I'm probably the only person on/. who can afford an HDTV setup and doesn't have one. Because, honestly, it's not something that I'm interested in.
What would I get if I got an HDTV? I'd be able to see the pores on the overpaid, under-talented busty young actress's ass, or the blades of grass on a field where 300 pound men in tights jump on each other between truck ads. Whoopty-freaking-doo.
What would be much better for me would be a cheap, safe, legal way to get good video content that doesn't have commercials and doesn't involve monthly fees. iTunes is close, but Dr. Who, Torchwood, and Charlie Jade (all phenomenal, none available in the US, at least not butchered to hell) are not available on iTunes thanks to antiquated licensing fees.
To put it succinctly: I don't want HD content distributed using the current content distribution methods. If we freed content creators from the current market of middle-men, like has happened in industries from publishing to insurance to banking to lawyers, they'd be able to make and distribute content on their own. And while this means that we'd still have mediocre shows for the vast mediocre audience, smart shows wouldn't be written off because they're "too smart." (This actually happens. A lot.)
If you're an investor, you care about RoI. Microsoft sells DRM bundled into IE. Do you want Wal*Mart to get outside its core competency and develop a DRM system that works outside of IE for a video download service that may or may not be successful?
I'd say your best bet would be to dump the Wal*Mart stock and invest in a company that sells cross-platform, extra-browser video DRM system if you want to invest in a company whose job is to provide that service.
I'd argue two things. First, you're thinking about this in a very different way from most people. First, while I'm sure some people buy computers to upgrade them, lots more people never upgrade their computers. They simply buy a new one. Computers, to these people, are information appliances. For these people, the iMac and Mac Mini (and, until lately, the eMac) are perfect.
This happened to my parents. When their old computer died, they got a new one and had me transfer the files over. When that computer died, they got a Mac Mini and had me transfer their old files over.
Second, you know that getting a Mac is a lot more than a box with hardware in it. You get a lot of special software and peace of mind with a Mac. If you want the most quantifiable bang for your buck, get a PC. But there are a ton of qualitative aspects that the Mac will have and the machine you build won't.
Finally, I'd argue that people who are going to research and configure their PCs aren't Apple's target market for their consumer machines. The people they're going after are people who would normally walk into Best Buy and grab whatever computer the employee there says is good. For these people, specs are meaningless. Getting things done is how they measure computers, and dealing with driver conflicts and virii and spyware prevents people from getting things done.
People like you and I are willing to put in the effort to keep their machines clean and know what not to click. We're not Apple's target market.
My parents recently bought a Mac Mini and loved it so much my Mom bought a MacBook. She had a problem with ripping a CD and, even though she's admittedly computer illiterate, she figured it out herself and was very proud. She said "If it had been a Dell, it would have been in the garbage." She's been telling all of her friends about it and they're all looking into getting a Mac.
My dad went out and bought a new printer at an after-Christmas sale. He was able to hook it up and get it working without calling me once. He was very impressed, and every time I'm over there he says how he should have switched a long, long time ago.
Now they've subscribed to Podcasts and are ripping their extensive CD collection to their respective computers so that they can play them over the stereo using the Airport Express I bought them for Chrismas.
Oddly enough, I'm using Google's various apps on their side for all my stuff. I've forwarded my email to my GMail account and I'm managing all my calendars through Google Calendars and subscribing to them via iCal so they're on my phone and iPod.
The only thing missing is a Google Address Book that supports the vCard standard and an iSync module to keep it all together.
The people who do movie downloads are fairly well off. They've either heard about the societal costs Wal*Mart is creating, or view people who shop at Wal*Mart as inferior. They've been trying hard to overcome this but with little success. If you ask a fashionista to shop at Wal*Mart, you'll likely be met with laughter.
If they overcome this, they'll have to let people understand why it won't work with their iPods. Unless they can work with Apple or the MPAA to come up with a different iPod-compatible system, it's not going to be very popular.
Yes, but without the Internet, what will management do all day? Internet connections are like playpens for management to keep them from meddling with the people who do actual work.
Where are you that you have volume limits on your broadband? I've downloaded and uploaded hundreds of gigabytes of information (legally) and nobody from my ISP has complained.
You are confusing poor service with a poor product. I won't argue that Walmart may have poor service, but that and the fact that the prices are low does not mean that the quality is necessarily poor as well. There is plenty of good quality stuff at Walmart
There is plenty of good quality stuff at Wal*Mart. If you buy the same prepackaged stuff you can get anywhere else, it's pretty good quality. However, if you buy stuff that you can only buy at Wal*Mart, it's poor quality.
