Regardless of what Micro$oft may think, the world should not revolve around IE! Hopefully some day, for real, Firefox will change this.
And we could/should take some responsibility also.... If we encounter an IE-exclusive web site, we should write, ALWAYS!, at least, and take customer "action" if possible. When my bank switched to an on-line banking system that would work only with IE (it HAD worked with Netscape previously), I wrote my letter, and withdrew $20,000.... probably not a lot or a big scare for a bank, but if more people would demand more open web sites or refuse to do business with these sites maybe we'd see more results too.
I DO agree with parent though, there is some hope with the Google effect, and managers taking the "Why can't we do that" approach.
Re:as long as we're offsubject...
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
Congress has an ongoing relationship with baseball as they continue to grant them waivers from applying any monopoly statutes to baseball and its owners. They've got a huge reason for being on top of this.... albeit, doing a crappy job.
I would recommend keeping your MP3's on CDR's so they can't be destroyed by a trusted application.
I think this is the kind of thing I worried about.... I find this to be frightening at best, infuriating at worst... I probably can navigate these waters, but what about my Mother and Father? They still don't completely understand the drag-and-drop metaphor! (It's not their fault!) There are countless people out there who are likely to get burned by this. But, maybe that will spur the backlash that vanquishes trusted computing. Fingers crossed.
You're not far off. One of my biggest frustrations is trying to get a computer on which I can exclusively run linux. Now, these days that is a far cry easier that days past, even almost easy! But the kicker is, for example, I found a laptop this week that has all the features I want at a reasonable price. I have enough computers in my household running dual boot, this hot laptop I want to run ONLY linux. However, I cannot find a way to get this computer without windows, in this case windows PROFESSIONAL.... FSCK! I don't mind so much having to go through my procedures to install linux, what I really mind is knowing about $200 or so of my purchase money goes to the OS which I will never use.... and I don't know any way around that.
I had a similar experience in the past... where I tried to order a naked PC from a vendor so I could install linux from scratch... but they would only sell me a machine with windows. I argued, and escalated, and eventually got a manager on the phone who eventually agreed to sell me a pc without windows on it, but, (AND GET THIS!), they would have to charge me an extra $100 for it. Kind of an ironic twist on the value of a machine WITH windows installed vs. not installed (worth $100 more!)...
I've read the article, and many related articles, but it is still not clear to me what this technology really means...
How far does it extend? (software apps run only if trusted?.... or can user override, much like browser certificates).
What does it mean for linux installs? Dual boot installs?
Who controls these "keys"?
Who controls "trust"?
Is there a mod classification of "paranoid" for this post?
I am pretty sure there are answers to this technology, but I haven't found a clear concise source to make me feel any better about what this technology may bring upon OSS. I'm afraid it might be bad. Someone reassure me.
As an aside, is this really a direction technology needed to take? Is there really that much of a need for "trusted" computing? Sheeesh, I've not found this to be a huge issue, and I hope this technology incurs huge backlash when its inconvenience far exceeds its benefits.... (especially since the type of intrusion and hacking I've ever seen has little to do with protecting data and much more to do with social engineering).
I'm not sure what the extra context provides. He still is "cautious"(?) about unix.... using the emphasis of "it splintered into eight applications" as to why they're still cautious(?).... huh?
Putting aside for the sake of generosity the absurd use of the terminology, "eight applications", (we started out talking of Operating Systems, n'est-ce pas?), the implied "danger" is when you pick an alleged "standard" like unix you run the risk of having one piece of something that has fragmented into eight splinters.
First, I wonder that anyone could help me out and explain seven bright lines that separate clearly eight different unixes! As in my original post, I submit that no matter the unix, no matter the number of different unixes (don't flame me for the generic unix plural), the differences are subtle at worst. I have ALWAYS been able to sit down to a console running a unix and ALWAYS been productive from the first keystroke (contrast this with supposed same "windows"... ).
