Planes (and tanks) have reduced casualties. Compare the style of warfare in WWI with WWII. Tanks and planes helped reduce stalemates where they were heavily used. Where infantry was heavily used...hello Stalingrad.
Of course, nuclear MAD theory has probably saved many more lives yet.
Consider two fully isolated populations A and B. At T(100 generations ago) a single individual M migrates from A to B, and causes offspring with someone from B. No further migration takes place ever until the present day. Would you expect to be able to show this genetically? Hardly. Only 1/1^100 of M's DNA would have been passed on to any single individual living in B today(*). That's absolutely nothing at all. The genetic heritage would be entirely dissolved for all purpuses of measuring much earlier than that.
Ah, but that's the great thing about Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA. When considering male-line ancestry, you know for a fact where that Y-chromosome went. And with mitochondrial DNA, same for female-line. For proving a universal common ancestor (ie, "Adam" or "Eve"), that is sufficient, as we need only interested in male- and female-line ancestry. For proving a common ancestor of any two people, you're right - we may be related through our grandmother's father, and those genes might not have come through.
mitochondrial eve and y-chromosonal adam were indeed 10s of thousands of years ago. but they are just 2 very special cases amongst the thousands upon thousands of nodes in a family tree many of which could be 'most-recent-common-ancestors'. which is why mito Eve and Y-adam are not called MRCAs. So the 60K figure is measuring something different.
According to the story, they say that everyone on earth has a common ancestor 2000 years ago. Either their grammar is atrocious, or that is in fact what they're claiming.
The problem is, they start with a set of mathematical assumptions and then do calculations and get this result. As with most purely computational studies that get outlandish results, I'm more likely to question the assumptions than believe the result. And I say this as someone who works with a lot of stats and probabality in my profession, and having made the same mistakes. The thing is, like all theorists, having made the prediction they need to find genetic evidence to back it up. Unfortunately, they're not going to find it.
The studies I've seen that actually studied genetic evidence give a figure closer to 10s of thousands of years.. There's no way it's as short as the 2000 years they claim, just based on common sense - look at the different peoples in different regions - they most certainly *don't* share the same gene pool. Also, there are multiple versions of the Y chromosome floating around that don't converge that recently.
The Genographic Project is currently estimating 60K years for the "Genographic Adam" from whom everyone on earth is dsecended, not 2K. I think you may be correct on the interpretation of "any two people are connected by some common ancestor 2000-5000 years ago," which is just a modification of the Kevin Bacon game. It's not the same as "everyone is descended from some common person 2000-5000 years ago - and from the interpretation in the/. article, that's definitely what they mean. And it's dead wrong.
There is a difference in vendor quality with an apple. As far as I know, no one has video of an iBook blowing up like that dell laptop in japan. Thinkpads, dells and gateways have always had problems with hard drives failing.
I think they buy from among the same set of vendors for batteries. Also note all the reports of the MacBooks and their amazing bloating batteries. Sounds like an explosion hazard to me.
In any event, connecting any recent problems to the Intel switch doesn't seem intuitive. From memory, it has always seemed as if Apple *always* has problems with new products that are substantially different from the previous generation, and the new generation of laptops has many differences from their predecessors apart from the CPU.
This response makes no sense. I said hardware, as in, overall machine specifications, not just the CPU. Compare the specs for a Dell or Toshiba laptop with a similarly priced MacBook. For $2000, you can get something way more powerful. You can compare it because the components are relatively the same (read: relatively) now.
You also said Intel, and they make chips. I have compared specs, and that's not true. To get everything that's in a Macbook, you end up spending about the same for the Dell. Apple's been using Intel's top-of-the-line chips, so there *isn't* anything more powerful available from Dell et al. And even if this weren't true, what's your point - that Apple can't dupe their consumers now? How's that bad again?
Again with putting words in my mouth, what's with that? They DIDNT HAVE core duo chips back when the G3/G4's were around. Apple's chip offering was more efficient than what Intel was offering AT THE TIME.
And that's completely irrelevant to a discussion of the relative wisdom of the Intel switch, since they didn't switch 5 years ago, they switched last year. If I can remind you, you said the Intel switch was a mistake. I'm telling you with complete certainty that they didn't have a choice. By the time they actually DID switch their laptops were aging poorly and were loooong overdue for a chip upgrade - a chip (G5) they couldn't use because it would melt the titanium case.
