The logic is as follows. Why would someone bother paying $2 to download an episode which they can record for free off of their television?
Please reread the second paragraph of my response. Also note that the iTMS versions have no commercials in them.
It's only a matter of time before it becomes easy to encode the recorded t.v. show onto their iPod.
Maybe from a computer, but not on the iPod itself. I am still waiting for the iPod to support high quality stereo recording out of the box (mic in and line level in), without a third party dongle having to be purchased. It's one thing that keeps Mindisc from being relagated to history.
Really, I don't see what the availability of shows in digital format has to do with people recording the show with their own equipment off the cable. That's like asking what the availability of shows on DVD will do to your right to tape them instead (nothing happend).
Just like you pay for the prerecorded DVD w/ extra footage, ect. You are paying for the convienence of the show already being encoded for iTunes and delivered over your internet connection rather than having to record it yourself.
If you need for cable TV is really limited to two or three shows you should ave gotten rid of it by now. I would just download them from online. It's the same arguement as pirating one song off a CD comparison wise. You only need one program, paying for hundreds of hours of other programming doesn't make sense.
If you can't find them, keep in mind a DVD of National Geographic Programs can be bought for what $24.95 at the most? Less than you'd pay for a month of cable.
This isn't a "subscription" like the all-you-can-watch-as-long-as-you-pay-your-monthly- fee, like with Yahoo Music. Nobody is renting the shows in this case, all Apple is really doing is pay-in-advance discounts. You buy the shows a month's worth at a time, and they are your to keep like any other iTMS video purchase.
I've used Dell support for Linux Servers. They want RedHat Enterprise, and I can understand it, because from a support perspective, it is predictable. I called 'em up and said, "Hey, I'm running CentOS, a RHEL clonse, just treat me like I'm running RedHat, ok?" and the techs say "sure!" and eagerly get to helping me with my problems.
And that's exactly what needs to happen on the desktop market. Dell says they can't support everyone and doesn't want to alienate anyone by picking one distro. They want the community to converge on it's own accord, and that isn't going to happen.
But it's something Dell can make happen if it wants to.
If Dell did pick one distro, lets say Uubuntu, and supported it, what you'd see is a change in development in other similar distributions so become more compatable under the hood so they, too, would be supported. It would be exactly like the differnce between an IBM-brand PC and and and IBM-compatable PC in the eighties. Yeah, it looks differnt, but it will run the same on this hardware. Smaller Debian-based distros might push to become "Ubuntu-compatable" and supportable on Dells, other may choose to stay their own course and become the MacOS of the Linux cosmos: differnt, but with smaller marketshare. The choice would be theirs. Nobody is forcing the Linux community to all converge to one distro. If the dust clears and there aren't enough people to support the existance of (non-Ubuntu compatable distro X), then in free-market style that distro will go.
A lot of this is just political in the end. Plenty of people don't want a major corporation to influence open source OS development, which is what Dell would be doing if it did bless a single distro, becuase that how most of the world got involved in the Windows-centric mess we have today.
I don't understand why he isn't in favor of geeks getting together. More couples and new familes means more taxpayers to try to prop up broken Social Security systems and more young'ns to send into meaningless wars.
But then maybe he doesn't want them for the intelligence reasons. It's far easier to control a populace made up of idiots.
I also tell them to avoid all banners with all the flashing or strobe type colors that are just annoying, since most of them lead to crap sites anyway.
Maybe people will want to check this chart before buying a new cell phone? Maybe not.
From glancing through the chart it looks like the industry is cleaning up the products on their own to a degree.
My current phone (Nokia 6610, which is a few years old design) comes in at a low.45 W/kg, while my previous phone, a much older design Nokia 5190, was rated at more than twice as much at 1.29 W/kg. Then look at new models like the N90 at.22, the fairly recent N-Gage at.37, and the current Nokia Communicator, the 9300, at.24 W/kg.
Despite the much lower output, my 6610 gets as good maybe even slightly better reception than my 5190 did. The race to miniturize components and extend battery life is affecting these radiation outputs in a positive way in the process.
This side effect of Norton's attempt to protect the user, or that Symantec thinks this is the best way to protect the user.
I mean, if Norton is aware of a keylogger worm on IRC, wouldn't it make more sense to have Norton Internet Security kill the keylogger process or block the data the keylogger tries to send out? It is a firewall after all. Or, for Norton Antivirus to identify the keylogger and remove it as part of removing the worm. Would it not be part of the worm, and therefore something Norton is supposed to be removing, as part of the program's specified function?
If stopping access to a service is how one should protect themselves from threats on it, maybe Norton should just block all TCP/IP traffic to prevent viruses, worms, and identity theft.
