So much for copy-protected CD's. Why do they even waste their time with this non-sense? Instead of trying to figure out how to fool the copiers...why not turn the entire buisness model upside down and encourage downloading the album and then making the money back from live shows?
My guess is because the actual bands would have a lot more power to command the money. Plus it doesn't work anywhere near as nice for the one hit wonders, and it probably means a whole lot less money overall. Maybe they can make some money back with live shows, but why would they want to give up the money from the CDs? The stupid thing about this is that the copy protection probably does almost nothing to stop the pirate, and just annoys the person who has legitimate use (like copying to mp3 player, or playing in other equipment).
Rambus should learn some basic business strategy. If someone comes out with a slightly less quality product, but sells it for a lot cheaper, that product will win. So, recognize the problem and lower your prices or significantly raise the benefits of paying them. In either case, don't resort to frivilous lawsuits if things don't go your way.
SCO has already taught us that after it's obvious you've lost, filing frivilous law suits is a great way to get that stock price up one last time to dump it off before bankruptcy. I'd say Rambus is acting brilliantly. If anything, they need to file even more lawsuits. Take it to the users, anyone who installed non RAMBUS ram should have to pay RAMBUS 1 million, billion dollars as a penalty.
It's the often the rules around password generation that make this happen.
Let's look at a typical company. You probably have 3 plus passwords to remember, some of them likely expire (ours expire monthly) without letting you use repeats.
Now, some people I'm sure will come up with some great random words and methods to memorize them easily. However, once you get past about 5 people who understand security, the rest of the company is going to come up with a scheme to just figure out their own passwords because they just want to do their work everyday and don't want to deal with this problem.
At our company, the scheme is invariably one of two options:
1) Write it down on a post it note and stick it on the front of the computer.
2) Come up with one word, and increment a couple letters in it each month.
Neither method is too secure, and neither one would be used if it weren't for the total number of passwords required and frequent changes combined with a large number of users. Once you get past about 5-10 people in a place then you know a ton of users will find an easy way out. At that point added complexity to your password rules probably makes you less secure.
What's more secure, allowing people to use english words and change once every 6 months, or having non english words with 1 month changes and having 2 dozen people in your place of business post their passwords on a post it on their computer?
I don't think that these people are costing them any money whatsoever. I seriously wonder if any of the downloadable stuff costs them money, but for darn sure the cams don't.
Have you ever seen a cam? They usually are not even watchable. The telesyncs or screeners are actually good enough that you could watch them, but even they completely pale in comparrison to actually being at a movie.
Anyway, I have no objection to the idea that what these people are doing is wrong, but I find it extremely unlikely that they have any real effect on the movie industry whatsoever. If they wanted to bust down the pirates who are actually hurting their business they need to get the guys in the booth with the projecter setting up the telesyncs or the people who let out the screeners.
Either way, prison time seems like a pretty stiff offense for the crime to me. I'd think a large fine would probably be more appropriate. It's funny though, almost all of the people I know who are into downloading bootlegged movies are the most rampant movie-goers. They usually just want to have a copy for home, or are attracted to the idea of having it early and being special. Admittedly it's a small set of people that I know who bother doing this, so it may not be a representitive set of the typical movie bootlegger.
People hate suburbia because it:
a) is boring.
b) is repititous
c) has no culture
d) has no entertainment.
f) has no individuals.
e) is repititous
My only point is if you feel that way, then don't live there, but why get the elitest attitude about it?
It's also funny because all of those things are subjective, and having spent a lot of time in Chicago and the Chicago suburbs, I'd say I disagree with most of them. I could name a bunch of objective reasons why I wouldn't want to live in the city. Smaller living spaces, higher cost of living, higher crime rate, less nature, worse air quality, and large crowds (making it difficult to get into many activities you'd like to do). I'd imagine the life expectency is significantly lower as well, but I can't immediately back that up. Of the benefits you name, only entertainment and culture have any merit, and entertainment is really just more of some types of entertainment while there are less of other types. I find it easy to capitalize ont he city's entertainment while living in the suburbs though. I will agree that the city (at least chicago) has more culture to it though.
And by your logic people would like a house, car, movie, tv show, painting, musical, opera, porno, spouse, whatever so long as they see/hear it enough and it doesnt offend them.
On things where your view of the thing in question is largely subjective (music, tv, movies, paintings, opera etc). Things like a house or car have more objective differences between various models, and so this isn't as true.
That explains suburbia...
I've always wondered why people hate suburbia so much. People in the suburbs don't hate the city.