So when you say that an Apple is like a high-maintenance European sports car, are you saying that Apple owners have small penises?
Not having examined them, I wouldn't presume to know, troll. Why don't you tell me?
Seriously. While we're legislating away parental responsibilities to websites, why limit it to websites? I've heard there are these places teens congregate called "malls." And, worse, they allow adults in there without checking IDs and keeping records! OMG!
So, what, do malls have to start keeping records? Because I bet a lot more teens meet skanky older guys and end up in trouble in malls relative to online.
No, middle means in the middle, above the lower class and below the upper class. Working class = lower class, i.e people who do the work so the middle class PHBs can buy their HDTVs.
Thereby *again* demonstrating that middle class is average, genius. If middle class can afford HDTV and over half the population is at least middle class, then at least half the population can afford HDTV. QED.
You do realise that digital TV is a completely different thing to HDTV? That you can get HDTV over analogue signals, and SDTV over digital signals? You are very lacking in knowledge.
I do realize that, and while it's true in principle, the conversion to digital is also spawning significant HDTV acceptance. Also, when ALL signals are broadcast in digital, most will be HD (they are now), and users of old analog TVs will face the prospect of spending $400 on a converter or $800 on a much better TV. This is an easy choice for most people. I'd assumed you possessed the brains to see where I was going with that, but I see I need to spell things out for you.
I think you should learn more about your own country, I mean outside of your little yuppie universe.
1. I'm not a yuppie, I simply have $1000 of disposable income which puts me in company with approximately 90% of the rest of the country. 2. You have never been here, and clearly lack any knowledge of life in America. Don't presume to educate people about matters which you are completely ignorant.
They used to be the best. It looks like the move to Intel has been a lot more than just a processor move. These new Macbooks are plagued with problems that PC laptops have had for years, and some issues are even never-before-seen. I don't know if Apple just decided to disguise the cheapening of their laptop line with the chip move, but if they did, it's a big mistake.
Um, Apple was having these sorts of problems loooong before the intel switch. Logic boards on iBooks? Hinges/latches on last gen powerbooks? Etc, etc, etc.
The public is still being charged a premium price for comparitively less powerful hardware.
I'm going to assume you completely missed the last 5 years of PowerPC development which ended up with a G4 chip that could barely run a calculator, and a G5 that would initiate nuclear fusion if placed into a laptop. They switched because they had basically no choice if the wanted to remain in the computer business.
The move to standard hardware now provides consumers with a basis for comparison. Before, you couldn't compare megahertz to megahertz because the G3/G4/G5 processors were more efficient than standard desktop Intels. Now you can because Apple is using the same hardware, and they can't hide behind motorolla/ibm anymore.
So now it's not that PowerPC is more powerful - it's just that they can't dupe consumers into thinking it is? How about just make good computers and let the public decide instead of lying to them? And if you're still trying to suggest that the new dual core Intel chips are slower than a G4, you're nuts. Talk to anyone who's used both.
Software and software alone is what's driving Macintosh sales, since quality and performance are no longer viable selling points.
One chip does not a whole machine make. Compare Thinkpads (pre Lenovo especially) with, say, eMachines - they both use Intel, but there the similarities stop. Honestly, as a latecomer to the Apple camp, I've never understood the obsession with microchips among a group of people who wouldn't recognize one if they were staring at it. Apple makes its money through an OS that many people feel is far superior to Windows, and by creating well-designed machines that are very functional and visually striking. This has not changed with the Intel switch. And like most makers of functional, pretty machines, something comes up lacking and sometimes that's component testing (kind of like a European sports car). But the thing is, that is NOT new.
If you bought some adverts, they'd shill for you too (Advertorial). Also how about leaving Slashdot alone for a day and writing a letter to your local paper - they're probable desperate for free local content, so maybe they'd print it.
If my paper were one of the ones in question, I probably would. And if it weren't the Washington Post, which gives me a rather poor chance of getting printed.
I do know a reporter that was at a TV station at one of the cities in question, but she left for another city a couple of years ago. If this crap goes to her city I will certainly give her a heads up.
How would the *AA would react if individual record company execs were named and shamed like this?