And while there's something (maybe) to be said for being POSIX 03 compliant, again, it is a nuanced compliance... and I've always written applications strictly compliant to make my life easier, but again, it is not difficult to move fluidly from one unix to another.
The (my perception) intent of the position of the group referenced in the article is to somehow impugn the viability in some of the most basic ways of unix, and it's just plain flawed (I claim fraudulent) logic.
Actually it is empirically obvious Microsoft WAS evil in the 80's. If you read virtually ANY recordings of their history you'll see they had the same hubris in the 80's they maintain today (though today they're actually a bit more cagey about the whole thing).
And Google doesn't have a PR statement saying "we are not evil", but in fact their corporate mission statement includes "Do No Evil", a nuanced but significant difference. (It's okay for Google people to be evil if they want, but the corporation demands "no evil" as corporate policy.)
And, as for maintaining their monopoly for 3 or 4 years, then examining their behavior....I still question the validity of the thesis Google exists as a monopoly! (Consider that Google has at least 3 significant competitors in their discipline, and maintain nowhere near the stranglehold Microsoft holds in OS's.)
You ask good questions. I can't answer what Google WILL do... I can only speak to how they've handled themselves so far, and so far they've been true to their credo. They only went public mostly because it was a prudent thing to do, not so much to make money. I can't predict, but if I had to guess I think they'd re-constitute themselves as a private company before they'd bend to external pressures just because of stock valuations. But, you're right.... it is our responsibility to be ever vigilant (not vigilantes).
The article, or at least the people putting forth their thesis (I call
bullhockey, it's really more of an agenda) do much to discredit themselves
with claims such as:
..., Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with
Unix - it splintered into eight applications,...
I don't know exactly what they mean by "splintered", but working in the
Unix field now for twenty-plus years, I never experienced:
ANYTHING I could describe as a splinter.... at worst I would
describe my experiences as nuanced differences among the various flavors of
unix.
EIGHT(?!?) applications! First and foremost, unix is NOT,
repeat-after-me, NOT an application.... and anyone who describes anything
about unix in those terms reveals more about their depth (lack of) in understanding of
OS technology than insight therein.
I don't find or see anything enlightening or new in the article, and walk
away shaking my head when these kinds of observations get any press at all.
Not to say I'm entirely comfortable.... just "more" comfortable... this is a sliding scale with one end of the spectrum pretty well defined by Microsoft. Google is somewhere way down the line away from them and my experience has been there's a certain internal pride with Google in how they manage integrity, vs. what I would consider a certain pride of their own "hubris" at Microsoft. (I've had lunch with both factions.... the personality traits of either are wildly divergent... both extreme in intelligence, but MS people (IMO) tend to think they really ARE the only ones in the world who know how it should be run, whereas the Google people seem to want to know what it is people want.... and are willing to find out and implement for them.)
As for me... I manage and work technology for a living so I'm still willing to manage my own data thank-you-very-much, but I do think there will come a time and it may be soon where people turn to the outside world for management of their stuff if it's guaranteed to be safe, private, and easily and readily accessible. I think Google still needs to prove they can do this, but for my money they are the leading candidate out there for potential winners in this paradigm (ick, sorry for the jingoism).
I just went through this exercise last night with my brother who knows little about computers, he just wants to create his documents and know they'll be there later when he looks for them. In "his" world today, that just doesn't happen because he's stuck using WORD, and the broken metaphor world of Microsoft for storing, managing, and retrieving documents (what the heck is the "Documents and Settings" metaphor anyway????). I easily imagine a world where he uses a Google-like interface that allows him to access his documents very much the way he accesses web information... with keyword queries, and lightning fast and typically accurate replies from Google (or Google's analog).