Good thing the keylogger trigger wasn't "hello everyone".
If they were less blatantly anti-consumer, and if they focused more on providing a product that consumers want, they might be able to compete.
Ah, but there's the rub. It's not that Sony itself is anticonsumer, it's that important divisions (specifically Sony Music and Sony Pictures) are, so everyone else must play along. This has already been discussed here in past Sony related articles and more throughly in a past Wired magazine article.
What needs to happen is for Sony to be split into separate music/content and electronics companies, and maybe even split the gaming platform off of that, too. But corporate dogs like having it all as one (one big company means more power and prestige than running one of three little ones).
Getting a breakup like that to happen will be next to impossible without a shareholder lawsuit (the different divisions holding each other back from competing and maximizing profits for shareholders is a real issue).
AOL's customers aren't capable of comprehending such a thing, that is why they are still AOL users.
All kidding aside, AOL completly relies on the fact that their customer doesn't know a thing about how computers or the internet actualy work.
Their customers will get more educated as they deal with their new tech support contacts. When they have issues with signing onto AOL, AOL will do some simple checks from their side and then refer/transfer the customers to the real support people (the DSL support agents for the RBOC they partnered with). The first thing a decent broadband support agent will do when dealing with someone who can't sign onto AOL is have them try without AOL (using IE, Safari) and at some point the customer will realize they can get on the internet just fine without AOL and there really is no reason they have to keep using it (and paying for the piggy-back AOL access).
This plan is going to backfire for AOL in the end. They are selling out their dialup business to broadband partnerships. The first rule of keeping customers is to have direct control to their connetion. AOL loses this and people will see AOL subscriptions aren't worth the money when they aren't needed to actually connect. Add to this the AOL screename/email account they're allowed to keep now and AOL has lost another tool for retention (email address lockin).
But then maybe AOL's plan is to simply become a subscripion entertainment porthole (a la Yahoo Radio) in the end.
She then heads home and proceeds to configure her new computer, but to her absolute dismay, she finds that she's unable to do everything that she was previously able to do (like burn CD's, or use DirectX applications) on her old Windowsw XP box. She calls MS support who gingerly inform her that "Oh, that functionality is only included in Windows Vista Ultimate Edition, which you can have for the low low price of $300". Sally has no choice but to pay for another copy of Windows
Or she can take the $400 she spent on the new PC and the $300 Microsoft wants for Windows Vista Ultimate Edition and just buy a fully loaded Mac Mini, thereby saving her the yearly AV subscription costs, the time running spyware scans, ect.
If all of the glacier ice on Greenland melted, worldwide ocean levels would rise 20 feet. I got this number from the history channel so I don't know how accurate they are with non-Hitlter based facts.
From TFA:
"Virtually everyone agrees that the complete disappearance of the 2-mile-thick (3-kilometer-thick) Greenland Ice Sheet would cause an estimated 23-foot (7-meter) rise in global sea levels."
So I guess the History channel was only slightly off.
So we have 12,192 years until all the glacier ice melts in Greenland assuming the rate is constant. We still have some time.
Isn't the whole point that the rate has doubled in the last five years and therefore it is not constant?
If the rise in sea levels was.5 in 2005 and the rate has doubled in the past fixe years we sould assume the rate of growth will continue (I don't forsee things getting any cooler). That would imply a sea level gain of 120% the pervious year from the galciers.
Y=(current year) R=rise in sea level (in millimeters)
R=(1.2(Y-2005))(.5) so for 2015 the sea level will rise 6mm as a result of the glacial melt in Greenland, not half a millimeter.
Unfortunately my math skills are too rusty right now to take the amount of sea level gain we would experience from the entire glacier melting: 7010.4mm and working this out into a predicted year it would happen based on a constant acceleration of the amount of melting occuring, and I should be able to: I'm sure that was covered in Algrbra II in high school.
As far as pedicting the sinking of New York, one would have to take this into figures for the rest of the sea level rise. Remember, the Atlantic only rose.5mm from Greenland, but it rose 2.5mm from something else (a rate that may also be accelerating).
Of course at some point broadband will simply become too cheap for dialup to continue to survive, but that doesn't mean there won't be people who just use it for 5 minutes a day to check their email.
I think they will still have to increase their usage as time goes on. More companies and government services are becoming dependant on internet access. Wanna file a FAFSA form and go to school? The paper form will be discontinued in the next few years, meaning you'll have to go online to do it. And I've noticed more companies pushing online access as the way to reach them. A friend of mine who has no internet access right now was complaining about it last time I went to see him. Companies were increasingly just giving out URL's in their commercials and have no phone number mentioned one could call instead. The cost savings are obvious for companies, and I'm sure they'll have an email address on their website, too.