There are 168 usable hours in the week, 42 of which is used for sleeping and 50 for working that leaves (about average) 76 hours to do whatever with. you tell me that you work over 76 hours more than average or that you can't spend two or three hours a week browsing music and I will tell you your full of shit. You might not want to spend the time doing that, and its fine. But your post comes off like your activities are better than other people's. I also got a hint of that "I'm married single people aren't important" vibe.
My point isn't that I have more or less time then the next guy, or that married people are better than single people. I'm not putting any kind of valuing scheme on people or how they spend their time. My point was that some people are audiobuffs, and they are really into their music and very selective. Most people are not. They will grow to like whatever is familiar and for those people spending (often precious) time trying to find 'better' music that is entirely unfamiliar is unlikely. I'm only saying the arguments of "just ignore the record labels and listen to good independent music" aren't valid until listening to "good independent music" requires no additional effort.
It's complete crap. What will it take for these overpaid execs to see what their market wants?
It will take people giving them less money with proof that giving us what we want will make them more money. If people massively start shifting back to piracy after a price increase and extra tracks are included then perhaps they will get it. If people suck it up and buy online anyway, then we're the ones who don't get it. They want as much of our cash as possible, this is a reasonable gamble for them to try and get more cash. It may not work at all, but I can see why they'd try it.
That's a great idea. Especially if you're single, have no kids, and have a lot of spare time. There was a point in my life where I was that person. Of course, I'm not anymore. I'd love to have the time to go out and experiment with tons of different music and find good albums, however, the idea that I would spend the precious free time I have doing so is laughable to me. That's the reason why the stuff playing at the mall or the lobby to the movie theater is popular. It gets pounded into the heads of those of us who don't have time to go out and search for less popular music. I know this will probably offend most of the audiobuffs out there, but the vast majority of the people I know (whether they admit it or not) will like almost any music that's played frequently enough to be familiar as long as it isn't personally offensive to them.
Here's what I don't understand. The article states $136 billion dollars of salary (per year) will be moved outside the US in the next 15 years. Don't these businesses realize that when they stop paying the american people to build their products, that the american people they rely on to BUY their products wont have any money because they pushed all the jobs overseas?
That's a great theory for society as a whole, but it's a horrible theory for the individual company. What do you do if you're running a company and all your competitors outsource and undercut you on price? Do you follow suit, or do you slowly go out of business because you can no longer offer a competitive price?
I think this issue is overblown.
1) The people who use mod chips are by and large pirates. I'm suprised anyone would even reasonably argue against that case. Yeah, there are probably a handful of people trying to write emulators, run linux or some other such thing which is in the grey area legally, but the vast majority just want free games.
2) The console companies are not losing that much money on mod chips. First, not that many people have them. Second, the people who have them may play hundreds of games on them, but would have likely bought very few of those games if they didn't have the chip. I'd find it likely that companies spend more money fighting this issue then the issue costs them.
Slap a keyboard and a mouse on an xbox and all of a sudden it's a pc with a low res monitor. So it's quite possible we could get consoles with keyboards and mice to simulate the accuracy of the pc. In the end, it can be the same hardware on both platforms and the games will just be created and ported to all systems. Eventually, you'll probably be able to play any 3rd party online games regardless of the system you have to connect with.
Will TiVo Die?
on
TiVo Will Die
·
· Score: 2, Informative
First, PVRs aren't going to die, does anyone really care if they are getting their service from TiVo, ReplayTV, DirecTV, Dish, comcast, or whomever might decide to put the box together and package it with software? Assuming the software is good and the box works correctly it doesn't matter to me at all.
Second, as to whether or not the cable companies squeeze out TiVo, it will be interesting, but TiVo would survive easily on just the DirecTV customers. They probably wouldn't be as big, but the company wouldn't die. They also may end up cutting deals with cable companies in the future as well.