I think the concept is interesting, and now approaches "possible" with ever expanding pipes and speeds. Anecdotally my experience has been different, but in an office/corporate setting. There was a big push to thin-client architecture with Sun Servers and diskless Sun clients. But something about human nature I suppose, it never gained purchase, and eventually the technology became what we know generally today.... i.e., local storage maintained by owners and users, no matter the lack of diligence in integrity and storage of the data... Human nature that can be overcome? Don't know...
As for one point in the article:
from the article:
..., Will it be a subscription service, or will you buy it outright? I suggest you pay for it like a regular operating system, one iteration at a time. Microsoft charges from $100 to $200 for major OS upgrades; Google could do the same. Then, you either buy or subscribe to applications developed by Google, much the way some of you now do with Microsoft Word and the like. Yep, it's trading one monopoly for another, but even Apple recognizes how much better you can do things when the software is integrated into the OS....
... I have to say one thing about the "monopoly" for which we trade (from Microsoft to Google) putting aside for the moment what truly defines a monopoly (I happen to think Google is far from being a monopoly)..., I am MUCH more comfortable doing bidnez with a company/"monopoly" whose corporate slogan is "Do No Evil"..., and Google actually seems to be earnest in that quest.
pretty much an off-the-cuff post... but, for me a no-brainer, faith or no faith at $.02/yr/person. If they told me there was a one in a million chance that investment would shed light on origin of universe, signs of life elsewhere, etc... I would consider it a worthwhile risk and investment.... While I know comparing with other tax uses it's not a way to justify, I would still point out there are far greater abuses of tax dollars, especially riders on legislation for regional pork....
Heck, tack the extra $.02 onto the lottery tickets... people seem to be quite willing to gamble on odds far less likely to return for much larger yearly investments (one of the biggest and most pernicious government scams, IMO).
I think there's a far greater chance for return on this investment than some of the other tax allocations.
Just my $.02...:-)
(OTOH, if it were all privatized, I wouldn't mind that, and would be happy to invest privately. I suspect this might be where this all ends up anyway since there's a certain empirical evidence private R&D is more efficient.)
..., The Voyagers alone need $4.2 million a year for daily operation and data analysis...,
It's a shame... especially if you think cost per citizen, and what the potential return on the investment might be. If you assume 200M people contribute to the taxes (don't know, but it's within a 2x factor), the cost PER taxpayer to maintain the daily operation and data anaylsis PER YEAR is $.02! How ironic that in this case the taxpayers don't even get their two cents worth!
I hope that would be where that would go! Oh, that they only WOULD do that, but I (from anecdotal experience) still distrust. I thought it was funny at the very end of the article.... they comment on an offline suggestion from someone,..., "casually speaking to Pearlman after the talk, had perhaps the most succinct counter suggestion. Why not charge 10 cents, instead of 5, and double the revenue?"...,
I can't help but chuckle and imagine that conversation continuing whereby others chime in with, "Hey!, why not charge 20 cents instead of 10!", and finally someone reaching the magic plateau, "Hey, why not just charge an even buck ($1) for each track?"... And all involved in the discussion nod in agreement and shake hands.
It's kind of the pernicious circle, where everyone thinks they're progressing, and eventually end up back where they started... (ever read "Player Piano" by Vonnegut? -- very cool illustration of the concept).
Well, we can always hope.... If there were no DRM I would consider signing up for $.05 download.
When first reading the article, my instinct was to not go along with the
notion charging for downloaded music, even only $.05 a song. Especially
with DRM, etc., always on the sideline poised to come in and wrap you around
the axle anytime to you try to play the song (in the proper spirit of fair
use)... (I'm STILL upset about one of my recent CD's purchased not playing
on my car CD player.... took it in, they would only exchange it... and, sure
enough, the exchanged CD failed to play in exactly the same places in
exactly the same way... had to demo this to the store personnel before they
would agree to a refund.)
But, maybe they have something there... certainly when: "..., The
recording industry is against Pearlman's plan...., ", I've got to think
it may be something that could work.
