay.
I pay to go to the cinema - and get blasted with anti-piracy propaganda and adverts for cellphones (I have one I'm fine with thankyouverymuch) or Tampax (I'm a guy. Advert not giong to influence me somehow). Then the trailers, adverts and propaganda are all done with the lights down - so can't kill time with a book or non-backlit PDA.
I'm actually paying to watch their material but I hardly feel treated like I'm a valued customer. More a captive advert-target and/or potential pirate.
I pay to buy stuff on DVD. With FBI (or geographically equivalent) splashscreens and non-trivially-skippable "This Video Is Not For Rental" messages embedded at the beginning. Some include adverts that are difficult to skip though.
Again this hardly makes me feel valued for parting with my money for a legitimate version.
Remember that the people who actually see these agressive tactics are generally the ones who have paid. So this does seem to be rather counter-productive as you're making the people who bother to legitimately pay feel undervalued.
This does not sound like good business practice to me.
Either show up to the movie early or walk out of the movie with a sore neck...that's the rule around here at least.
Oh yes. That's about right here in the UK too, especially in the opening week or so of a popular film.
Plus in my case I get severely freaked out in crowds. Not entirely useful in cinemas, but unavoidable if I want to legitimately watch a film before the DVD release date. I have to sit in the outside of a row and/or at the front of the block (in theaters with an obliging layout). Arrive too late and I've got no chance.
Plus you never can be too sure on exactly how long the pre-show gumph is going to be. Some films (like The Incredibles) had 25 minutes worth of adverts and other rubbish. First time I saw Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets I arrived 5 minutes after the advertised time and the opening sequence was already in full swing.
Plus some things happen no matter how early/late you turn up. "Is this seat free?"
"'Scuse me, I need to go buy popcorn."
"Can I get back to my seat plase."
"My kid needs to go to the toilet, can I get past please."
Etc. Etc. Etc.
About the only thing that might work to avoid all of the pre-movie rubbish is a pair of headphones and a GBA SP. (Or an eBook on a backlit reader)
Technically wouldn't this be possible? Between the source and the document format being open then writing a standalone viewer should be easy enough for someone with the coding knowhow.
A small viewer application would be so useful - especially a standalone executable rather than an install-required package. Especially when trying to distribute files to tech-savvy people. Attach a file and a link to a (known legitimate) download page. Plus you'd know it'd display properly without any cross-format issues that tend to crop up when saving to a non-native format.
Those are a lot of good questions. I wish that people within the industry itself would answer them, but here's some best-guesses.
Why can't "Hollywood" adapt to technological change instead of fighting it ?
The technological changes threaten their business model, and they can't/won't accept this.
The various distribution industries (print, music, movies) sprung up and thrived because they could do what no-one else could. The reasons they could thrive, however, are increasingly obsolete. There's no way they could embrace modern technology and maintain their current prices and control - and they seem rather reluctant to give those up.
Why can an unemployed programmer sitting in his apartment out-inovate a handful of multi-billion dollar corporations ?
Simple difference in focus. A programmer trying to make data transfer more efficient makes sense. To people in the entertainment industry, however, something like BT runs totally against their way of thinking so they'd probably not even consider anything like it happening.
(added numbering mine...)
Why would people want to download in the first place ? [1]Is it because ticket prices are too high, [2]and the cost of soda and popcorn is almost offensive ? [3]Do people in one country want to see the movie as soon as people in another country ?
Sometimes yes. Plus it's not just the ticket price. Unless you live within walking distance of a cinema there's often the price of parking or public transport to factor in.
Yes. Overpriced food and overprice and oversized drinks are a pain. Pay four time the price you want for twice the drink you want, then needing to visit the bathroom before the film ends without the ability to pause the show.
Definitely. Things are getting better. Several years ago we'd probably still be waiting for The Incredibles to be released here in the UK until February. There did used to be a three-to-six month lag.
It's not as bad now, but they still seem to think that people don't mind waiting. They also tend to advertise films months in advance, and then wonder why people download a copy when the American release happens a month before the UK one.
There are also one or two factors that they don't think about. Like what if people don't want to actually go to a cinema.
