I'll just turn the damn thing off. 64 channels of pure bullshit, the movies suck. Even the cooking shows are turning stupid.
Indeed. I've been thinking of canceling my cable TV service (although not my cable modem, Broadband is Life;) and this just pushes me closer to doing so.
I have no interest in downloading or sharing TV shows, so if they are going to try and treat me like a criminal, I see no reason to watch their crap.
Indeed, my solution is not depending on media companies. Admittedly, I'm deaf, so music isn't as important to me as it is to a lot of people. Either way, though, I can go without it quite easily.:)
As far as TV goes, I prefer to just not let it control my life. I have a few shows that I enjoy and watch regularly, primarily on Food TV and the History Channel. Despite that, I don't particularly care if I miss them. I don't rush home to make sure I can see them. If I'm there to watch and actually remember to turn on the TV, fine. If not, it's rarely any big loss.
If I didn't watch TV, I'd do more of what I already do -- read, write, talk to friends online, visit friends in real life, go for a bike ride, cook, those sorts of things. Real life can be pretty fun.:)
I'm debating taking the same approach you did -- dump TV entirely and rent movies. I get my news online, anyway.
"Windows XP Professional requires no activation, internet or otherwise."
Really? My PC must not have gotten the memo then, because my recent XP Pro install on my laptop has a nice little icon in the system tray that says "23 days left for activation."
"Presumaly they paired this high a megapixel CMOS with some nice optics, so you're probably right in this case. But it's not always true that higher megapixel indicates better cropping ability."
It's a Digital SLR. You can put anything from Canon's EF lens line on it, including their oustanding professional (L-series) lenses. There's also some good third party lenses available from folks like Sigma.
Another issue with touch-screen and voice activated computers... what about deaf users?
That's one of the major reasons why I've never been terribly excited over the idea of being able to talk to my computer or have it talk to me -- what good is that going to do me? It's fine as an extra option, I suppose, but since mouse and keyboard are the best option I have for interfacing with a computer, I'd rather not see those tossed anytime soon.:)
I think perhaps you overestimate the opportunities for web-deployed applications. There are a lot of opportunities for them, to be sure, but (imho) they're more appropriate to applications where you want some kind of front-end to a shared database.
For other stuff though, such as word processing, spreadsheets, etc, I don't think putting them on the web is really that great of an idea. As a technical writer, I just can't see going to a web site in order to work on a manual -- a desktop application is better-suited to that, I think.
Just my $0.02.
Re:What irritates me about the win32 version.
on
Send Some Mo' Zilla
·
· Score: 1
Personally I use IE, I develop html using the 'standards' and I've found that if I do that everything looks fine in IE, fine in Mozilla and like shit in Netscape 4...
Agreed. I work as a web designer/developer for a fairly large manufacturing company, and right now we are in the process of completely redesigning our web site. I put together a page that uses DHTML to create "layers" that pop up when you roll over a certain page element. I discovered that if you use proper standards-compliant code, it works *perfectly* in both Internet Explorer 5 for Windows *and* Mozilla M14 and up.
I was very impressed -- it's not often I see advanced web technologies like DHTML that work correctly in more than one browser without having to use browser version checking and multiple code snippets using if statements to work around browser incompatibilities. If this is the future of the web, where do I sign up?:)
Granted, it would be nice if the Mozilla folks would concentrate on releasing a browser before worrying about adding stuff like an IRC client (I'd use ircle or X-Chat for that depending on what OS I happen to be running at the moment), but at least M18 of Mozilla has reaffirmed my faith in the project. It definitely has promise. And, just for the record, this comment was posted using Mozilla M18 for the Mac -- no problems that I've seen so far.
On a somewhat related note regarding standards -- we've been working to follow the XHTML 1.0 standard as strictly as possible on our pages (although we are using HTML 4.0 DTD's because there's a bug in Mozilla that blows up our table formatting if we use the xhtml dtd). I'm very impressed with gracefully standards-compliant HTML code degrades in older browsers. Our site displays and functions exactly as we want it to in IE4, IE5, and recent Mozilla milestones. It looks acceptable on Netscape 4.x (since that at least supports some CSS attributes), and while it's a bit ugly on Netscape 3, it's still functional.
But what really impressed me was when we viewed it in Lynx and it was perfectly usable -- I guess we won't need to bother with a text-only version after all.:)
Wow. I've been dual-booting Redhat 6.0 with Windows 2000 -- I want to expand my horizons beyond just Windows stuff -- and I've been pretty happy with it.
I'd been planning to upgrade to Mandrake when kernel 2.4 was released -- now it doesn't look like I'm going to be able to hold out that long.:) Guess it's time to visit cheapbytes...
Out of curiosity (and slightly off topic, sorry), anyone know how hard it is to set up a voodoo3 with XFree 4? A friend of mine is running SuSe 6.4 on a Voodoo Banshee and wasn't able to get XFree 4 working with it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
and if it bogs down into occupation freedom-lovers from around the world will be infiltrating that long Swedish border with arms and ammunition.