You got it all wrong. So, you're saying my experience as I describe it is wrong? You haven't lived it... I was only reporting my experience, not reviewing the body of work in the gadget world (though I've owned MANY of these gadgets, and not one of them had what I would describe as a decent FM tuner... again, my experience only).
BS. My experience tell otherwise (Nokia and Sony-Ericsson phones), sorry. Don't be sorry... I'm glad you find something with better results, though I wouldn't find it surprising since you're talking about phones which ostensibly would be "wired" for radio so to speak.
FM tuner has been added solely for the sake of making it more attractive
Of course it is. E.g. ipod's white headphones are made to be attractive. So what's your point? Here I would argue making headphones white is different than adding circuitry... what possible problem could there be because headphones are white?!? Sheeesh.
not enhancing the quality of the user experience
Even a decent FM tuner is infinitely better than no tuner. Depends upon what you mean by decent. For me, the bar is pretty high. I can't stand fading, bad handling of multi-path interference, and low S/N ratios. Again, my experience has been none of the players I've owned pass muster in ANY of these categories.
So, more circuitry, more electronics to support a poorly implemented FM tuner just means more things to go wrong with the device.
Nice try.
Do you know anything about electronics? These things are so small and simple that virtually no circuitry is designed.Why do I have to know anything about electronics? (actually I do.... just a little annoyed by the ad hominem). Small and simple doesn't guarantee no increased possibility of something going wrong. Even just a simple toggle switch to move from radio to player is a switch that wouldn't have otherwise been there, and it's one more switch to stop working (I had a player that did just that!)...
On the other hand, why would you think that a quality product can't have a quality FM tuner?
I KNOW a quality product CAN have a quality tuner.... I just haven't experienced it. (And I'm not, as many aren't, really in the market for $200 phones just to get an FM tuner as part of the package (decent).)
For me, the inclusion or addition of an FM tuner to an mp3 player has now
become a negative rather than a plus. My experience has been the FM tuners
are all pretty bad, and so the only conclusion I can draw is the FM tuner
has been added solely for the sake of making it more attractive, not
enhancing the quality of the user experience. So, more circuitry, more
electronics to support a poorly implemented FM tuner just means more things
to go wrong with the device.
to extend the comment on Window's consistency... I agree it has little if anything to do with Window's consistency... mostly because "Windows consistency" is a non sequitur, it doesn't exist. (Note: by "Windows" I imply and include the common suite of microsoft software most people get in some flavor... e.g., Office, et. al.)
Many times have I seen meetings delayed while attendees scramble to get a "compatible" version of the distributed meeting docs... In a company sporting 50,000 employees it was common if not de rigeur all different releases of the various packages (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) resided on various computers... and the "reset point" for each meeting required the team sort through and ensure all were finally looking at the "same" document.... or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
I have NEVER experienced the same confusion and incompatibilities in any other environment (be it mainframe, unix, linux, etc.)
Pure and simple, Microsoft "won" with documented illegal business practices, and ruthless abuse of the marketplace.
I absolutely agree -- one of the most endearing and enduring tenets of unix has been in its core philosophy of having small programs do small things, and do them extremely well, thus providing an infrastructure of pieces to be assembled for the fully implemented widget... typically greater than the sum of its parts.
Not to pick a nit, but you say: ..., Sure, you've got to spend time shell-scripting to unleash its full power but that's half the fun of it...., , but I would argue that you actually DON'T have to spend time shell-scripting... if by time you imply that it is time-consuming. With the power of history mechanisms in modern shells (especially ksh, pdksh, bash, and (my favorite) zsh), I find I can slap together what amounts to almost a mature application with a few well chosen primitives, and pipes... all in seconds. I admit it has taken "time" to mature and have this ability, but I find it easy to quickly solve problems and provide "solutions" in and around the shell. This is even more pronounced when compared to the tools typically used in the windows environment... I absolutely cringe when I have to look for something on a windows machine and not have access to a cygwin, or some analog therein.