Third, HDTV ruining the game? This is purely ridiculous. If the DirecTV HD Tivo box costs $1000 than most of the price has to be in the components used to supply HDTV or temporary inflation because someone wants gigantic profit margins. The only thing different about the TiVo is that it will require a bigger HD, but you can get a 200 gig drive now for near $100, so there's no reason that the price should inflate that dramatically based on the TiVos requirements. If the cost of the HD equipment is that much more it will hinder HD not the TiVo, and the expense will be more for anyone switching to HD, since the TiVo cost of it only needs to be about $100 (at most) than a non TiVo HD player. Also, the idea that HDTV is going to rule 2004 seems pretty ridiculous to me. Sorry, I think I'm going to need more than about 5% of my channels to broadcast in HD before I could claim HD rules TV. While higher quality HD TV has it's benefits, and it will eventually take over, there are relatively few things that I care enough to spend big money on products to watch in HD. Most TV (news, sitcoms, tv dramas etc) plays out fine in non HDTV. If there's a high premium to buy an HD decoder box (for cable or DTV) I'm not going to buy one regardless of whether or not it has TiVo in it. I also think I'm the only one left who detests the widescreen format. (who here has a TV in their house that's bounded by horizontal space more so than vertical space? You get the extra height for free because you run out of width, so you might as well get the 4-3). Also, if I see one more idiot with a widescreen TV who stretches out the picture and tells me how good it looks I'm going to kill them. You just took a non HD broadcast, stretched the picture to make everyone look fat, and then brag about how great your TV is. Brilliant. (sorry for the rant)
Finally, I will agree that TiVo will be in big trouble if it can't keep it's deal with DirecTV. The points above are only worth mentioning if it has the deal with DTV in place. I do think that integrated PVRs are going to be the future. No one wants extra boxes, and there is no advantage to having your box and your PVR seperate, so getting into contracts with places to do digital is the way to go.
Hah! I know microsoft is evil and all, so you have to twist anything microsoft related in the worst possible way, but still I think most of you read way more into this then was there. It clearly looks like the quotes are taken completely out of context, and you guys are all implying meaning that is clearly not intended.
All they are trying to say is that patching your machine is a good idea because many exploits are created from reverse engineering. I don't think there's anything revolutionary about that statement, and I think it's a pretty accurate one.
So, by extension, if everybody were to leave their doors open and unlocked at night, there would be no crime?:-)
No, no, no... They're not saying that at all. They're saying:
If you live in a house with no door, you buy a new house with a door.
Then when you realize the door has no lock, you buy a new house with a door with a lock.
Then you hire someone to lock the door for you.
That's the microsoft way!
on the other hand, it might be because men are more apt to engage in risk-taking behavior. Which is why, even if they might have fewer accidents numerically per mile driven, they are much more likely to cause a serious injury or fatality in a given accident than women are.
This just proves the same point. They have less accidents per mile driven despite driving in a riskier fashion. If they didn't process spatial objects better than they'd have worse accidents AND far more accidents. The fact that they don't have far more accidents is still evidence to support this opinion. If you do some research on the topic, I think you'd find a very large body of evidence that this is the case. (the driving example may not have been the perfect example, but the differences in how men and women process spatial objects is generally accepted).
I think this is more relevent for tracking moving objects and other things.
I think the perfect example is driving. Men can more quickly adapt to what's going on around them in a car and translate the objects around them better. The result is that the women feel the men are careening out of control and complain. However, partially this is due to the fact that their brains aren't translating the information as quickly, so what looks out of control to them isn't to the men.
I don't really have a particular view on video gaming or anything, and I'm not entirely certain how much this would relate to that, but I wouldn't be suprised at all if scientific evidenced showed that men were significantly better at certain types of games because of this.
Actually, scientific studies (which seem to be widely accepted as true) show that men are better at spatial relationships, and interpretting 3-d objects. Both of which would both be extremely important in most video gaming. This is typically why men are better (or at least learn faster) at games like pool or darts (and many other games) that don't require greater physical strength or muscle development.
First, most of the geeky ideas are right out. Yes a USB keychain flash drive, or mp3 player or something would be very cool. The problem is when it comes to computer devices or things like that, I'd probably so much rather pick it out unless you really knew what you were doing and did a great job of feeling me out on exactly what i wanted. If you did that, then it'd no longer be a suprise and probably wouldn't work well.
Secondly, the ideas about sex and whatever are all great. However, these sound like ideas from people currently not getting sex. If you're sleeping with your boyfriend already, then sleeping with him some more on valentine's day is probably something that will happen anyway and isn't a great gift. If you wanted to turn sex into a gift, then I think you'd better be doing something that's more fantasy based or something unusual (a trip to VS or a night at the sybaris (or one of those sex hotels if they don't have the sybaris by you).
As for just spending the day together, while that is beautiful and I really want to spend the day with my wife on valentine's day, it's something that's going to be done anyway, and you'd probably feel pretty silly saying my gift to you is spending time with you. (I can't think of many things that would sound more conceited). Since basically, he could reply the same way.
So with those things in mind, here's a few ideas:
1) Take an interest in something he loves that you normally have no interest in. It depends on what kind of things you normally do together, but if you hate action movies renting one of his favorites, or watching star wars even if you hate it, or playing some multi-player games you don't like are all great ideas.
2) Get tickets to an event. This is even better when combined with item #1. If you hate sports and he loves them, he'll really appreciate tickets to a basketball, baseball, or hockey game. Tickets to a comedy show, or some other show (as long as it's something he'd like, and not something you'd like, but he'd hate) would also be great.