24 Hours of advertising for $2 million across all the major news networks and countless websites vs. $2.4 million for 30 seconds of ad time on one network.
Ask yourself the following question honestly: If the thirteen year old girls who lie about their age and the anti-porn soccer moms and the raving liberal/conservative/moon landing hoax/peak oil/global warming is a myth lunatics all suddenly disappear from the Internet into some gilded cage from which they'll never escape, nor complain about wanting to escape from, would that really be a bad thing?
Those who know will always be aware of Linux. And they'll always be able to route around any blocking attempts. We'll always be here. The Internet will be our escape from the world of those folks who don't know or care enough to find it.
In other words: If this brings about the end of the Endless September, then it can't be a bad thing.
The real reason the base would be placed at the poles is two fold. First, it's the only place where, at a mountain peak, solar power is available all the time. Second, it's the only place that has been shown to have water (in the form of ice) near the surface.
But you're right: It's got absolutely nothing to do with "line of sight" communication with Earth. The near side of the moon always faces the earth.
I'm the "computer guy" in my family and I've convinced everyone to buy a Mac. So I'm constantly looking around for possible exploits to warn my parents, my wife, and my mother-in-law about. I paid particular attention to the month of Apple bugs.
So I'd know if people were finding "daily" security flaws with Macs. This isn't to say that there aren't any, but three hundred sixty five a year? That's not even happening in Windows. And most of the ones that I've heard about require physical access to the machine, or for the attacker to be on the network. And the very few that have been able to be remotely triggered have been fixed within the month through Apple's software update.
There is a valid complaints. First, I hate having all kinds of different usernames across different sites. I'd much rather log in using my email address than some arbitrary name. It reduces the amount of information I have to remember. And for photo sharing sites, I'd much rather use my actual email address than some arbitrary yahoo ID because I don't get email there.
As someone who develops web apps professionally, I always recommend using your email address as your username, even if the "screen name" that's displayed is different. Why should Flickr be any different?
At any rate, I've moved all my information over to Google, so as long as there's a convenient way to move to Picasa, I'll use it. Besides, I already have my own Gallery 2.0 on my web host space.
It's almost like they're interviewing Ignignot for comments.
"So Mr. Ig-nig...uh, what do you have to say?"
"You should be thankful we did not use the quad laser. Nothing can defeat the quad laser. And I hope you can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can."
I'm lucky enough to live in a city with free electronics and household hazardous waste recycling. The city even sends you a baggie to keep dead alkalines in so that they're disposed of properly.
Sadly, I still see TVs and computers sitting out for trash pickup.
All my bulbs are CF (except the ceiling fan I bought not knowing it was a freaking heat-lamp, er, halogen bulb). I've never had a problem with them turning on quickly enough. The longest any of them take to turn on is about 2 seconds, which is less time than it takes me to get into firing position.
I am of the opinion that government regulations should cause manufacturers and service providers to internalize as many of the externalities as possible.
In this case, charge all bulb manufacturers for the disposal of their product. Combine this with a per-ton charge for all emissions from power plants and include the cost of mitigating other power installations' effects on the environment. This way, the true cost of the electricity and the bulb will show up in the price, which will allow the market to more accurately regulate itself.
Something tells me the majority of non-British Dr. Who fans will continue to obtain the show by less...contstraining means.
I prefer the term "alternative content distribution methods."
Eventually they'll figure it out: until we can download it and watch it in the viewer of our choice as often as we want when we want, we will continue to obtain copies of such content by other means than theirs.
Yeah, that seems to be the only way to make people happy. However, there's no way to make sure people are paying for it. Once you get a single copy out there without restrictions, it's easier for people to get it from their friends than to buy their own copy.
Interpretation is half the law. If we didn't infringe on people's rights to bear arms, we'd have private armies springing up wherever we had a captain of industry. Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or the Walton family could buy military grade equipment for "self defense." We as a society have to ask ourselves "Do we want that?"
Wording that errs on the side of protecting consumers is preferable because we're the ones at the disadvantage. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T et al are able to put millions of dollars behind their legal team. If I tried to sue them for blocking access to my website, I'd have to find someone to work pro bono. Protecting the little guy is what net neutrality, and indeed all regulation, is about.
That would work, except that most people in the US only have one or two choices for broadband access. Create more broadband competition and your theory would work as expected.
Currently, my options are bad service from Comcast, worse service from Verizon, or no service at all.