..., According to Forbes, to some these tactics sound like something Apple's neighbor to the North might employ. They wonder aloud Is Apple the New Microsoft?
Some of Apple's tactics may be annoying and/or irritating, but they hardly rise to the level of "being Microsoft". The most notable difference is Apple hardly has the monopoly Microsoft has (though they certainly have dominated the download market for music -- I, for one, don't see that as the future of music in the sense that we see it today). So, Apple merely offers their products "their way", or "no way". Similar to Microsoft, but in the case of Microsoft, Microsoft has demonstrated predatory behavior where they:
don't even invent their own products
embrace, then change or extend or ignore (some say "corrupt") accepted standards (see CSS, HTML, sockets, etc.)
set their pricing according to the existence or non-existence of competition (see Netscape (competition, free), and OS (XP, virtually no competition, $200)
run roughshod over anyone, any company, and any government that gets in their way
You ask:That's all fine, etc., etc. Where is the increase in violent crime perpetrated by young offenders that supposedly is "correlated" to violent games?
Correlation in violence is different than "increase", and there is little relationship between the two. Correlation is simply the relationship between any level of crime that exists and whether not it relates statistically and in a meaningful way (see next point).
You say: it turns out that violent crime rates, especially among youth, have been going DOWN since violent video games became popular.
Yes, violent crimes have gone down. I don't know the breakout by age group, I'll accept and assume your thesis is fact. Even so, a decrease in violent crime has nothing at all (or is unlikely to be related) to do with the correlation of violent video games and violent behavior. Different reasons have been cited for the drop in violent crimes, not the least of which includes that enforcement and punishment for violent crimes has been accelerated. Also, a shift in the demographics of the people committing violent crimes has been cited. And, even differences in the economic climate have been forwarded as theories for the change in rates of violence.
If there were only 1,000 owners of violent video games in the country, and there WERE (not saying there is) a 100% correlation between owners of violent video games and violence committed, that would indicate 1,000 people committing violent crimes... In a country of 260,000,000, the number of 1,000 would be small, and have little effect on skewing the crime rates one way or the other nationally, but certainly if there were a KNOWN population of 1,000 people who WOULD commit violent crimes, it would be a good thing to know it and try to prevent it.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of what Micro$oft may think, the world should not revolve around IE! Hopefully some day, for real, Firefox will change this.
And we could/should take some responsibility also.... If we encounter an IE-exclusive web site, we should write, ALWAYS!, at least, and take customer "action" if possible. When my bank switched to an on-line banking system that would work only with IE (it HAD worked with Netscape previously), I wrote my letter, and withdrew $20,000.... probably not a lot or a big scare for a bank, but if more people would demand more open web sites or refuse to do business with these sites maybe we'd see more results too.
I DO agree with parent though, there is some hope with the Google effect, and managers taking the "Why can't we do that" approach.
Congress has an ongoing relationship with baseball as they continue to grant them waivers from applying any monopoly statutes to baseball and its owners. They've got a huge reason for being on top of this.... albeit, doing a crappy job.
Motto of many a Microsoft employee: Will work for FUD
Yeah, this scares me.... has anyone actually looked into the Y2.038205K crisis?
I think this is the kind of thing I worried about.... I find this to be frightening at best, infuriating at worst... I probably can navigate these waters, but what about my Mother and Father? They still don't completely understand the drag-and-drop metaphor! (It's not their fault!) There are countless people out there who are likely to get burned by this. But, maybe that will spur the backlash that vanquishes trusted computing. Fingers crossed.
Thanks for the helpful reply.
Cheers.
I had a similar experience in the past... where I tried to order a naked PC from a vendor so I could install linux from scratch... but they would only sell me a machine with windows. I argued, and escalated, and eventually got a manager on the phone who eventually agreed to sell me a pc without windows on it, but, (AND GET THIS!), they would have to charge me an extra $100 for it. Kind of an ironic twist on the value of a machine WITH windows installed vs. not installed (worth $100 more!)...
