What the hell makes a podcast so different from an MP3 that it deserves its own word? I'm honestly not trolling here, it's just that the word is driving me nuts.
Because it makes the tools who create them feel self important. It has absolutely nothing to do with iPods either (at least, until Apple jumped on the bandwagon).
Basically, Podcasting is the spawn of the overhyped iPod and overhyped RSS.
Idunno, I certainly think having access to Wikipedia makes me smarter. The pace of learning is simply so much faster when you can follow one subject to another with a single click on a hyperlink than if I have to look it up in an index or in another book (which I might not even have).
But the fact that my cell phone might get confused by the new Daylight Savings Time is what we're hearing about not just on/. but on all sorts of other media outlets.
Not that it's your point, but cell phones will be fine because they get their time from the provider. I'm sure you notice that the phone auto-corrects when you fly to a different time zone?
Inkjet printers are a scam, played on a public that doesn't know any better.
See, that's not always true. First, like you say, inkjets are much better for photos unless you drop $1000, and many people aren't willing to wait days for prints from an online place. Second, not all companies go for the expensive, tiny, DRM'd cartridges like Lexmark does. Third, many low-end lasers are complete pieces of crap. Fourth, many people want the convenience of a printer but won't ever print enough to make back the initial outlay of a laser.
If you do your research and get a good laserjet, they make financial sense. If you get the $29 job from Lexmark, and you print a lot, you will end up paying a lot for that printer.
how about using all this time and energy towards getting me from the ticket counter to the air in a reasonable amount of time, so i don't need WiFi access in the terminal
You know, that's pretty much what they are releasing at this point. I'm mean, seriously, what 'features' are left???? At this point Vista seems to be nothing but a giant security/bug fix upgrade from XP!
That's what I've been thinking - and other than Avalon their touted graphics engine, I can't think of a damned thing. Nothing. Does anyone know, what's actually in it?
Odd, this old fart who became a teen at the end of the sixties considers today's youth depressingly conservative
Depends what you mean by conservative. Their politics certainly aren't. But if you mean that their ideology is conservatively mainstream liberal, I couldn't agree more.
listen to the same type of music we did
Depending what it is, I probably listen to the music either you or your parents listen to. I don't own any from artists who debuted after 1992. I listen to artists who were active mainly between the 50's and the *early* 90's. For what it's worth, I'm not as young as most of the people on here, either.
espouse the same platitudes regarding the 'man'
I don't, and that's basically the point I'm making. All kids do it, and then they grow up. At least post-WWII.
are by far the most consumerist generation who've walked the face of the earth.
Every generation has been since the depression, including yours. It's just different toys.
Maybe you're not just spouting off lies and exaggerations, but list just one time you can say without a doubt that Microsoft "stole" something.
Burst (settled), Go, Stacker...others. It's happened many times. Google for judgement or settlement and microsoft, sift through the DOJ thing. That's for IP theft, doesn't cover anti-trust of which there are many more.
They may have "strong-armed" OEMs not to include Netscape and WordPerfect, but, at the time at least, they were both inferior.
Subjective and irrelevant. In the case of netscape, likely incorrect - Netscape had over 90% marketshare before MS started its illegal actions. Bottom line, it's still *illegal*. Judgement should make them worse off than before, not better.
I don't completely discount their argument that if a user sees something sitting on the Windows desktop on a brand new machine that they associate it with being part of Windows. Why should they have to endorse whatever OEM's say?
You have it backwards. Why should OEMs have to give MS complete control over their business to sell one MS product. That's ILLEGAL.
Anyway, stop getting pissy. Microsoft might not have cuddled up to the other software companies, but there's no reason they should have to, and I suppose they have that to blame for people hating them.
They don't have to cuddle. But you might want to acquaint yourself with anti-trust law. It's illegal to leverage a monopoly to unfairly kill competitors. By telling OEMs "If you bundle Netscape, you can't sell windows" they did that. It's illegal.
How about this - do you believe in anti-trust law at all? Because the MS case was textbook.
Carrying the analogy a bit further, my guess is that (currently) the Slashdot crowd tends to be a younger generation and most of the "old-farts" reject it - try to explain it to your parents or grandparents. So in the next few decades, will the younger crowd accept Slashdot... or will the average age of/. readers just continue to increase?