And Knoppix CDs?
I'll just turn the damn thing off. 64 channels of pure bullshit, the movies suck. Even the cooking shows are turning stupid.
;) and this just pushes me closer to doing so.
Indeed. I've been thinking of canceling my cable TV service (although not my cable modem, Broadband is Life
I have no interest in downloading or sharing TV shows, so if they are going to try and treat me like a criminal, I see no reason to watch their crap.
Indeed, my solution is not depending on media companies. Admittedly, I'm deaf, so music isn't as important to me as it is to a lot of people. Either way, though, I can go without it quite easily. :)
:)
As far as TV goes, I prefer to just not let it control my life. I have a few shows that I enjoy and watch regularly, primarily on Food TV and the History Channel. Despite that, I don't particularly care if I miss them. I don't rush home to make sure I can see them. If I'm there to watch and actually remember to turn on the TV, fine. If not, it's rarely any big loss.
If I didn't watch TV, I'd do more of what I already do -- read, write, talk to friends online, visit friends in real life, go for a bike ride, cook, those sorts of things. Real life can be pretty fun.
I'm debating taking the same approach you did -- dump TV entirely and rent movies. I get my news online, anyway.
"Windows XP Professional requires no activation, internet or otherwise."
Really? My PC must not have gotten the memo then, because my recent XP Pro install on my laptop has a nice little icon in the system tray that says "23 days left for activation."
"Presumaly they paired this high a megapixel CMOS with some nice optics, so you're probably right in this case. But it's not always true that higher megapixel indicates better cropping ability."
It's a Digital SLR. You can put anything from Canon's EF lens line on it, including their oustanding professional (L-series) lenses. There's also some good third party lenses available from folks like Sigma.
Try loading about:config and changing the browser.cache.check_doc_frequency setting to 1. I think that does it.
Another issue with touch-screen and voice activated computers... what about deaf users?
That's one of the major reasons why I've never been terribly excited over the idea of being able to talk to my computer or have it talk to me -- what good is that going to do me? It's fine as an extra option, I suppose, but since mouse and keyboard are the best option I have for interfacing with a computer, I'd rather not see those tossed anytime soon. :)
I think perhaps you overestimate the opportunities for web-deployed applications. There are a lot of opportunities for them, to be sure, but (imho) they're more appropriate to applications where you want some kind of front-end to a shared database.
For other stuff though, such as word processing, spreadsheets, etc, I don't think putting them on the web is really that great of an idea. As a technical writer, I just can't see going to a web site in order to work on a manual -- a desktop application is better-suited to that, I think.
Just my $0.02.
Agreed. I work as a web designer/developer for a fairly large manufacturing company, and right now we are in the process of completely redesigning our web site. I put together a page that uses DHTML to create "layers" that pop up when you roll over a certain page element. I discovered that if you use proper standards-compliant code, it works *perfectly* in both Internet Explorer 5 for Windows *and* Mozilla M14 and up.
I was very impressed -- it's not often I see advanced web technologies like DHTML that work correctly in more than one browser without having to use browser version checking and multiple code snippets using if statements to work around browser incompatibilities. If this is the future of the web, where do I sign up? :)
Granted, it would be nice if the Mozilla folks would concentrate on releasing a browser before worrying about adding stuff like an IRC client (I'd use ircle or X-Chat for that depending on what OS I happen to be running at the moment), but at least M18 of Mozilla has reaffirmed my faith in the project. It definitely has promise. And, just for the record, this comment was posted using Mozilla M18 for the Mac -- no problems that I've seen so far.
On a somewhat related note regarding standards -- we've been working to follow the XHTML 1.0 standard as strictly as possible on our pages (although we are using HTML 4.0 DTD's because there's a bug in Mozilla that blows up our table formatting if we use the xhtml dtd). I'm very impressed with gracefully standards-compliant HTML code degrades in older browsers. Our site displays and functions exactly as we want it to in IE4, IE5, and recent Mozilla milestones. It looks acceptable on Netscape 4.x (since that at least supports some CSS attributes), and while it's a bit ugly on Netscape 3, it's still functional.
But what really impressed me was when we viewed it in Lynx and it was perfectly usable -- I guess we won't need to bother with a text-only version after all. :)
Wow. I've been dual-booting Redhat 6.0 with Windows 2000 -- I want to expand my horizons beyond just Windows stuff -- and I've been pretty happy with it.
:) Guess it's time to visit cheapbytes...
I'd been planning to upgrade to Mandrake when kernel 2.4 was released -- now it doesn't look like I'm going to be able to hold out that long.
Out of curiosity (and slightly off topic, sorry), anyone know how hard it is to set up a voodoo3 with XFree 4? A friend of mine is running SuSe 6.4 on a Voodoo Banshee and wasn't able to get XFree 4 working with it at all.