Probably the way Google's CEO did when someone did a story on how easy it is to get personal info on Google, publishing the whole thing. Blackball whoever is naming and shaming. I say do it though.
Most people will look at this and see a corrupt police force and yet another sign of our times. Yes, I see the irony that a citizen is getting charged under a wiretapping law in this day and age.
Better yet, how do arrest somone fore wiretap when he was recording ambient audio/video? There's no wire in question. And he would have the right to record anyway, it being his property. And even if it weren't, recording in public is generally legal with a few exceptions (copyrighted performances, voyeur laws) that this doesn't trigger.
I hope he sues the fuck out of them for B&E and unlawful arrest.
You know, most people have two or three chairs, so people can see each other and talk to each other. No-one just has one couch facing a TV. Well maybe in America.
Yeah, honestly, I'm pretty sure you're not that familiar with life in America. Rooms here tend to be a bit bigger - at all socioeconomic brackets - than those in Europe. We're also more interested in electronics than Europe, and definitely with TV. Result is that the TV quite often, though not always, faces a largish couch that seats multiple people. If a man was in charge of designing the room, I can practically guarantee it.
Most people just use the speakers built into the TV. Unless you're confused about what 'surround' means.
Again, not. in. America. Here, people run the audio signal into their stereo receiver. I'm most certainly not confused regarding the concept.
No it isn't. Most people are working class
Do you know what the word "middle" means? I'm going to be kind on the assumption that English isn't your primary language. Middle class == working class.
Most people don't have surround sound or HDTV, and probably never will do.
Right now, most people do not have HDTV. In 10 years, everyone will, in part because in America analog over-the-air TV will cease to exist due to government regulations. And as I said, surround sound is available to anyone who decides to run their TV audio into their stereo. Are you also going to tell me that most people don't have home stereos?
Not sure where you're from, but here in America, most people spend many thousands, usually tens of thousands of dollars, on their car. I choose not to, but you'd probably be aghast how many people do that. Now explain to me how someone - even someone who is NOT RICH - can afford to spend $10,000 on a car, but can't afford $1000 for a TV if they choose?
I think you should learn more about America before you make blanket generalities, because you seem not to be familiar with the country.
Carmack and Romero were neat topics like...10 years ago. Now that there are 100 companies doing it better and faster than they do, what of these guys? I hate to proclaim them relics because we are about the same age, but the truth is, neither Carmack nor Romero have brought anything new and good to the table beyond engine leasing and hair conditioner ad spots for the last 10 years.
Funny, what engine do all these new great games use? Often as not, something Carmack makes. He's an engine designer, and he's damned good at it.
How many people go to Best Buy? I don't know much about these American shops, is it like Walmart?
Lots of people do. It's sort of like a Walmart that only sells electronics. I believe it (or its twin Circuit City) is the largest seller of electronics in the states.
Come out of your 1980s yuppie world and realise that most people live in small houses with small rooms. The TV is in the corner so everyone in the room can see it. Put it along the side and only the person directly opposition can see it, everyone else sees it at a 45 degree angle.
Knock off the ad hominems - even small rooms have walls, and for a small family "everyone" means "2-3 people" who can all fit on a couch in front of the TV. I live in a small townhouse with a living room that's probably 3-4m x 5-6m, and yet I still have a big screen in the middle of a wall, with speakers on either side, centered around a couch. It's not hard to figure out.
How many people have surround sound?
Anyone who has bought a $100 receiver in the last 15 years.
Most people are not middle class.
I think "middle class" is defined so that most people are in fact "middle class."
HDTV, much like surround sound, will remain a niche yuppie product for many years to come.
Sales trends disagree with you. Especially for surround sound, you're completely out there. $100 receiver + a pair of $50 speakers = surround sound. I'll await your incisive analysis of how middle class people don't have $200.
And recconile your market analysis with traffic in a K-mart. Most people don't show at Best Buy.
Really. So all the people who shop at Best Buy are rich, huh? Don't think so. Have you been to one?
Look at an income distribution chart sometime. You'd be amazed at how many people make less than $30K.
And as I said in a previous thread, it's amazing how people making $10000/yr can afford $500 rims on their cars. If people want something bad enough, they'll buy it somehow. Probably on credit, which may not be smart, but they will do it.