No, this is the solution I came up with a long time ago. If companies want to give all VOIP packets preference because of QoS concerns, they're allowed to. However, they're not allowed to give Comcast or Verizon VoIP packets preference over Vonage or Skyp VoIP packets.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm probably the only person on /. who can afford an HDTV setup and doesn't have one. Because, honestly, it's not something that I'm interested in.
What would I get if I got an HDTV? I'd be able to see the pores on the overpaid, under-talented busty young actress's ass, or the blades of grass on a field where 300 pound men in tights jump on each other between truck ads. Whoopty-freaking-doo.
What would be much better for me would be a cheap, safe, legal way to get good video content that doesn't have commercials and doesn't involve monthly fees. iTunes is close, but Dr. Who, Torchwood, and Charlie Jade (all phenomenal, none available in the US, at least not butchered to hell) are not available on iTunes thanks to antiquated licensing fees.
To put it succinctly: I don't want HD content distributed using the current content distribution methods. If we freed content creators from the current market of middle-men, like has happened in industries from publishing to insurance to banking to lawyers, they'd be able to make and distribute content on their own. And while this means that we'd still have mediocre shows for the vast mediocre audience, smart shows wouldn't be written off because they're "too smart." (This actually happens. A lot.)
If you're an investor, you care about RoI. Microsoft sells DRM bundled into IE. Do you want Wal*Mart to get outside its core competency and develop a DRM system that works outside of IE for a video download service that may or may not be successful?
I'd say your best bet would be to dump the Wal*Mart stock and invest in a company that sells cross-platform, extra-browser video DRM system if you want to invest in a company whose job is to provide that service.
I'd argue two things. First, you're thinking about this in a very different way from most people. First, while I'm sure some people buy computers to upgrade them, lots more people never upgrade their computers. They simply buy a new one. Computers, to these people, are information appliances. For these people, the iMac and Mac Mini (and, until lately, the eMac) are perfect.
This happened to my parents. When their old computer died, they got a new one and had me transfer the files over. When that computer died, they got a Mac Mini and had me transfer their old files over.
Second, you know that getting a Mac is a lot more than a box with hardware in it. You get a lot of special software and peace of mind with a Mac. If you want the most quantifiable bang for your buck, get a PC. But there are a ton of qualitative aspects that the Mac will have and the machine you build won't.
Finally, I'd argue that people who are going to research and configure their PCs aren't Apple's target market for their consumer machines. The people they're going after are people who would normally walk into Best Buy and grab whatever computer the employee there says is good. For these people, specs are meaningless. Getting things done is how they measure computers, and dealing with driver conflicts and virii and spyware prevents people from getting things done.
People like you and I are willing to put in the effort to keep their machines clean and know what not to click. We're not Apple's target market.
My parents recently bought a Mac Mini and loved it so much my Mom bought a MacBook. She had a problem with ripping a CD and, even though she's admittedly computer illiterate, she figured it out herself and was very proud. She said "If it had been a Dell, it would have been in the garbage." She's been telling all of her friends about it and they're all looking into getting a Mac.
My dad went out and bought a new printer at an after-Christmas sale. He was able to hook it up and get it working without calling me once. He was very impressed, and every time I'm over there he says how he should have switched a long, long time ago.
Now they've subscribed to Podcasts and are ripping their extensive CD collection to their respective computers so that they can play them over the stereo using the Airport Express I bought them for Chrismas.
Oddly enough, I'm using Google's various apps on their side for all my stuff. I've forwarded my email to my GMail account and I'm managing all my calendars through Google Calendars and subscribing to them via iCal so they're on my phone and iPod.
The only thing missing is a Google Address Book that supports the vCard standard and an iSync module to keep it all together.
The people who do movie downloads are fairly well off. They've either heard about the societal costs Wal*Mart is creating, or view people who shop at Wal*Mart as inferior. They've been trying hard to overcome this but with little success. If you ask a fashionista to shop at Wal*Mart, you'll likely be met with laughter.
If they overcome this, they'll have to let people understand why it won't work with their iPods. Unless they can work with Apple or the MPAA to come up with a different iPod-compatible system, it's not going to be very popular.
Yes, but without the Internet, what will management do all day? Internet connections are like playpens for management to keep them from meddling with the people who do actual work.
Where are you that you have volume limits on your broadband? I've downloaded and uploaded hundreds of gigabytes of information (legally) and nobody from my ISP has complained.
There is plenty of good quality stuff at Wal*Mart. If you buy the same prepackaged stuff you can get anywhere else, it's pretty good quality. However, if you buy stuff that you can only buy at Wal*Mart, it's poor quality.