I've read the article, and many related articles, but it is still not clear to me what this technology really means...
I am pretty sure there are answers to this technology, but I haven't found a clear concise source to make me feel any better about what this technology may bring upon OSS. I'm afraid it might be bad. Someone reassure me.
As an aside, is this really a direction technology needed to take? Is there really that much of a need for "trusted" computing? Sheeesh, I've not found this to be a huge issue, and I hope this technology incurs huge backlash when its inconvenience far exceeds its benefits.... (especially since the type of intrusion and hacking I've ever seen has little to do with protecting data and much more to do with social engineering).
Putting aside for the sake of generosity the absurd use of the terminology, "eight applications", (we started out talking of Operating Systems, n'est-ce pas?), the implied "danger" is when you pick an alleged "standard" like unix you run the risk of having one piece of something that has fragmented into eight splinters.
First, I wonder that anyone could help me out and explain seven bright lines that separate clearly eight different unixes! As in my original post, I submit that no matter the unix, no matter the number of different unixes (don't flame me for the generic unix plural), the differences are subtle at worst. I have ALWAYS been able to sit down to a console running a unix and ALWAYS been productive from the first keystroke (contrast this with supposed same "windows"... ).
And while there's something (maybe) to be said for being POSIX 03 compliant, again, it is a nuanced compliance... and I've always written applications strictly compliant to make my life easier, but again, it is not difficult to move fluidly from one unix to another.
The (my perception) intent of the position of the group referenced in the article is to somehow impugn the viability in some of the most basic ways of unix, and it's just plain flawed (I claim fraudulent) logic.
Actually it is empirically obvious Microsoft WAS evil in the 80's. If you read virtually ANY recordings of their history you'll see they had the same hubris in the 80's they maintain today (though today they're actually a bit more cagey about the whole thing).
And Google doesn't have a PR statement saying "we are not evil", but in fact their corporate mission statement includes "Do No Evil", a nuanced but significant difference. (It's okay for Google people to be evil if they want, but the corporation demands "no evil" as corporate policy.)
And, as for maintaining their monopoly for 3 or 4 years, then examining their behavior....I still question the validity of the thesis Google exists as a monopoly! (Consider that Google has at least 3 significant competitors in their discipline, and maintain nowhere near the stranglehold Microsoft holds in OS's.)
Cheers.
The article, or at least the people putting forth their thesis (I call bullhockey, it's really more of an agenda) do much to discredit themselves with claims such as:
I don't know exactly what they mean by "splintered", but working in the Unix field now for twenty-plus years, I never experienced:
I don't find or see anything enlightening or new in the article, and walk away shaking my head when these kinds of observations get any press at all.
As for me... I manage and work technology for a living so I'm still willing to manage my own data thank-you-very-much, but I do think there will come a time and it may be soon where people turn to the outside world for management of their stuff if it's guaranteed to be safe, private, and easily and readily accessible. I think Google still needs to prove they can do this, but for my money they are the leading candidate out there for potential winners in this paradigm (ick, sorry for the jingoism).
I just went through this exercise last night with my brother who knows little about computers, he just wants to create his documents and know they'll be there later when he looks for them. In "his" world today, that just doesn't happen because he's stuck using WORD, and the broken metaphor world of Microsoft for storing, managing, and retrieving documents (what the heck is the "Documents and Settings" metaphor anyway????). I easily imagine a world where he uses a Google-like interface that allows him to access his documents very much the way he accesses web information... with keyword queries, and lightning fast and typically accurate replies from Google (or Google's analog).
I think the concept is interesting, and now approaches "possible" with ever expanding pipes and speeds. Anecdotally my experience has been different, but in an office/corporate setting. There was a big push to thin-client architecture with Sun Servers and diskless Sun clients. But something about human nature I suppose, it never gained purchase, and eventually the technology became what we know generally today.... i.e., local storage maintained by owners and users, no matter the lack of diligence in integrity and storage of the data... Human nature that can be overcome? Don't know...