Put it this way - *someone* is buying a whole lot of HDTVs. So either 1) they're more affordable to middling income people than you think, or 2) there's a whole lot more reasonably well-to-do people than you realize.
No-one wants a TV bad enough to spend a grand on it.
Emprical evidence suggets otherwise, as they're flying out of Best Buy rather quickly. For people with jobs, $1000 means a lot less than to college students. And for many people, a good TV is the one big-ticket item they really want. You can argue that they shouldn't want it, but many people do.
Most people have their TVs in the corner of a small room, how the hell do you project into a corner?
Um, don't put your TV in the corner like sane people? What are you, living in the 1960s? Putting the TV in the corner would kill the surround sound effect anyway. Besides, most large screens aren't projection anyway (LCD, DLP, plasma).
Yuppies are also a very small part of the market.
Again, reconcile your market analysis with traffic in a Best Buy. Middle class people - even lower middle class people - with jobs and the will can afford a 40" TV. Even if big screen is only available to half the population, that's a lot of people, and enough to cause an increase in programming. Hell, there's a lot of programming for HD now, it's generally the more popular channels, and it's increasing all the time.
I think that the various companies pushing "HD" movie formats are *radically* overestimating how many HDTV sets are actually out there. Most people I know don't own an HDTV. Most people in the U.S. don't own an HDTV. Most people in the U.S. don't *have* the disposable income to buy an expensive set. And as the article said, if you don't have HD channels, then the picture is worse.
They're planning for the future, and in 3 years a *lot* of people will own HDTVs. I'd say at least half of all the TVs being sold today are some variant of HiDef. And DLP sets are rather cheap. As for not having the income - it's amazing how people on welfare can scrounge money for rims, for instance. Anyone who wants one bad enough can scrounge $1K for a decent sized DLP.
HDTVs won't be everywhere until *most* of the content on regualar broadcast TV/cable is in HD
Most stations in decent-sized cities have switched. And for a lot of guys, all that matters is that most sports games are now available in Hi Def. ESPN is HD, and most of the Fox, ABC, and NBC affiliates are HD now, so there's nearly all the football games. There's a reason that the high season for HDTV sales is right before the Super Bowl.
HDTVs won't be everywhere until *most* of the content on regualar broadcast TV/cable is in HD, and the sets are under $400 or so, and HD DVD players drop to under $100. And that's a long ways away.
No way. HDTV will gradually increase in market share as there is *now* enough benefit to pull in a lot of consumers, and already have a high penetration among younger professionals. All my coworkers have one, except for the guy who lives in a rowhouse, whose living room literally can't fit one. Also, they don't have to be everywhere for content to target them - just a substantial amount. Sports fans who continue to adopt HDTVs in droves should be enough to get over the tipping point, and as I said, nearly all sports are already in HD.
Did you know Microsoft, Google and Yahoo are lobbying for net neutrality? If they're successful, they'll get a special, low-government-set price for the bandwidth they use, while everyone else -- consumers, businesses and government -- will have to pay a competitive price for bandwidth.
Wow. Is there any evidence that is mistranslated from something that might be true, or did he pull that fully-formed from his ass? Is he jsut repeating and misunderstanding the argument from ATT?
Nonetheless, to whatever degree it is true that a librarian was asked to break the law by the police, the librarian was in the right to refuse. She is likely to be punished, possibly severely, regardless.
Something tells me that they'll re-think that after talking to their lawyers. If they try she'll probably sue the shit out of them, and likely win.
If the shop's WiFi connection was encrypted, he may have done something illegal. But it was open and unencrypted. If someone broadcasts something over the air without encryption, I'm going to say that it's not illegal to use..
You can say that, but existing case law seems to indicate otherwise. Not to mention that, again, internet traffic is 2-way, and you effectively interfere with the device's operation.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, nuclear MAD theory has probably saved many more lives yet.
Yeah, I'm by no means a design dork, but for a site doing a story on beautiful OSX apps, probably don't want to have blue links on a blue background.
Ah, but that's the great thing about Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA. When considering male-line ancestry, you know for a fact where that Y-chromosome went. And with mitochondrial DNA, same for female-line. For proving a universal common ancestor (ie, "Adam" or "Eve"), that is sufficient, as we need only interested in male- and female-line ancestry. For proving a common ancestor of any two people, you're right - we may be related through our grandmother's father, and those genes might not have come through.