I have social anxiety issues. I loath crowds, and tend to panic in the presence of too many people. Obviously this makes popular films a bit of a trial. I did wait to see the Incredibles when it came out officially, even though I could have probably downloaded it instead. I'd been ready to see it weeks earlier. I chose to stay legal... ...then ended up in a crowded cinema full of noisy kids and little available space. At one point I wondered if staying ethical had been worth it.
Is the loss of revenue real or imaginary ? Is their existence really threatened ? Are movie industry profits really sliding ? Are American high school kids really going to start staying home instead of going to the theatre ?
I'd say these questions are less straightforward. There probably is a loss of revenue and profits are probably. And of course their existance is threatened. Even if there was a legal internet-based alternative it would threaten the current model - which probably explains why they haven't embraced it.
If I'm honest I'd have to admit that such filesharing is probably one of the contributing factors to any difficulties "Hollywood" may be having. However I'd say that Hollywood itself is probably source to some of the other factors. Expensive stars, huge SFX budgets, and advertising... Yes, spend huge amounts of money on full-cinema-screen trailers before the film's even finished production and that's going to eat into your profits somewhat. Plus if you hype it too early the people are goi
I had a few issues with the Windows port, but they may have been since straightened out. Part of it, though, was that it was running on GTK which always made apps under Widows feel really odd to me. But I was running Gaim under Linux when dual-booting anyway.
I guess I should check the Windows port again at some point. But as I don't use Windows much (except for work) it makes it a bit harder to do.
In America people say "if it aint broke don't fix it". That attitude is why "early adopter" (ie: trendy bastard, yuppy scum, geek) has a borderline negative connotation here.
In some parts of the UK (and America too, I'd guess) that carries a corollary... "And if it is broke, fix it." There are people around who insist on trying to repair something to extend its lifespan instead of buying a replacement model because of the price of the initial outlay.
I think the US and UK have a situation where less customers are willing to take a risk, and as such less companies are willing to do so. After all a company would have to be mad to release an expensive internet-connected refridgerator when most people just want something to keep the beer and milk cool.
On the other hand, if I were to switch from AIM to Messenger or ICQ, it'd be useless because I know about 3 people who use them.
That's precisely when I switched to using Trillian as a client and, more recently, Gaim since switching to Linux.
Most of my contacts were ICQ, but I had a few on MSN and a couple on AIM. Trillian or Gaim meant that I could have one program open yet be on multiple networks, meaning I could communicate with all of them.
The distribution's a bit different now, as most of my contacts are on MSN, but it's still useful because of this. If I meet someone new on one of the other networks I'm not out of contact simply because I mainly use another.
Sure if one of the networks dies (or folds totally) it'd still bite for that network, but can still access the others. Plus I can build up a list of contacts on a different network without having to move away from the current one.
I had a similar problem a few months back using IM to communicate with a kid from my church. She immediately launched into SMS-speak - sounding a whole lot less intelligent than she usually does. So I (understandably) asked her not to use abbreviations...
...only to get pulled up about half an hour later for using BTW and some of the other more "traditional" abbreviations. Although I think my abbreviations were less irritating I can fully see her point - I complained about abbreviations I couldn't understand and then used some that she couldn't later.
I guess we all are guilty of this at times.
I guess it just annoys me when kids that I know have a good brain and can communicate clearly with speech are all-but-incomprehensible once they're writing IM or email.
The irony is that a good 60% of the posts in this thread have some bad grammar and/or spelling mistakes. At first I thought it was intentional but then they kept popping up a little too often.
I think that's one of the drawbacks with the way that the Slashdot comment system works. It basically works like a forum, where you're giving largely informal comments and trying to do so in a fairly quick manner. Mistakes can, will and often do happen.
However, unlike some web forums there isn't the ability to go back and edit posts. And there will invariably be mistakes that won't be obvious until after hitting send.
I think a major part of the greater issue is knowing when you have problems. I know that I have a high typo rate. So with proper letters or internal memos at work I make sure that I run them past a colleague first. (English teachers are useful for this)
With Slashdot posts there is rarely that opportunity. I doubt many people get someone else to proofread their comments. I do try to check my posts as carefully as I can, but there's always one mroe that slips through.
That's why I don't block Slashdot ads. (Except for Flash ads - but those are blanket-banned, especially at work as I'm stuck behind a slow ISDN connection).