As for one point in the article: from the article:
... I have to say one thing about the "monopoly" for which we trade (from Microsoft to Google) putting aside for the moment what truly defines a monopoly (I happen to think Google is far from being a monopoly)..., I am MUCH more comfortable doing bidnez with a company/"monopoly" whose corporate slogan is "Do No Evil"..., and Google actually seems to be earnest in that quest.
Heck, tack the extra $.02 onto the lottery tickets... people seem to be quite willing to gamble on odds far less likely to return for much larger yearly investments (one of the biggest and most pernicious government scams, IMO).
I think there's a far greater chance for return on this investment than some of the other tax allocations.
Just my $.02... :-)
(OTOH, if it were all privatized, I wouldn't mind that, and would be happy to invest privately. I suspect this might be where this all ends up anyway since there's a certain empirical evidence private R&D is more efficient.)
For now.
It's a shame... especially if you think cost per citizen, and what the potential return on the investment might be. If you assume 200M people contribute to the taxes (don't know, but it's within a 2x factor), the cost PER taxpayer to maintain the daily operation and data anaylsis PER YEAR is $.02! How ironic that in this case the taxpayers don't even get their two cents worth!
I can't help but chuckle and imagine that conversation continuing whereby others chime in with, "Hey!, why not charge 20 cents instead of 10!", and finally someone reaching the magic plateau, "Hey, why not just charge an even buck ($1) for each track?"... And all involved in the discussion nod in agreement and shake hands.
It's kind of the pernicious circle, where everyone thinks they're progressing, and eventually end up back where they started... (ever read "Player Piano" by Vonnegut? -- very cool illustration of the concept).
Well, we can always hope.... If there were no DRM I would consider signing up for $.05 download.
When first reading the article, my instinct was to not go along with the notion charging for downloaded music, even only $.05 a song. Especially with DRM, etc., always on the sideline poised to come in and wrap you around the axle anytime to you try to play the song (in the proper spirit of fair use)... (I'm STILL upset about one of my recent CD's purchased not playing on my car CD player.... took it in, they would only exchange it... and, sure enough, the exchanged CD failed to play in exactly the same places in exactly the same way... had to demo this to the store personnel before they would agree to a refund.)
But, maybe they have something there... certainly when: "..., The recording industry is against Pearlman's plan. ..., ", I've got to think
it may be something that could work.
BS. My experience tell otherwise (Nokia and Sony-Ericsson phones), sorry. Don't be sorry... I'm glad you find something with better results, though I wouldn't find it surprising since you're talking about phones which ostensibly would be "wired" for radio so to speak.
FM tuner has been added solely for the sake of making it more attractive Of course it is. E.g. ipod's white headphones are made to be attractive. So what's your point? Here I would argue making headphones white is different than adding circuitry... what possible problem could there be because headphones are white?!? Sheeesh.
not enhancing the quality of the user experience Even a decent FM tuner is infinitely better than no tuner. Depends upon what you mean by decent. For me, the bar is pretty high. I can't stand fading, bad handling of multi-path interference, and low S/N ratios. Again, my experience has been none of the players I've owned pass muster in ANY of these categories.
So, more circuitry, more electronics to support a poorly implemented FM tuner just means more things to go wrong with the device. Nice try. Do you know anything about electronics? These things are so small and simple that virtually no circuitry is designed.Why do I have to know anything about electronics? (actually I do.... just a little annoyed by the ad hominem). Small and simple doesn't guarantee no increased possibility of something going wrong. Even just a simple toggle switch to move from radio to player is a switch that wouldn't have otherwise been there, and it's one more switch to stop working (I had a player that did just that!)...