3) Agree not to make valentine's day a big deal. He's probably stressing out about what to get you for valentine's day, because he wants to do something special for you, but it's hard to feel special buying the same stuff everyone else is (you are obviously feeling somewhat of the same challenge). That being the case, agree to not buy each other gifts, but instead mutually plan an evening together. Go out to see a show, get some nice dinner, maybe plan some bedroom sports for afterwards that are a little spicier than normal (if you are doing that kind of thing that is).
I've owned a PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube at one time or another (currently, I do not own an xbox but still have the other two). The vast majority (though not all) of the games I've played were far better on the xbox. The Hard Drive made it so much more convient to play that it was ridiculous. The first time I saved a football franchise on my game cube I thought the system locked up because it took so long.
The only reason I own a gamecube is for the flawless wireless controllers. The xbox ones were crap, and I needed wireless controllers.
After I found I couldn't live without the wireless controllers, I gave up the xbox for Game cube out right.
I then bought a ps2 specifically so I could play dance dance revolution. I would have repurchased an xbox and gotten the xbox version of it, but it wasn't in stock.
One thing I'll say about ps/2 is they have far and away the best controller layout of the big 3.
Available games is always a factor, but there really aren't too many games out there only available for one system that I considered must haves. (of course, I'm a sports nut, and all the major sports games are available on all 3).
If I had to go down to 1 system, it'd probably be the cube, just becasue of the wavebird, but if xbox had a decent wireless controller I'd dump the other two in a second just for that hard drive.
This is often true in reality, but it doesn't have to be true if you rent intelligently.
If you invest the money you would have put down as a deposit, then you invest all the money you can save living in an apartment vs a house (usually free utilities and rent can be significantly cheaper than a mortgage).
After 30 years, you may have been well ahead in the investment category than you would be owning the house outright. (of course, there are many factors like property values where you buy vs how good an investor you are, plus the fact that almost no one is a good enough saver to make this plan work).
Quite honestly, I think kids playing games is great. In almost all games you practice memory, patience, hand eye coordination, and basic strategy to solve the game (which can be simple or greatly complex).
Yes, they need to be outside playing, being active and experiencing the world first hand, but if you don't think there's plenty of time for them to do both of these things then I'd be suprised if you actually have kids. If there's one thing on this earth kids have it's plenty of free time, and I'd much rather have my kid playing video games then watching TV and that's a solution that's probably acceptable to both you and your child because they'll look at it as an adequate switch. You can try to get them to read or play outside more, but in the end, those activities are probably taking place an ample amount of time already and increasing them may be difficult sell because your kids will get bored with any activity you force on them for too long. I think video games would be a much easier sell to replace tv time with and provide different and still important skillsets that wouldn't be acquired as readily through other things parents typically promote.
I think the obsession with your own car is particularly strong among Americans, who see it as a symbol of freedom and wealth, and they associate public transport with poor losers. This is re-inforced by car and oil company marketing.
I disagree, it's largely a matter of practicality. Now people may also buy cars for these reasons, particularly certain types of cars, but if you live in the suburbs public transportation just wouldn't cut it. To rely on public transportation to get to work and from work, it'd probably add an hour to my day. To rely on it to go to the grocery store or to take my daughter to the doctor or something else, would seem ridiculous.
I have friends who live in the Chicago itself, and none of them own a car because it's extremely practical to use public transportation there. There's no place to park, traffic is murder, the bus stops, l's, and trains are more prevelent, and the places you go to are condensced into smaller area so there is much less walking to and from stops.
If most bands did this, then it would mean absolutely nothing. The RIAA isn't based on the quality of music, the recording companies will grab 5 random good looking people who can dance and have never met, have someone else write some music, and turn them into a big hit.
The only way this helps is if all consumers start buying music this way, but that's also not going to happen, because quite honestly, most people don't care enough. Most people love listening to music, but won't go out of their way to find cool local bands. It's too much work. You're basically going to listen to music that you've already established that you like, or you're going to listen to whatever is convenient or overheard when you are at other places. The stuff you hear conveniently or overhear is almost always going to come directly from major record labels since they feed the radios and most mainstream restaurants.
I would certainly encourage bands to use independent labels, and it will almost certainly work better for the band, but it probably won't harm the RIAA at all, because they control the system to which most people are going to be introduced to new music.
I just bought my first PDA, a Cassiopeia E-200 off of ebay (won't get it for another week). I long felt the same way you did about pdas, but these are the uses that pushed me over the edge:
Just kind of nice to have these things when you're stuck waiting around somewhere:
1) It can run a nes emulator, and I can easily keep my favorite hundred nes games on it to mess around with whenever I want.