As a gross generalization, slashdot has people belonging to two crowds that frequently overlap: 1) technically proficient (relatively), and 2) young, very "liberal", and occasionally anarchist.
I predict that a lot of the slashdot crowd is against things like corporations, money, etc because they're still in college and don't have money or employment. I predict that, like the 60's flower children who turned into the 80's "Me generation," as soon as the money's there, their tune will change. They will become more conservative, it happens with every batch of college kids. Remember, the "old people" we're talking about being conservative used to march in peace rallys, throw rocks at cops, burn bras, etc. Now they fight the first amendment. It's almost ironic if it weren't sad.
As far as technology, some will keep up with the "new thing," some won't.
Regardless, the next gen of young people won't espouse slashdot, because they'll make/find their own thing. I predict that slashdot's membership will grow older, and much of it will move on.
Such a move would make it possible for people out in the countryside to get broadband and access to high speed internet services.
No kidding. It's enough having to pay "Universal service" (read: tax on everyone so rednecks can get landlines in swamps). The continuous argument there is 911 - but you can't make the same argument for broadband.
No thanks, I'm fine at least having the little competition there is between cable and DSL, without the gov screwing it up like they do practically everything else.
But when the actions they take are not illegal (which clearly doesn't cover them all, but the vast majority of them), is it the company or the law that's at fault?
Most of the actions they use are illegal, but they either weasel off, hire better lawyers, or just pay off defendants. They're well known for entering negotiations to license technology, and if the talks break down, they just steal it.
Also, everything they've been able to do since the early-mid 90's has been due to their illegal exploitation of monopoly, such as strongarming OEMs not to include Netscape or WordPerfect.
So I'd say it's not the laws that are at fault, but a legal system that never envisioned a defendant strong and willful enough to flaunt the law because the penalties are simply part of the cost of maintaining a monopoly.
Sorry, Eric, but 'privacy' isn't the issue here. All the information Cnet obtained about you was freely available on the Web, and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there.
Can't agree there. There's public, obscure information that wouldn't occur to anyone to search for, and then there's nicely packaged, published information. Prior to publication, few people knew, and after, many did.
Yes it's security through obscurity - but since it's absolutely impossible to get actual identity security, that's all we have these days.
Also note that the slashdot crowd went nuts when O'Gara did this to Pamela Jones.
Also, Google's not suing - they're punishing cNet for playing dirty. If CNet expected a different response from the article, they're retarded. If they don't want to talk to someone since they did something that wasn't nice, that's their right.
I have no real control over the components that go into the Mac. I can't decide on what technology I want inside the box, as I have to pick from what they want to offer me.
Then since you're not looking to buy a pre-manufactured box, it doesn't matter to you anyway, eh? The point is people are still bitching that macs are too damned expensive. I used to be one of them, but now that they offer one under $500, it's really hard to justify.
And if you're a gamer, I really don't know why you care, since Mac gamers are just now getting Wolfenstein 3D I think.
I'm finding it harder every day to resist... Now if they'd only do something about the price.
$499 gets you a mac mini that has basically the same specs as my 15 month old powerbook. 512MB, 1.25 GHz G4. No, Apple doesn't compete with whitebox selling-out-of-my-trunk "vendors" on pricewatch.
If it moves and shouldn't use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and should use the WD-40.
And if it has a hole in it and shouldn't? Bond-o. Doesn't have a hole in it and should? Sledgehammer. Point well made with WD-40, but a real redneck might have tried Crisco first since the kitchen's closer than the shed.
Probably not. Big-name games have retailed at $49.99 MSRP for a while now, probably the last couple of hardware generations at least. 8 years of inflation compounded at 3% comes to $63.
So $59.99 is probably reasonable for a price bump. I'm surprised we didn't see one at $54.99, but they probably had problems with the psychological $50 barrier.
How exactly, while describing the way Apple users dislike/resent the one-button mouse, is she being a propagandist or a company tool?
It's the "secretly resenting Apple for putting us into that position" bit. What position? Being forced to defend Apple's decision? There's no obligation there unless one defends the company blindly. If one truly agrees with Apple's decision there's no "position" nor should there be any resentment.
I own Apple products and am happy to admit that they make a number of design decisions that (I feel) range from borderline to retarded. I can still like many of their products and not recite the company line. I'm not "put in a position" by Apple because I don't put myself in that position.