I accept that Slashdot needs income somehow, I am not interested in a subscription and the site has relevant adverts. So I don't complain, or block them. True I've not actually clicked any adverts, but that's simple because so far I've not seen an advert for something I'm interested in and don't already know about. It's not impossible that I could, though.
Actually, I tell a lie. I think I clicked on a ThinkGeek advert once. I was interested in the product and clicking was the quickest way to go straight to the product page.
Other sites I'm fine with are DeviantArt (I paid to ditch the adverts, but also for other key features I wanted) and one of the Torrent trackers I frequent. (Unobtrusive adverts).
If the adverts don't bug me I'll accept them. If they interest me I'll click them. If I don't want them and you have a cool site (or subscriber features I want/need) then you might well get some direct cash from me.
I do, as stated, block Flash adverts. But that's partially down to size of download, some have sound, oh and as I said my work connection is slow.
That and before I installed Flash Proper it ran flash through the Quicktime plugin - which had a heavy impact on the CPU. And the college's Intranet site has a little (irritating) animated beacon.
The time involved actually makes the waiting period a hindrance instead of a help.
We have a couple of light like that near where I live. Before the lights change one of two things nearly always happens.
The traffic clears completely. So I cross safely anyway.
My bus comes and the light still hasn't changed. I take the risk and run across.
Something is very wrong with that lights sequence. I'm sure of it. Only with our city council I can't see it getting fixed. (Changed, yes. Fixed, no.)
Designing roads and regulations based on what people actually do with them would help greatly.
That's the problem. They're not designing them based on what people do (or wish to do) with them. They're doing them based on what they expect (or want) people to do with them.
Of course if the latter is based on safety (rather than fines income) then it's a good goal to aim for. If the method goes too far against how people want to sue the roads, though, then it runs the risk of making things worse.
For lights work out when people are going where and try to optimise that. For junctions really pay attention to where people are heading, how many lane-changes you'd be enforcing, and how intuitive they are[*].
You've got to look at how people are trying to use the road, and then work on making that more safe and efficient. Forcing people to use the roads differently to how they need/want to is not going to help. It will merely replace one traffic problem with another one.
[*] Tip: If there look to be two possible lanes to use for trying to turn into a single lane then your design needs work.
Southampton, England, has some sets of lights that work like that. Or at least they run in sequence so that as one light turns green the next one along turns red immediately.
Not useful.
Once what would have been a five-minute streatch of road took me twenty minutes. This might not have been too bad except at the time I was convinced I was lost. It turns out I was on the right road after all, but those bloody light kept me in a state of panic for about twenty minutes.
At least when lights turn green as you approach them you keep moving mroe or less. You might have to pause for two seconds, but you actually get some semblance of traffic flow.
Of course this breaks down because [a] people do run lights, and [b] even the people who don't end up getting more and more frustrated - which I'm sure isn't going to inspire safe driving.
OK, so it's search-by-date that's apparently been ditched and not sort-by-date. My bad. Major difference, and not quite so much of a terminal much-up.
However it still seems annoying to lose the ability to search within a specific timeframe. Shouldn't that be the point of being able to search a discussion archive?
When Google first bought up the old DejaNews archives I was ticked. They took something with which I could get the information I was after and returned something with which I could not.
Over the past few years they finally got it back to being something useful. I had heard about this "Make It Into Yet Another Glorified Web Groups" effort, and was less than impressed. But as long as it didn't interfere with it being a decent Usenet search engine...
No sort-by-date and no direct-article-linking? WTF? So if I want to get only the most recent posts for a certain query or if I want to pass someone a direct link to a specific post then I'm now SOL? How is that an "improvement"?
Is there anywhere else with an exhaustive archive of Usenet? I think I'm about to jump ship. I neither need nor want another web-groups option, and I want more search flexibility rather than less.
I have *always* thought it would be nice to be able to 'hover' over a dimmed menu item and have a tooltip (?) popup bubble point me in direction to address whatever issue makes it dimmed.
Agreed. Especially seing because it's often a blindingly obvious step that's been overlooked. So obvious that the mind won't consider that you've forgotten it.
I find in the GIMP I often puzzle over why half of the filters are greyed out, only to realise the image is still indexed. It is something that should be obvious, yet I still forget it. A tooltip for "Not available in indexed images" would be nice.