24 Hours of advertising for $2 million across all the major news networks and countless websites vs. $2.4 million for 30 seconds of ad time on one network.
Sounds like a genius move.
Ask yourself the following question honestly: If the thirteen year old girls who lie about their age and the anti-porn soccer moms and the raving liberal/conservative/moon landing hoax/peak oil/global warming is a myth lunatics all suddenly disappear from the Internet into some gilded cage from which they'll never escape, nor complain about wanting to escape from, would that really be a bad thing?
Those who know will always be aware of Linux. And they'll always be able to route around any blocking attempts. We'll always be here. The Internet will be our escape from the world of those folks who don't know or care enough to find it.
In other words: If this brings about the end of the Endless September, then it can't be a bad thing.
I've made web apps in .NET. It might be the killer app if you're job is server administration, but it's murder on developers.
The real reason the base would be placed at the poles is two fold. First, it's the only place where, at a mountain peak, solar power is available all the time. Second, it's the only place that has been shown to have water (in the form of ice) near the surface.
But you're right: It's got absolutely nothing to do with "line of sight" communication with Earth. The near side of the moon always faces the earth.
I'm the "computer guy" in my family and I've convinced everyone to buy a Mac. So I'm constantly looking around for possible exploits to warn my parents, my wife, and my mother-in-law about. I paid particular attention to the month of Apple bugs.
So I'd know if people were finding "daily" security flaws with Macs. This isn't to say that there aren't any, but three hundred sixty five a year? That's not even happening in Windows. And most of the ones that I've heard about require physical access to the machine, or for the attacker to be on the network. And the very few that have been able to be remotely triggered have been fixed within the month through Apple's software update.
One word: XServe
There is a valid complaints. First, I hate having all kinds of different usernames across different sites. I'd much rather log in using my email address than some arbitrary name. It reduces the amount of information I have to remember. And for photo sharing sites, I'd much rather use my actual email address than some arbitrary yahoo ID because I don't get email there.
As someone who develops web apps professionally, I always recommend using your email address as your username, even if the "screen name" that's displayed is different. Why should Flickr be any different?
At any rate, I've moved all my information over to Google, so as long as there's a convenient way to move to Picasa, I'll use it. Besides, I already have my own Gallery 2.0 on my web host space.
It's almost like they're interviewing Ignignot for comments. "So Mr. Ig-nig...uh, what do you have to say?" "You should be thankful we did not use the quad laser. Nothing can defeat the quad laser. And I hope you can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can."
I'm lucky enough to live in a city with free electronics and household hazardous waste recycling. The city even sends you a baggie to keep dead alkalines in so that they're disposed of properly.
Sadly, I still see TVs and computers sitting out for trash pickup.
All my bulbs are CF (except the ceiling fan I bought not knowing it was a freaking heat-lamp, er, halogen bulb). I've never had a problem with them turning on quickly enough. The longest any of them take to turn on is about 2 seconds, which is less time than it takes me to get into firing position.
I am of the opinion that government regulations should cause manufacturers and service providers to internalize as many of the externalities as possible.
In this case, charge all bulb manufacturers for the disposal of their product. Combine this with a per-ton charge for all emissions from power plants and include the cost of mitigating other power installations' effects on the environment. This way, the true cost of the electricity and the bulb will show up in the price, which will allow the market to more accurately regulate itself.
I prefer the term "alternative content distribution methods."
Yeah, that seems to be the only way to make people happy. However, there's no way to make sure people are paying for it. Once you get a single copy out there without restrictions, it's easier for people to get it from their friends than to buy their own copy.
Interpretation is half the law. If we didn't infringe on people's rights to bear arms, we'd have private armies springing up wherever we had a captain of industry. Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or the Walton family could buy military grade equipment for "self defense." We as a society have to ask ourselves "Do we want that?"
Wording that errs on the side of protecting consumers is preferable because we're the ones at the disadvantage. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T et al are able to put millions of dollars behind their legal team. If I tried to sue them for blocking access to my website, I'd have to find someone to work pro bono. Protecting the little guy is what net neutrality, and indeed all regulation, is about.
So you'd be in favor of Net Neutrality then? Cause what you listed is pretty much what's in this bill.
Currently, my options are bad service from Comcast, worse service from Verizon, or no service at all.
No, this is the solution I came up with a long time ago. If companies want to give all VOIP packets preference because of QoS concerns, they're allowed to. However, they're not allowed to give Comcast or Verizon VoIP packets preference over Vonage or Skyp VoIP packets.
That provision sounds completely fair.