2) I can play mp3s on it.
Convient around my house, because my 1 year old daughter brings up interesting challenges:
1) Universal remote software for all 6 of our tvs, 3 vcrs, and 3 dvd players (my daughter loves to hide remotes)
2) Wireless internet acces (through compact flash card), since my daughter will not tolerate me using a laptop or normal computer, I'm hoping I can get away with the pda.
Other uses, but not strong selling points for me personally:
1) Storage of phone numbers, calender (I'm too lazy to use the calender, and my mobile phone does the phone numbers)
2) GPS mapping system/digital camera add ons, I think both are intriguing, but I'm not sure that either one is worth buying, since you can get standalone devices that handle both functionalities just as well for a similar price.
Call me anti-progressive, but I can't fathom why people want the widescreen tv format to win.
Anything is best viewed in the format it comes in. (ie a widescreen movie will look best on a widescreen tv, a 4:3 broadcast will look best on a 4:3 tv).
The main problem with widescreen to me, is that the size of my tv has always been banded by the width of the television. We have 6 tv's in our house currently, and this is true of all 6 tvs. If I can only fit a TV that's 32 inches wide on the stand, it doesn't matter how tall it is, thus with a 4:3 set I'm getting the extra height for free. Even with the black bars on the top and bottom, I'm getting the same size picture as I would if I had gotten the biggest widescreen tv I could put in the same place.
If that's the case, I'd rather just have the 4:3 tv, and have as many things broadcast in 4:3 as possible to use up my extra space.
Also, I think at the point your eyes can take in the full length of a 16:9 picture, that they could take in more height if it were available. Meaning, you can sit closer to a 4:3 tv then a widescreen or put a bigger 4:3 tv in the same space without causing more eye strain.
Now I can see why people want widescreen movies, because you're giving up information if you use the fullscreen version. However, when you are making a choice to film something, you aren't gaining more information by filming it in 16:9, you're just choosing whether you'd rather have more height or width information available.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is because the actual bands would have a lot more power to command the money. Plus it doesn't work anywhere near as nice for the one hit wonders, and it probably means a whole lot less money overall. Maybe they can make some money back with live shows, but why would they want to give up the money from the CDs? The stupid thing about this is that the copy protection probably does almost nothing to stop the pirate, and just annoys the person who has legitimate use (like copying to mp3 player, or playing in other equipment).
It's the often the rules around password generation that make this happen. Let's look at a typical company. You probably have 3 plus passwords to remember, some of them likely expire (ours expire monthly) without letting you use repeats. Now, some people I'm sure will come up with some great random words and methods to memorize them easily. However, once you get past about 5 people who understand security, the rest of the company is going to come up with a scheme to just figure out their own passwords because they just want to do their work everyday and don't want to deal with this problem. At our company, the scheme is invariably one of two options: 1) Write it down on a post it note and stick it on the front of the computer. 2) Come up with one word, and increment a couple letters in it each month. Neither method is too secure, and neither one would be used if it weren't for the total number of passwords required and frequent changes combined with a large number of users. Once you get past about 5-10 people in a place then you know a ton of users will find an easy way out. At that point added complexity to your password rules probably makes you less secure. What's more secure, allowing people to use english words and change once every 6 months, or having non english words with 1 month changes and having 2 dozen people in your place of business post their passwords on a post it on their computer?
Have you ever seen a cam? They usually are not even watchable. The telesyncs or screeners are actually good enough that you could watch them, but even they completely pale in comparrison to actually being at a movie.
Anyway, I have no objection to the idea that what these people are doing is wrong, but I find it extremely unlikely that they have any real effect on the movie industry whatsoever. If they wanted to bust down the pirates who are actually hurting their business they need to get the guys in the booth with the projecter setting up the telesyncs or the people who let out the screeners.
Either way, prison time seems like a pretty stiff offense for the crime to me. I'd think a large fine would probably be more appropriate. It's funny though, almost all of the people I know who are into downloading bootlegged movies are the most rampant movie-goers. They usually just want to have a copy for home, or are attracted to the idea of having it early and being special. Admittedly it's a small set of people that I know who bother doing this, so it may not be a representitive set of the typical movie bootlegger.
It's also funny because all of those things are subjective, and having spent a lot of time in Chicago and the Chicago suburbs, I'd say I disagree with most of them. I could name a bunch of objective reasons why I wouldn't want to live in the city. Smaller living spaces, higher cost of living, higher crime rate, less nature, worse air quality, and large crowds (making it difficult to get into many activities you'd like to do). I'd imagine the life expectency is significantly lower as well, but I can't immediately back that up. Of the benefits you name, only entertainment and culture have any merit, and entertainment is really just more of some types of entertainment while there are less of other types. I find it easy to capitalize ont he city's entertainment while living in the suburbs though. I will agree that the city (at least chicago) has more culture to it though.