According to the story, they say that everyone on earth has a common ancestor 2000 years ago. Either their grammar is atrocious, or that is in fact what they're claiming.
The problem is, they start with a set of mathematical assumptions and then do calculations and get this result. As with most purely computational studies that get outlandish results, I'm more likely to question the assumptions than believe the result. And I say this as someone who works with a lot of stats and probabality in my profession, and having made the same mistakes. The thing is, like all theorists, having made the prediction they need to find genetic evidence to back it up. Unfortunately, they're not going to find it.
The studies I've seen that actually studied genetic evidence give a figure closer to 10s of thousands of years.. There's no way it's as short as the 2000 years they claim, just based on common sense - look at the different peoples in different regions - they most certainly *don't* share the same gene pool. Also, there are multiple versions of the Y chromosome floating around that don't converge that recently.
The Genographic Project is currently estimating 60K years for the "Genographic Adam" from whom everyone on earth is dsecended, not 2K. I think you may be correct on the interpretation of "any two people are connected by some common ancestor 2000-5000 years ago," which is just a modification of the Kevin Bacon game. It's not the same as "everyone is descended from some common person 2000-5000 years ago - and from the interpretation in the /. article, that's definitely what they mean. And it's dead wrong.
I think they buy from among the same set of vendors for batteries. Also note all the reports of the MacBooks and their amazing bloating batteries. Sounds like an explosion hazard to me.
In any event, connecting any recent problems to the Intel switch doesn't seem intuitive. From memory, it has always seemed as if Apple *always* has problems with new products that are substantially different from the previous generation, and the new generation of laptops has many differences from their predecessors apart from the CPU.
You also said Intel, and they make chips. I have compared specs, and that's not true. To get everything that's in a Macbook, you end up spending about the same for the Dell. Apple's been using Intel's top-of-the-line chips, so there *isn't* anything more powerful available from Dell et al. And even if this weren't true, what's your point - that Apple can't dupe their consumers now? How's that bad again?
Again with putting words in my mouth, what's with that? They DIDNT HAVE core duo chips back when the G3/G4's were around. Apple's chip offering was more efficient than what Intel was offering AT THE TIME.
And that's completely irrelevant to a discussion of the relative wisdom of the Intel switch, since they didn't switch 5 years ago, they switched last year. If I can remind you, you said the Intel switch was a mistake. I'm telling you with complete certainty that they didn't have a choice. By the time they actually DID switch their laptops were aging poorly and were loooong overdue for a chip upgrade - a chip (G5) they couldn't use because it would melt the titanium case.
So when you say that an Apple is like a high-maintenance European sports car, are you saying that Apple owners have small penises?
Not having examined them, I wouldn't presume to know, troll. Why don't you tell me?
So, what, do malls have to start keeping records? Because I bet a lot more teens meet skanky older guys and end up in trouble in malls relative to online.
Thereby *again* demonstrating that middle class is average, genius. If middle class can afford HDTV and over half the population is at least middle class, then at least half the population can afford HDTV. QED.
You do realise that digital TV is a completely different thing to HDTV? That you can get HDTV over analogue signals, and SDTV over digital signals? You are very lacking in knowledge.
I do realize that, and while it's true in principle, the conversion to digital is also spawning significant HDTV acceptance. Also, when ALL signals are broadcast in digital, most will be HD (they are now), and users of old analog TVs will face the prospect of spending $400 on a converter or $800 on a much better TV. This is an easy choice for most people. I'd assumed you possessed the brains to see where I was going with that, but I see I need to spell things out for you.
I think you should learn more about your own country, I mean outside of your little yuppie universe.
1. I'm not a yuppie, I simply have $1000 of disposable income which puts me in company with approximately 90% of the rest of the country. 2. You have never been here, and clearly lack any knowledge of life in America. Don't presume to educate people about matters which you are completely ignorant.
Um, Apple was having these sorts of problems loooong before the intel switch. Logic boards on iBooks? Hinges/latches on last gen powerbooks? Etc, etc, etc.
The public is still being charged a premium price for comparitively less powerful hardware.
I'm going to assume you completely missed the last 5 years of PowerPC development which ended up with a G4 chip that could barely run a calculator, and a G5 that would initiate nuclear fusion if placed into a laptop. They switched because they had basically no choice if the wanted to remain in the computer business.