I've known Jacqui for quite a while, and your assertion is wildly off base, even just in the context of this article.
I'm not attacking her, I'm sure she is a wonderful person and truth be told the review, overall, is a good one. I'm simply questioning her need to be an Apple apologist - specifically, why she feels compelled to defend them.
I, for one, think that the less makeshift hacksaws we are forced use on multi-billion-dollar equipment, the better.
A qualified redneck can fix anything with a hacksaw and duct tape. Maybe crazy glue if things get really tough. Perhaps some Bond-o if structural materials are called for.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it makes the tools who create them feel self important. It has absolutely nothing to do with iPods either (at least, until Apple jumped on the bandwagon).
Basically, Podcasting is the spawn of the overhyped iPod and overhyped RSS.
No, it just makes you wrong about more things.
Sign your posts, you deserve credit for that spew. The bit about Apple at the end was absolutely classic.
Check the post right below yours.
Not that it's your point, but cell phones will be fine because they get their time from the provider. I'm sure you notice that the phone auto-corrects when you fly to a different time zone?
...he's unemployed and lives in his parents' dark fluorescent-lit basement, you insensitive clod!
So many options, mods! Troll? Flamebait? Astroturf? Idiot?
Where is slashdot's "-1, Astroturf" mod, anyway?
Inkjet printers are a scam, played on a public that doesn't know any better.
See, that's not always true. First, like you say, inkjets are much better for photos unless you drop $1000, and many people aren't willing to wait days for prints from an online place. Second, not all companies go for the expensive, tiny, DRM'd cartridges like Lexmark does. Third, many low-end lasers are complete pieces of crap. Fourth, many people want the convenience of a printer but won't ever print enough to make back the initial outlay of a laser.
If you do your research and get a good laserjet, they make financial sense. If you get the $29 job from Lexmark, and you print a lot, you will end up paying a lot for that printer.
You know, I was just thinking, I haven't seen enough articles about municipal wi-fi on slashdot. This is incredible.
OK dumb fuck mod, who did that flame exactly?
That's what I've been thinking - and other than Avalon their touted graphics engine, I can't think of a damned thing. Nothing. Does anyone know, what's actually in it?
Depends what you mean by conservative. Their politics certainly aren't. But if you mean that their ideology is conservatively mainstream liberal, I couldn't agree more.
listen to the same type of music we did
Depending what it is, I probably listen to the music either you or your parents listen to. I don't own any from artists who debuted after 1992. I listen to artists who were active mainly between the 50's and the *early* 90's. For what it's worth, I'm not as young as most of the people on here, either.
espouse the same platitudes regarding the 'man'
I don't, and that's basically the point I'm making. All kids do it, and then they grow up. At least post-WWII.
are by far the most consumerist generation who've walked the face of the earth.
Every generation has been since the depression, including yours. It's just different toys.
Burst (settled), Go, Stacker...others. It's happened many times. Google for judgement or settlement and microsoft, sift through the DOJ thing. That's for IP theft, doesn't cover anti-trust of which there are many more.
They may have "strong-armed" OEMs not to include Netscape and WordPerfect, but, at the time at least, they were both inferior.
Subjective and irrelevant. In the case of netscape, likely incorrect - Netscape had over 90% marketshare before MS started its illegal actions. Bottom line, it's still *illegal*. Judgement should make them worse off than before, not better.
I don't completely discount their argument that if a user sees something sitting on the Windows desktop on a brand new machine that they associate it with being part of Windows. Why should they have to endorse whatever OEM's say?
You have it backwards. Why should OEMs have to give MS complete control over their business to sell one MS product. That's ILLEGAL.
Anyway, stop getting pissy. Microsoft might not have cuddled up to the other software companies, but there's no reason they should have to, and I suppose they have that to blame for people hating them.
They don't have to cuddle. But you might want to acquaint yourself with anti-trust law. It's illegal to leverage a monopoly to unfairly kill competitors. By telling OEMs "If you bundle Netscape, you can't sell windows" they did that. It's illegal.
How about this - do you believe in anti-trust law at all? Because the MS case was textbook.
As a gross generalization, slashdot has people belonging to two crowds that frequently overlap: 1) technically proficient (relatively), and 2) young, very "liberal", and occasionally anarchist.