It's not until I look a the titlebar (hence away from where I'm actually working) that I twig what obvious step I've missed. In GIMP's favour having indexed/RGB/grayscale in the titlebar is incredibly useful for just this reason.
Just because something should be (and often is) obvious doesn't mean quick pointers aren't useful. Tooltips (that can be deactivated simply) are useful, and really should be used a whole lot more. Some people obviously don't need them, so just make them simple to switch off.
He mentions that computers shut-off without any juice. Not surprising that computers do that. I don't think this is a design flaw, simply because there are things in existence, known as UPS's, that are there to buy you time to save and close everything.
You're right that it's not exactly a "design flaw" but it is something that could have been designed around by now.
I'm sure I've seen internal UPS that look like a standard PSU. To my mind something like this should be standard by now. Doesn't need to be high capacity. Just a short amount of time, a loud noise and a connection to the system to alert it to power-down ASAP. Most standard UPS do the latter anyway, right? And if they don't actually exist then maybe it's time something like them did.
I just do feel that by now at least a basic level of UPS should be built in to the power supply or case.
Slashdot Mirror
I rarely look properly at the instructions unless something either breaks or I can't figure out how to use a certain function. But there are a few exceptions.
And for anyone who still thinks that "no-one would pay for stuff they can get online for free" don't forget that this is slowly turning around.
If no-one would ever pay for otherwise-free Internet content then dead-tree copies of webcomics and DVDs of stuff like Strongbad e-mails wouldn't sell at all.
After all they're available for free on the internet. But people still pay for them. And in the case of comics the online version is often higher visual quality. But people are paying for ease-of-use.
But people will (and do) pay for a convenient form of something they can already see online. Yes you will always get people who won't pay. But you'll also always get people willing to pay. The problem with too many copy-protection schemes is that they do very little to hinder the former but tend to piss off the latter.
Of course this has all been said before, and will be said again. Unfortunately the corporate types who make the decisions somply don't believe it - or don't wish to - and turn legitimate customers into either potential pirates (Why buy when a downloaded rip is better?) or non-buyers (Why bother, totally avoid the product instead).
I think this about sums up the situation. The amusing thing about the discussion on here is that opinions seem polarized. The major camps are fully-pro one side and fully-anti the other, trying to make out that only one side here is acting badly.
The real outcome here is that both sides (the actual companies, not necessarily the /. camps) come over as acting a little childish about the whole thing. Both sides could have acted better - a lot better.
Apparently Real did officially ask to be allowed to use Fairplay itself to allow music purchased from them to be iPoddable. Score one for Real.
Apple said no. Well within their rights to do so, though seems a little stingy. So far this leaves Real looking a little ahead.
Real says "Screw you" and finds a workaround anyway. Has a distinct air of childishness about it. Does, however, open up iPod users to having more choice. Noble end, shady means. Not sure this was Real's smartest move.
Real says this is to do with "Freedom of Choice". Not something I think Real are qualified to say, all things considered.
The two companies I'd class as being least into "Freedom of Choice" when it comes to media formats are Real and Apple.
Apple state from the outset that future firmware would probably disable it. Not nice, but honest. No stringing the users along.
Real continue to use "works with iPod" as a selling-point on their site. Granted they do mention that only certain software (firmware, I guess) work with it but they say that future versions will be added - without a single mention that newer versions make break compatibility.
Using unguaranteeable compatilibity as a selling point - not smart.
Apple made the iPod as a closed system. Their choice, maybe not a great one. No support for Ogg Vorbis or FLAC. No official Linux client (unless they released one since I checked last week) or official plugin for Linux players. No official way of accessing their store outside of Windows or MacOS. There are certainly reasons why I don't have an iPod, and why I'm unlikely to get one any time soon. Not exactly in their favour.
Real basically hacked their way in. And press-releases aside the main reason seems to be to make a buck. It does give the customers more choice, but it does also seem like Real stand to make a fair bit by riding on Aple's popularity.
I'm not really too impressed by either side. But whereas Apple come over as snotty, Real come over as being arrogant. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of either side. I just get the feeling that Real could've handled this in a better way.
Going the "Freedom of Choice" route for a while without reverse-enginering and leaning on Apple to license them Fairplay instead might well have got them a larger amount of support.