The move to standard hardware now provides consumers with a basis for comparison. Before, you couldn't compare megahertz to megahertz because the G3/G4/G5 processors were more efficient than standard desktop Intels. Now you can because Apple is using the same hardware, and they can't hide behind motorolla/ibm anymore.
So now it's not that PowerPC is more powerful - it's just that they can't dupe consumers into thinking it is? How about just make good computers and let the public decide instead of lying to them? And if you're still trying to suggest that the new dual core Intel chips are slower than a G4, you're nuts. Talk to anyone who's used both.
Software and software alone is what's driving Macintosh sales, since quality and performance are no longer viable selling points.
One chip does not a whole machine make. Compare Thinkpads (pre Lenovo especially) with, say, eMachines - they both use Intel, but there the similarities stop. Honestly, as a latecomer to the Apple camp, I've never understood the obsession with microchips among a group of people who wouldn't recognize one if they were staring at it. Apple makes its money through an OS that many people feel is far superior to Windows, and by creating well-designed machines that are very functional and visually striking. This has not changed with the Intel switch. And like most makers of functional, pretty machines, something comes up lacking and sometimes that's component testing (kind of like a European sports car). But the thing is, that is NOT new.
If my paper were one of the ones in question, I probably would. And if it weren't the Washington Post, which gives me a rather poor chance of getting printed.
I do know a reporter that was at a TV station at one of the cities in question, but she left for another city a couple of years ago. If this crap goes to her city I will certainly give her a heads up.
How would the *AA would react if individual record company execs were named and shamed like this?
Probably the way Google's CEO did when someone did a story on how easy it is to get personal info on Google, publishing the whole thing. Blackball whoever is naming and shaming. I say do it though.
Better yet, how do arrest somone fore wiretap when he was recording ambient audio/video? There's no wire in question. And he would have the right to record anyway, it being his property. And even if it weren't, recording in public is generally legal with a few exceptions (copyrighted performances, voyeur laws) that this doesn't trigger.
I hope he sues the fuck out of them for B&E and unlawful arrest.
So why are the local papers and stations acting as PR shills for the RIAA? Are they stupid or just getting cash?
Yeah, honestly, I'm pretty sure you're not that familiar with life in America. Rooms here tend to be a bit bigger - at all socioeconomic brackets - than those in Europe. We're also more interested in electronics than Europe, and definitely with TV. Result is that the TV quite often, though not always, faces a largish couch that seats multiple people. If a man was in charge of designing the room, I can practically guarantee it.
Most people just use the speakers built into the TV. Unless you're confused about what 'surround' means.
Again, not. in. America. Here, people run the audio signal into their stereo receiver. I'm most certainly not confused regarding the concept.
No it isn't. Most people are working class
Do you know what the word "middle" means? I'm going to be kind on the assumption that English isn't your primary language. Middle class == working class.
Most people don't have surround sound or HDTV, and probably never will do.
Right now, most people do not have HDTV. In 10 years, everyone will, in part because in America analog over-the-air TV will cease to exist due to government regulations. And as I said, surround sound is available to anyone who decides to run their TV audio into their stereo. Are you also going to tell me that most people don't have home stereos?
Not sure where you're from, but here in America, most people spend many thousands, usually tens of thousands of dollars, on their car. I choose not to, but you'd probably be aghast how many people do that. Now explain to me how someone - even someone who is NOT RICH - can afford to spend $10,000 on a car, but can't afford $1000 for a TV if they choose?
I think you should learn more about America before you make blanket generalities, because you seem not to be familiar with the country.
Funny, what engine do all these new great games use? Often as not, something Carmack makes. He's an engine designer, and he's damned good at it.
Romero is a useless turd though.
Yeah, and I'm sure he'll transfer over a facebook ban.
Lots of people do. It's sort of like a Walmart that only sells electronics. I believe it (or its twin Circuit City) is the largest seller of electronics in the states.
Come out of your 1980s yuppie world and realise that most people live in small houses with small rooms. The TV is in the corner so everyone in the room can see it. Put it along the side and only the person directly opposition can see it, everyone else sees it at a 45 degree angle.