That's a great idea. Especially if you're single, have no kids, and have a lot of spare time. There was a point in my life where I was that person. Of course, I'm not anymore. I'd love to have the time to go out and experiment with tons of different music and find good albums, however, the idea that I would spend the precious free time I have doing so is laughable to me. That's the reason why the stuff playing at the mall or the lobby to the movie theater is popular. It gets pounded into the heads of those of us who don't have time to go out and search for less popular music. I know this will probably offend most of the audiobuffs out there, but the vast majority of the people I know (whether they admit it or not) will like almost any music that's played frequently enough to be familiar as long as it isn't personally offensive to them.
That's a great theory for society as a whole, but it's a horrible theory for the individual company. What do you do if you're running a company and all your competitors outsource and undercut you on price? Do you follow suit, or do you slowly go out of business because you can no longer offer a competitive price?
I think this issue is overblown. 1) The people who use mod chips are by and large pirates. I'm suprised anyone would even reasonably argue against that case. Yeah, there are probably a handful of people trying to write emulators, run linux or some other such thing which is in the grey area legally, but the vast majority just want free games. 2) The console companies are not losing that much money on mod chips. First, not that many people have them. Second, the people who have them may play hundreds of games on them, but would have likely bought very few of those games if they didn't have the chip. I'd find it likely that companies spend more money fighting this issue then the issue costs them.
Slap a keyboard and a mouse on an xbox and all of a sudden it's a pc with a low res monitor. So it's quite possible we could get consoles with keyboards and mice to simulate the accuracy of the pc. In the end, it can be the same hardware on both platforms and the games will just be created and ported to all systems. Eventually, you'll probably be able to play any 3rd party online games regardless of the system you have to connect with.
First, PVRs aren't going to die, does anyone really care if they are getting their service from TiVo, ReplayTV, DirecTV, Dish, comcast, or whomever might decide to put the box together and package it with software? Assuming the software is good and the box works correctly it doesn't matter to me at all.
Second, as to whether or not the cable companies squeeze out TiVo, it will be interesting, but TiVo would survive easily on just the DirecTV customers. They probably wouldn't be as big, but the company wouldn't die. They also may end up cutting deals with cable companies in the future as well.
Third, HDTV ruining the game? This is purely ridiculous. If the DirecTV HD Tivo box costs $1000 than most of the price has to be in the components used to supply HDTV or temporary inflation because someone wants gigantic profit margins. The only thing different about the TiVo is that it will require a bigger HD, but you can get a 200 gig drive now for near $100, so there's no reason that the price should inflate that dramatically based on the TiVos requirements. If the cost of the HD equipment is that much more it will hinder HD not the TiVo, and the expense will be more for anyone switching to HD, since the TiVo cost of it only needs to be about $100 (at most) than a non TiVo HD player. Also, the idea that HDTV is going to rule 2004 seems pretty ridiculous to me. Sorry, I think I'm going to need more than about 5% of my channels to broadcast in HD before I could claim HD rules TV. While higher quality HD TV has it's benefits, and it will eventually take over, there are relatively few things that I care enough to spend big money on products to watch in HD. Most TV (news, sitcoms, tv dramas etc) plays out fine in non HDTV. If there's a high premium to buy an HD decoder box (for cable or DTV) I'm not going to buy one regardless of whether or not it has TiVo in it. I also think I'm the only one left who detests the widescreen format. (who here has a TV in their house that's bounded by horizontal space more so than vertical space? You get the extra height for free because you run out of width, so you might as well get the 4-3). Also, if I see one more idiot with a widescreen TV who stretches out the picture and tells me how good it looks I'm going to kill them. You just took a non HD broadcast, stretched the picture to make everyone look fat, and then brag about how great your TV is. Brilliant. (sorry for the rant)
Finally, I will agree that TiVo will be in big trouble if it can't keep it's deal with DirecTV. The points above are only worth mentioning if it has the deal with DTV in place. I do think that integrated PVRs are going to be the future. No one wants extra boxes, and there is no advantage to having your box and your PVR seperate, so getting into contracts with places to do digital is the way to go.
Hah! I know microsoft is evil and all, so you have to twist anything microsoft related in the worst possible way, but still I think most of you read way more into this then was there. It clearly looks like the quotes are taken completely out of context, and you guys are all implying meaning that is clearly not intended.