I just think that idea is asking for trouble.
"Hey Kyle, last Tuesday I reported an issue with Exchange inboxes in the current beta randomly dropping new messages. I distinctly remember emailing about it."
"Aah. Jim migrated the bugtest account to the new beta last Monday. I thought the number of bug reports was down recently."
OK, so maybe that exact scenario won't happen but surely you keep your active devs on the most stable system you have going? Granted this way they're more likely to get first-hand experience of any major bugs but surely it would eat into actual bugfix time if their system got hosed by a particularly severe glitch.
I pay.
I pay to go to the cinema - and get blasted with anti-piracy propaganda and adverts for cellphones (I have one I'm fine with thankyouverymuch) or Tampax (I'm a guy. Advert not giong to influence me somehow). Then the trailers, adverts and propaganda are all done with the lights down - so can't kill time with a book or non-backlit PDA.
I'm actually paying to watch their material but I hardly feel treated like I'm a valued customer. More a captive advert-target and/or potential pirate.
I pay to buy stuff on DVD. With FBI (or geographically equivalent) splashscreens and non-trivially-skippable "This Video Is Not For Rental" messages embedded at the beginning. Some include adverts that are difficult to skip though.
Again this hardly makes me feel valued for parting with my money for a legitimate version.
Remember that the people who actually see these agressive tactics are generally the ones who have paid. So this does seem to be rather counter-productive as you're making the people who bother to legitimately pay feel undervalued.
This does not sound like good business practice to me.
Oh yes. That's about right here in the UK too, especially in the opening week or so of a popular film.
Plus in my case I get severely freaked out in crowds. Not entirely useful in cinemas, but unavoidable if I want to legitimately watch a film before the DVD release date. I have to sit in the outside of a row and/or at the front of the block (in theaters with an obliging layout). Arrive too late and I've got no chance.
Plus you never can be too sure on exactly how long the pre-show gumph is going to be. Some films (like The Incredibles) had 25 minutes worth of adverts and other rubbish. First time I saw Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets I arrived 5 minutes after the advertised time and the opening sequence was already in full swing.
Plus some things happen no matter how early/late you turn up.
"Is this seat free?"
"'Scuse me, I need to go buy popcorn."
"Can I get back to my seat plase."
"My kid needs to go to the toilet, can I get past please."
Etc. Etc. Etc.
About the only thing that might work to avoid all of the pre-movie rubbish is a pair of headphones and a GBA SP. (Or an eBook on a backlit reader)
I think it's a problem with Zen's IP address-space. A friend of mine is also with Zen, and that script reckons he comes from the Netherlands.
Technically wouldn't this be possible? Between the source and the document format being open then writing a standalone viewer should be easy enough for someone with the coding knowhow.
A small viewer application would be so useful - especially a standalone executable rather than an install-required package. Especially when trying to distribute files to tech-savvy people. Attach a file and a link to a (known legitimate) download page. Plus you'd know it'd display properly without any cross-format issues that tend to crop up when saving to a non-native format.
Those are a lot of good questions. I wish that people within the industry itself would answer them, but here's some best-guesses.
The technological changes threaten their business model, and they can't/won't accept this.
The various distribution industries (print, music, movies) sprung up and thrived because they could do what no-one else could. The reasons they could thrive, however, are increasingly obsolete. There's no way they could embrace modern technology and maintain their current prices and control - and they seem rather reluctant to give those up.
Simple difference in focus. A programmer trying to make data transfer more efficient makes sense. To people in the entertainment industry, however, something like BT runs totally against their way of thinking so they'd probably not even consider anything like it happening.
It's not as bad now, but they still seem to think that people don't mind waiting. They also tend to advertise films months in advance, and then wonder why people download a copy when the American release happens a month before the UK one.
There are also one or two factors that they don't think about. Like what if people don't want to actually go to a cinema.
...then ended up in a crowded cinema full of noisy kids and little available space. At one point I wondered if staying ethical had been worth it.
I have social anxiety issues. I loath crowds, and tend to panic in the presence of too many people. Obviously this makes popular films a bit of a trial. I did wait to see the Incredibles when it came out officially, even though I could have probably downloaded it instead. I'd been ready to see it weeks earlier. I chose to stay legal...