Knock off the ad hominems - even small rooms have walls, and for a small family "everyone" means "2-3 people" who can all fit on a couch in front of the TV. I live in a small townhouse with a living room that's probably 3-4m x 5-6m, and yet I still have a big screen in the middle of a wall, with speakers on either side, centered around a couch. It's not hard to figure out.
How many people have surround sound?
Anyone who has bought a $100 receiver in the last 15 years.
Most people are not middle class.
I think "middle class" is defined so that most people are in fact "middle class."
HDTV, much like surround sound, will remain a niche yuppie product for many years to come.
Sales trends disagree with you. Especially for surround sound, you're completely out there. $100 receiver + a pair of $50 speakers = surround sound. I'll await your incisive analysis of how middle class people don't have $200.
Really. So all the people who shop at Best Buy are rich, huh? Don't think so. Have you been to one?
Look at an income distribution chart sometime. You'd be amazed at how many people make less than $30K.
And as I said in a previous thread, it's amazing how people making $10000/yr can afford $500 rims on their cars. If people want something bad enough, they'll buy it somehow. Probably on credit, which may not be smart, but they will do it.
Put it this way - *someone* is buying a whole lot of HDTVs. So either 1) they're more affordable to middling income people than you think, or 2) there's a whole lot more reasonably well-to-do people than you realize.
Emprical evidence suggets otherwise, as they're flying out of Best Buy rather quickly. For people with jobs, $1000 means a lot less than to college students. And for many people, a good TV is the one big-ticket item they really want. You can argue that they shouldn't want it, but many people do.
Most people have their TVs in the corner of a small room, how the hell do you project into a corner?
Um, don't put your TV in the corner like sane people? What are you, living in the 1960s? Putting the TV in the corner would kill the surround sound effect anyway. Besides, most large screens aren't projection anyway (LCD, DLP, plasma).
Yuppies are also a very small part of the market.
Again, reconcile your market analysis with traffic in a Best Buy. Middle class people - even lower middle class people - with jobs and the will can afford a 40" TV. Even if big screen is only available to half the population, that's a lot of people, and enough to cause an increase in programming. Hell, there's a lot of programming for HD now, it's generally the more popular channels, and it's increasing all the time.
They're planning for the future, and in 3 years a *lot* of people will own HDTVs. I'd say at least half of all the TVs being sold today are some variant of HiDef. And DLP sets are rather cheap. As for not having the income - it's amazing how people on welfare can scrounge money for rims, for instance. Anyone who wants one bad enough can scrounge $1K for a decent sized DLP.
HDTVs won't be everywhere until *most* of the content on regualar broadcast TV/cable is in HD
Most stations in decent-sized cities have switched. And for a lot of guys, all that matters is that most sports games are now available in Hi Def. ESPN is HD, and most of the Fox, ABC, and NBC affiliates are HD now, so there's nearly all the football games. There's a reason that the high season for HDTV sales is right before the Super Bowl.
HDTVs won't be everywhere until *most* of the content on regualar broadcast TV/cable is in HD, and the sets are under $400 or so, and HD DVD players drop to under $100. And that's a long ways away.
No way. HDTV will gradually increase in market share as there is *now* enough benefit to pull in a lot of consumers, and already have a high penetration among younger professionals. All my coworkers have one, except for the guy who lives in a rowhouse, whose living room literally can't fit one. Also, they don't have to be everywhere for content to target them - just a substantial amount. Sports fans who continue to adopt HDTVs in droves should be enough to get over the tipping point, and as I said, nearly all sports are already in HD.
Both are *half* true. Remember to normalize your eigenstates!
Yeah, he looked like the Joker.
Did you know Microsoft, Google and Yahoo are lobbying for net neutrality? If they're successful, they'll get a special, low-government-set price for the bandwidth they use, while everyone else -- consumers, businesses and government -- will have to pay a competitive price for bandwidth.
Wow. Is there any evidence that is mistranslated from something that might be true, or did he pull that fully-formed from his ass? Is he jsut repeating and misunderstanding the argument from ATT?
Something tells me that they'll re-think that after talking to their lawyers. If they try she'll probably sue the shit out of them, and likely win.
You can say that, but existing case law seems to indicate otherwise. Not to mention that, again, internet traffic is 2-way, and you effectively interfere with the device's operation.