All they are trying to say is that patching your machine is a good idea because many exploits are created from reverse engineering. I don't think there's anything revolutionary about that statement, and I think it's a pretty accurate one.
So, by extension, if everybody were to leave their doors open and unlocked at night, there would be no crime? :-)
No, no, no... They're not saying that at all. They're saying:
If you live in a house with no door, you buy a new house with a door.
Then when you realize the door has no lock, you buy a new house with a door with a lock.
Then you hire someone to lock the door for you.
That's the microsoft way!
>
I think this is more relevent for tracking moving objects and other things.
I think the perfect example is driving. Men can more quickly adapt to what's going on around them in a car and translate the objects around them better. The result is that the women feel the men are careening out of control and complain. However, partially this is due to the fact that their brains aren't translating the information as quickly, so what looks out of control to them isn't to the men.
I don't really have a particular view on video gaming or anything, and I'm not entirely certain how much this would relate to that, but I wouldn't be suprised at all if scientific evidenced showed that men were significantly better at certain types of games because of this.
>
Actually, scientific studies (which seem to be widely accepted as true) show that men are better at spatial relationships, and interpretting 3-d objects. Both of which would both be extremely important in most video gaming. This is typically why men are better (or at least learn faster) at games like pool or darts (and many other games) that don't require greater physical strength or muscle development.
First, most of the geeky ideas are right out. Yes a USB keychain flash drive, or mp3 player or something would be very cool. The problem is when it comes to computer devices or things like that, I'd probably so much rather pick it out unless you really knew what you were doing and did a great job of feeling me out on exactly what i wanted. If you did that, then it'd no longer be a suprise and probably wouldn't work well.
Secondly, the ideas about sex and whatever are all great. However, these sound like ideas from people currently not getting sex. If you're sleeping with your boyfriend already, then sleeping with him some more on valentine's day is probably something that will happen anyway and isn't a great gift. If you wanted to turn sex into a gift, then I think you'd better be doing something that's more fantasy based or something unusual (a trip to VS or a night at the sybaris (or one of those sex hotels if they don't have the sybaris by you).
As for just spending the day together, while that is beautiful and I really want to spend the day with my wife on valentine's day, it's something that's going to be done anyway, and you'd probably feel pretty silly saying my gift to you is spending time with you. (I can't think of many things that would sound more conceited). Since basically, he could reply the same way.
So with those things in mind, here's a few ideas:
1) Take an interest in something he loves that you normally have no interest in. It depends on what kind of things you normally do together, but if you hate action movies renting one of his favorites, or watching star wars even if you hate it, or playing some multi-player games you don't like are all great ideas.
2) Get tickets to an event. This is even better when combined with item #1. If you hate sports and he loves them, he'll really appreciate tickets to a basketball, baseball, or hockey game. Tickets to a comedy show, or some other show (as long as it's something he'd like, and not something you'd like, but he'd hate) would also be great.
3) Agree not to make valentine's day a big deal. He's probably stressing out about what to get you for valentine's day, because he wants to do something special for you, but it's hard to feel special buying the same stuff everyone else is (you are obviously feeling somewhat of the same challenge). That being the case, agree to not buy each other gifts, but instead mutually plan an evening together. Go out to see a show, get some nice dinner, maybe plan some bedroom sports for afterwards that are a little spicier than normal (if you are doing that kind of thing that is).
Anyway, just some thoughts!
I've owned a PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube at one time or another (currently, I do not own an xbox but still have the other two). The vast majority (though not all) of the games I've played were far better on the xbox. The Hard Drive made it so much more convient to play that it was ridiculous. The first time I saved a football franchise on my game cube I thought the system locked up because it took so long. The only reason I own a gamecube is for the flawless wireless controllers. The xbox ones were crap, and I needed wireless controllers. After I found I couldn't live without the wireless controllers, I gave up the xbox for Game cube out right. I then bought a ps2 specifically so I could play dance dance revolution. I would have repurchased an xbox and gotten the xbox version of it, but it wasn't in stock. One thing I'll say about ps/2 is they have far and away the best controller layout of the big 3. Available games is always a factor, but there really aren't too many games out there only available for one system that I considered must haves. (of course, I'm a sports nut, and all the major sports games are available on all 3). If I had to go down to 1 system, it'd probably be the cube, just becasue of the wavebird, but if xbox had a decent wireless controller I'd dump the other two in a second just for that hard drive.
This is often true in reality, but it doesn't have to be true if you rent intelligently.
If you invest the money you would have put down as a deposit, then you invest all the money you can save living in an apartment vs a house (usually free utilities and rent can be significantly cheaper than a mortgage).