I'd say these questions are less straightforward. There probably is a loss of revenue and profits are probably. And of course their existance is threatened. Even if there was a legal internet-based alternative it would threaten the current model - which probably explains why they haven't embraced it.
If I'm honest I'd have to admit that such filesharing is probably one of the contributing factors to any difficulties "Hollywood" may be having. However I'd say that Hollywood itself is probably source to some of the other factors. Expensive stars, huge SFX budgets, and advertising... Yes, spend huge amounts of money on full-cinema-screen trailers before the film's even finished production and that's going to eat into your profits somewhat. Plus if you hype it too early the people are goi
I had a few issues with the Windows port, but they may have been since straightened out. Part of it, though, was that it was running on GTK which always made apps under Widows feel really odd to me. But I was running Gaim under Linux when dual-booting anyway.
I guess I should check the Windows port again at some point. But as I don't use Windows much (except for work) it makes it a bit harder to do.
In some parts of the UK (and America too, I'd guess) that carries a corollary...
"And if it is broke, fix it." There are people around who insist on trying to repair something to extend its lifespan instead of buying a replacement model because of the price of the initial outlay.
I think the US and UK have a situation where less customers are willing to take a risk, and as such less companies are willing to do so. After all a company would have to be mad to release an expensive internet-connected refridgerator when most people just want something to keep the beer and milk cool.
That's precisely when I switched to using Trillian as a client and, more recently, Gaim since switching to Linux.
Most of my contacts were ICQ, but I had a few on MSN and a couple on AIM. Trillian or Gaim meant that I could have one program open yet be on multiple networks, meaning I could communicate with all of them.
The distribution's a bit different now, as most of my contacts are on MSN, but it's still useful because of this. If I meet someone new on one of the other networks I'm not out of contact simply because I mainly use another.
Sure if one of the networks dies (or folds totally) it'd still bite for that network, but can still access the others. Plus I can build up a list of contacts on a different network without having to move away from the current one.
The reference may be relatively new, but the joke is already old.
I had a similar problem a few months back using IM to communicate with a kid from my church. She immediately launched into SMS-speak - sounding a whole lot less intelligent than she usually does. So I (understandably) asked her not to use abbreviations...
...only to get pulled up about half an hour later for using BTW and some of the other more "traditional" abbreviations. Although I think my abbreviations were less irritating I can fully see her point - I complained about abbreviations I couldn't understand and then used some that she couldn't later.
I guess we all are guilty of this at times.
I guess it just annoys me when kids that I know have a good brain and can communicate clearly with speech are all-but-incomprehensible once they're writing IM or email.
I think that's one of the drawbacks with the way that the Slashdot comment system works. It basically works like a forum, where you're giving largely informal comments and trying to do so in a fairly quick manner. Mistakes can, will and often do happen.
However, unlike some web forums there isn't the ability to go back and edit posts. And there will invariably be mistakes that won't be obvious until after hitting send.
I think a major part of the greater issue is knowing when you have problems. I know that I have a high typo rate. So with proper letters or internal memos at work I make sure that I run them past a colleague first. (English teachers are useful for this)
With Slashdot posts there is rarely that opportunity. I doubt many people get someone else to proofread their comments. I do try to check my posts as carefully as I can, but there's always one mroe that slips through.
I really hated that. It's bloody annoying if I want to check the missing scenes. Great idea in theory, but a real bastard of a chore in practice.
Why would they pull crappy stunts like that?
That's why I don't block Slashdot ads. (Except for Flash ads - but those are blanket-banned, especially at work as I'm stuck behind a slow ISDN connection).
I accept that Slashdot needs income somehow, I am not interested in a subscription and the site has relevant adverts. So I don't complain, or block them. True I've not actually clicked any adverts, but that's simple because so far I've not seen an advert for something I'm interested in and don't already know about. It's not impossible that I could, though.
Actually, I tell a lie. I think I clicked on a ThinkGeek advert once. I was interested in the product and clicking was the quickest way to go straight to the product page.
Other sites I'm fine with are DeviantArt (I paid to ditch the adverts, but also for other key features I wanted) and one of the Torrent trackers I frequent. (Unobtrusive adverts).