On the other hand, why would you think that a quality product can't have a quality FM tuner? I KNOW a quality product CAN have a quality tuner.... I just haven't experienced it. (And I'm not, as many aren't, really in the market for $200 phones just to get an FM tuner as part of the package (decent).)
And, while linux may not have enimies [sic], it most certainly has enemies.
For me, the inclusion or addition of an FM tuner to an mp3 player has now become a negative rather than a plus. My experience has been the FM tuners are all pretty bad, and so the only conclusion I can draw is the FM tuner has been added solely for the sake of making it more attractive, not enhancing the quality of the user experience. So, more circuitry, more electronics to support a poorly implemented FM tuner just means more things to go wrong with the device.
Many times have I seen meetings delayed while attendees scramble to get a "compatible" version of the distributed meeting docs... In a company sporting 50,000 employees it was common if not de rigeur all different releases of the various packages (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) resided on various computers... and the "reset point" for each meeting required the team sort through and ensure all were finally looking at the "same" document.... or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
I have NEVER experienced the same confusion and incompatibilities in any other environment (be it mainframe, unix, linux, etc.)
Pure and simple, Microsoft "won" with documented illegal business practices, and ruthless abuse of the marketplace.
I absolutely agree -- one of the most endearing and enduring tenets of unix has been in its core philosophy of having small programs do small things, and do them extremely well, thus providing an infrastructure of pieces to be assembled for the fully implemented widget... typically greater than the sum of its parts.
Not to pick a nit, but you say: ..., Sure, you've got to spend time shell-scripting to unleash its full power but that's half the fun of it. ..., , but I would argue that you actually DON'T have to spend time shell-scripting... if by time you imply that it is time-consuming. With the power of history mechanisms in modern shells (especially ksh, pdksh, bash, and (my favorite) zsh), I find I can slap together what amounts to almost a mature application with a few well chosen primitives, and pipes... all in seconds. I admit it has taken "time" to mature and have this ability, but I find it easy to quickly solve problems and provide "solutions" in and around the shell. This is even more pronounced when compared to the tools typically used in the windows environment... I absolutely cringe when I have to look for something on a windows machine and not have access to a cygwin, or some analog therein.
Some of Apple's tactics may be annoying and/or irritating, but they hardly rise to the level of "being Microsoft". The most notable difference is Apple hardly has the monopoly Microsoft has (though they certainly have dominated the download market for music -- I, for one, don't see that as the future of music in the sense that we see it today). So, Apple merely offers their products "their way", or "no way". Similar to Microsoft, but in the case of Microsoft, Microsoft has demonstrated predatory behavior where they:
Apple as Microsoft? I don't think so.
You ask:That's all fine, etc., etc. Where is the increase in violent crime perpetrated by young offenders that supposedly is "correlated" to violent games?
Correlation in violence is different than "increase", and there is little relationship between the two. Correlation is simply the relationship between any level of crime that exists and whether not it relates statistically and in a meaningful way (see next point).
You say: it turns out that violent crime rates, especially among youth, have been going DOWN since violent video games became popular.
Yes, violent crimes have gone down. I don't know the breakout by age group, I'll accept and assume your thesis is fact. Even so, a decrease in violent crime has nothing at all (or is unlikely to be related) to do with the correlation of violent video games and violent behavior. Different reasons have been cited for the drop in violent crimes, not the least of which includes that enforcement and punishment for violent crimes has been accelerated. Also, a shift in the demographics of the people committing violent crimes has been cited. And, even differences in the economic climate have been forwarded as theories for the change in rates of violence.
If there were only 1,000 owners of violent video games in the country, and there WERE (not saying there is) a 100% correlation between owners of violent video games and violence committed, that would indicate 1,000 people committing violent crimes... In a country of 260,000,000, the number of 1,000 would be small, and have little effect on skewing the crime rates one way or the other nationally, but certainly if there were a KNOWN population of 1,000 people who WOULD commit violent crimes, it would be a good thing to know it and try to prevent it.