After 30 years, you may have been well ahead in the investment category than you would be owning the house outright. (of course, there are many factors like property values where you buy vs how good an investor you are, plus the fact that almost no one is a good enough saver to make this plan work).
Quite honestly, I think kids playing games is great. In almost all games you practice memory, patience, hand eye coordination, and basic strategy to solve the game (which can be simple or greatly complex). Yes, they need to be outside playing, being active and experiencing the world first hand, but if you don't think there's plenty of time for them to do both of these things then I'd be suprised if you actually have kids. If there's one thing on this earth kids have it's plenty of free time, and I'd much rather have my kid playing video games then watching TV and that's a solution that's probably acceptable to both you and your child because they'll look at it as an adequate switch. You can try to get them to read or play outside more, but in the end, those activities are probably taking place an ample amount of time already and increasing them may be difficult sell because your kids will get bored with any activity you force on them for too long. I think video games would be a much easier sell to replace tv time with and provide different and still important skillsets that wouldn't be acquired as readily through other things parents typically promote.
I disagree, it's largely a matter of practicality. Now people may also buy cars for these reasons, particularly certain types of cars, but if you live in the suburbs public transportation just wouldn't cut it. To rely on public transportation to get to work and from work, it'd probably add an hour to my day. To rely on it to go to the grocery store or to take my daughter to the doctor or something else, would seem ridiculous.
I have friends who live in the Chicago itself, and none of them own a car because it's extremely practical to use public transportation there. There's no place to park, traffic is murder, the bus stops, l's, and trains are more prevelent, and the places you go to are condensced into smaller area so there is much less walking to and from stops.
If most bands did this, then it would mean absolutely nothing. The RIAA isn't based on the quality of music, the recording companies will grab 5 random good looking people who can dance and have never met, have someone else write some music, and turn them into a big hit. The only way this helps is if all consumers start buying music this way, but that's also not going to happen, because quite honestly, most people don't care enough. Most people love listening to music, but won't go out of their way to find cool local bands. It's too much work. You're basically going to listen to music that you've already established that you like, or you're going to listen to whatever is convenient or overheard when you are at other places. The stuff you hear conveniently or overhear is almost always going to come directly from major record labels since they feed the radios and most mainstream restaurants. I would certainly encourage bands to use independent labels, and it will almost certainly work better for the band, but it probably won't harm the RIAA at all, because they control the system to which most people are going to be introduced to new music.
I just bought my first PDA, a Cassiopeia E-200 off of ebay (won't get it for another week). I long felt the same way you did about pdas, but these are the uses that pushed me over the edge:
Just kind of nice to have these things when you're stuck waiting around somewhere:
1) It can run a nes emulator, and I can easily keep my favorite hundred nes games on it to mess around with whenever I want.
2) I can play mp3s on it.
Convient around my house, because my 1 year old daughter brings up interesting challenges:
1) Universal remote software for all 6 of our tvs, 3 vcrs, and 3 dvd players (my daughter loves to hide remotes)
2) Wireless internet acces (through compact flash card), since my daughter will not tolerate me using a laptop or normal computer, I'm hoping I can get away with the pda.
Other uses, but not strong selling points for me personally:
1) Storage of phone numbers, calender (I'm too lazy to use the calender, and my mobile phone does the phone numbers)
2) GPS mapping system/digital camera add ons, I think both are intriguing, but I'm not sure that either one is worth buying, since you can get standalone devices that handle both functionalities just as well for a similar price.
Call me anti-progressive, but I can't fathom why people want the widescreen tv format to win. Anything is best viewed in the format it comes in. (ie a widescreen movie will look best on a widescreen tv, a 4:3 broadcast will look best on a 4:3 tv). The main problem with widescreen to me, is that the size of my tv has always been banded by the width of the television. We have 6 tv's in our house currently, and this is true of all 6 tvs. If I can only fit a TV that's 32 inches wide on the stand, it doesn't matter how tall it is, thus with a 4:3 set I'm getting the extra height for free. Even with the black bars on the top and bottom, I'm getting the same size picture as I would if I had gotten the biggest widescreen tv I could put in the same place. If that's the case, I'd rather just have the 4:3 tv, and have as many things broadcast in 4:3 as possible to use up my extra space. Also, I think at the point your eyes can take in the full length of a 16:9 picture, that they could take in more height if it were available. Meaning, you can sit closer to a 4:3 tv then a widescreen or put a bigger 4:3 tv in the same space without causing more eye strain. Now I can see why people want widescreen movies, because you're giving up information if you use the fullscreen version. However, when you are making a choice to film something, you aren't gaining more information by filming it in 16:9, you're just choosing whether you'd rather have more height or width information available.