I predict that a lot of the slashdot crowd is against things like corporations, money, etc because they're still in college and don't have money or employment. I predict that, like the 60's flower children who turned into the 80's "Me generation," as soon as the money's there, their tune will change. They will become more conservative, it happens with every batch of college kids. Remember, the "old people" we're talking about being conservative used to march in peace rallys, throw rocks at cops, burn bras, etc. Now they fight the first amendment. It's almost ironic if it weren't sad.
As far as technology, some will keep up with the "new thing," some won't.
Regardless, the next gen of young people won't espouse slashdot, because they'll make/find their own thing. I predict that slashdot's membership will grow older, and much of it will move on.
I'm referring specifically to 1) anti-trust law and 2) willingness to lose the case and pay whatever penalties there are because it's worth it.
Politicians flaunt the law because they won't get caught. MS knows they will and don't care. That's the difference.
No kidding. It's enough having to pay "Universal service" (read: tax on everyone so rednecks can get landlines in swamps). The continuous argument there is 911 - but you can't make the same argument for broadband.
No thanks, I'm fine at least having the little competition there is between cable and DSL, without the gov screwing it up like they do practically everything else.
Most of the actions they use are illegal, but they either weasel off, hire better lawyers, or just pay off defendants. They're well known for entering negotiations to license technology, and if the talks break down, they just steal it.
Also, everything they've been able to do since the early-mid 90's has been due to their illegal exploitation of monopoly, such as strongarming OEMs not to include Netscape or WordPerfect.
So I'd say it's not the laws that are at fault, but a legal system that never envisioned a defendant strong and willful enough to flaunt the law because the penalties are simply part of the cost of maintaining a monopoly.
Can't agree there. There's public, obscure information that wouldn't occur to anyone to search for, and then there's nicely packaged, published information. Prior to publication, few people knew, and after, many did.
Yes it's security through obscurity - but since it's absolutely impossible to get actual identity security, that's all we have these days.
Also note that the slashdot crowd went nuts when O'Gara did this to Pamela Jones.
Also, Google's not suing - they're punishing cNet for playing dirty. If CNet expected a different response from the article, they're retarded. If they don't want to talk to someone since they did something that wasn't nice, that's their right.
No they haven't.
I have no real control over the components that go into the Mac. I can't decide on what technology I want inside the box, as I have to pick from what they want to offer me.
Then since you're not looking to buy a pre-manufactured box, it doesn't matter to you anyway, eh? The point is people are still bitching that macs are too damned expensive. I used to be one of them, but now that they offer one under $500, it's really hard to justify.
And if you're a gamer, I really don't know why you care, since Mac gamers are just now getting Wolfenstein 3D I think.
All of them, once you do to them what they deserve - put them in a trash compactor. No noise, no power consumption, and fits in a 4" cube. ;)
$499 gets you a mac mini that has basically the same specs as my 15 month old powerbook. 512MB, 1.25 GHz G4. No, Apple doesn't compete with whitebox selling-out-of-my-trunk "vendors" on pricewatch.
And if it has a hole in it and shouldn't? Bond-o. Doesn't have a hole in it and should? Sledgehammer. Point well made with WD-40, but a real redneck might have tried Crisco first since the kitchen's closer than the shed.
Probably not. Big-name games have retailed at $49.99 MSRP for a while now, probably the last couple of hardware generations at least. 8 years of inflation compounded at 3% comes to $63.
So $59.99 is probably reasonable for a price bump. I'm surprised we didn't see one at $54.99, but they probably had problems with the psychological $50 barrier.
It's the "secretly resenting Apple for putting us into that position" bit. What position? Being forced to defend Apple's decision? There's no obligation there unless one defends the company blindly. If one truly agrees with Apple's decision there's no "position" nor should there be any resentment.
I own Apple products and am happy to admit that they make a number of design decisions that (I feel) range from borderline to retarded. I can still like many of their products and not recite the company line. I'm not "put in a position" by Apple because I don't put myself in that position.
I've known Jacqui for quite a while, and your assertion is wildly off base, even just in the context of this article.
I'm not attacking her, I'm sure she is a wonderful person and truth be told the review, overall, is a good one. I'm simply questioning her need to be an Apple apologist - specifically, why she feels compelled to defend them.
A qualified redneck can fix anything with a hacksaw and duct tape. Maybe crazy glue if things get really tough. Perhaps some Bond-o if structural materials are called for.