If the adverts don't bug me I'll accept them. If they interest me I'll click them. If I don't want them and you have a cool site (or subscriber features I want/need) then you might well get some direct cash from me.
I do, as stated, block Flash adverts. But that's partially down to size of download, some have sound, oh and as I said my work connection is slow.
That and before I installed Flash Proper it ran flash through the Quicktime plugin - which had a heavy impact on the CPU. And the college's Intranet site has a little (irritating) animated beacon.
The time involved actually makes the waiting period a hindrance instead of a help.
We have a couple of light like that near where I live. Before the lights change one of two things nearly always happens.
Something is very wrong with that lights sequence. I'm sure of it. Only with our city council I can't see it getting fixed. (Changed, yes. Fixed, no.)
That's the problem. They're not designing them based on what people do (or wish to do) with them. They're doing them based on what they expect (or want) people to do with them.
Of course if the latter is based on safety (rather than fines income) then it's a good goal to aim for. If the method goes too far against how people want to sue the roads, though, then it runs the risk of making things worse.
For lights work out when people are going where and try to optimise that. For junctions really pay attention to where people are heading, how many lane-changes you'd be enforcing, and how intuitive they are[*].
You've got to look at how people are trying to use the road, and then work on making that more safe and efficient. Forcing people to use the roads differently to how they need/want to is not going to help. It will merely replace one traffic problem with another one.
[*] Tip: If there look to be two possible lanes to use for trying to turn into a single lane then your design needs work.
Southampton, England, has some sets of lights that work like that. Or at least they run in sequence so that as one light turns green the next one along turns red immediately.
Not useful.
Once what would have been a five-minute streatch of road took me twenty minutes. This might not have been too bad except at the time I was convinced I was lost. It turns out I was on the right road after all, but those bloody light kept me in a state of panic for about twenty minutes.
At least when lights turn green as you approach them you keep moving mroe or less. You might have to pause for two seconds, but you actually get some semblance of traffic flow.
Of course this breaks down because [a] people do run lights, and [b] even the people who don't end up getting more and more frustrated - which I'm sure isn't going to inspire safe driving.
TiggsFollowing up myself. *sigh*
OK, so it's search-by-date that's apparently been ditched and not sort-by-date. My bad. Major difference, and not quite so much of a terminal much-up.
However it still seems annoying to lose the ability to search within a specific timeframe. Shouldn't that be the point of being able to search a discussion archive?
When Google first bought up the old DejaNews archives I was ticked. They took something with which I could get the information I was after and returned something with which I could not.
Over the past few years they finally got it back to being something useful. I had heard about this "Make It Into Yet Another Glorified Web Groups" effort, and was less than impressed. But as long as it didn't interfere with it being a decent Usenet search engine...
No sort-by-date and no direct-article-linking? WTF? So if I want to get only the most recent posts for a certain query or if I want to pass someone a direct link to a specific post then I'm now SOL? How is that an "improvement"?
Is there anywhere else with an exhaustive archive of Usenet? I think I'm about to jump ship. I neither need nor want another web-groups option, and I want more search flexibility rather than less.
Agreed. Especially seing because it's often a blindingly obvious step that's been overlooked. So obvious that the mind won't consider that you've forgotten it.
I find in the GIMP I often puzzle over why half of the filters are greyed out, only to realise the image is still indexed. It is something that should be obvious, yet I still forget it. A tooltip for "Not available in indexed images" would be nice.
It's not until I look a the titlebar (hence away from where I'm actually working) that I twig what obvious step I've missed. In GIMP's favour having indexed/RGB/grayscale in the titlebar is incredibly useful for just this reason.
Just because something should be (and often is) obvious doesn't mean quick pointers aren't useful. Tooltips (that can be deactivated simply) are useful, and really should be used a whole lot more. Some people obviously don't need them, so just make them simple to switch off.
You're right that it's not exactly a "design flaw" but it is something that could have been designed around by now.
I'm sure I've seen internal UPS that look like a standard PSU. To my mind something like this should be standard by now. Doesn't need to be high capacity. Just a short amount of time, a loud noise and a connection to the system to alert it to power-down ASAP. Most standard UPS do the latter anyway, right? And if they don't actually exist then maybe it's time something like them did.
I just do feel that by now at least a basic level of UPS should be built in to the power supply or case.