It's much like paying with a check. More and more businesses aren't accepting them, making a debit card necessary. You can still pay bills by mailing a check but if you want to pay immediatly over the phone the option of using a checking routing/acct numbers is increasingly slim or incurs a fee a credit/debit card does not. And I remember when it was the opposite.
Like taking down a web page that has false information on it and making sure that nobody else is being misled? Has ATI denied any wrong doing, or are they more likely just in the process of fixing a mistake?
They can take the info down off the website to prevent further customers from being misled, but when someone who has already bought the product because of this feature asks about the mistake and the company's response is to send a copy of the corrected specs that now no longer mention HDCP support, all they are doing is denying any wrong doing.
The website could keep have a small link "info about HDCP support" that leads to a page talking about the mistake in previous marketting, but if there is nothing there and the company is not announcing the mistake publically either then I would say they are covering it up.
To have the government threaten to enact legislation is like having a parent wave their finger at a naughty child warning him not to break ANY MORE of the neighbor's windows.
Laws have already been broken and all we're seeing is warnings implying this may be made illegal in the future.
He expects a finished product to be on the market in about four to five years, adding the cost would probably be in the range of $750 each.
Prediction: By the time this guy gets his product to market, existing incumbant hard disk makers will have improved hard drive technology to capcities equal to his and without some huge IP licensing fee adding to the retail price.
Why would it be "almost unimaginable" that there will be people who won't make much use of the Internet 15 years from now?
It might not be uninmaginable that there are people who don't need broadband access to you, but it could be to people trying to run a dialup ISP. Just like there will always be a market for albums recorded on audio cassette, but at some point no record label will care.
After a certain point, there are simply not enough subscriibers in an area to justify having a local access number in a town. And when that happens it becomes more cost effective to have broadband instead, even if you don't need it. The cable company I work for has cable modem service at 256Kb down/64Kb up for $24.95 a month. Most people would not even consider such access "high-speed internet" but at a cost of only a few dollars more than AOL or Earthlink and speeds of up to five times faster than a modem with an always-on connection that doesn't tie up the phone line, it's a no brainer. The only real drawback is the service isn't portable if you're away for home. I expect low end service like this to eventually replace dialup ISP's, but I expect it will be wireless-based to cater to the buseiness user who needs access from anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
The logic is as follows. Why would someone bother paying $2 to download an episode which they can record for free off of their television?
Please reread the second paragraph of my response.
Also note that the iTMS versions have no commercials in them.
It's only a matter of time before it becomes easy to encode the recorded t.v. show onto their iPod.
Maybe from a computer, but not on the iPod itself.
I am still waiting for the iPod to support high quality stereo recording out of the box (mic in and line level in), without a third party dongle having to be purchased. It's one thing that keeps Mindisc from being relagated to history.
Nonono!
You have to say it like this:
In Cisco Russia, Scientific-Atlanta box watches YOU!
Really, I don't see what the availability of shows in digital format has to do with people recording the show with their own equipment off the cable. That's like asking what the availability of shows on DVD will do to your right to tape them instead (nothing happend).
Just like you pay for the prerecorded DVD w/ extra footage, ect. You are paying for the convienence of the show already being encoded for iTunes and delivered over your internet connection rather than having to record it yourself.
If you need for cable TV is really limited to two or three shows you should ave gotten rid of it by now. I would just download them from online. It's the same arguement as pirating one song off a CD comparison wise. You only need one program, paying for hundreds of hours of other programming doesn't make sense.
If you can't find them, keep in mind a DVD of National Geographic Programs can be bought for what $24.95 at the most? Less than you'd pay for a month of cable.
This isn't a "subscription" like the all-you-can-watch-as-long-as-you-pay-your-monthly- fee, like with Yahoo Music. Nobody is renting the shows in this case, all Apple is really doing is pay-in-advance discounts. You buy the shows a month's worth at a time, and they are your to keep like any other iTMS video purchase.
It's really more like a magazine subscription.
I've used Dell support for Linux Servers. They want RedHat Enterprise, and I can understand it, because from a support perspective, it is predictable. I called 'em up and said, "Hey, I'm running CentOS, a RHEL clonse, just treat me like I'm running RedHat, ok?" and the techs say "sure!" and eagerly get to helping me with my problems.
And that's exactly what needs to happen on the desktop market. Dell says they can't support everyone and doesn't want to alienate anyone by picking one distro. They want the community to converge on it's own accord, and that isn't going to happen.
But it's something Dell can make happen if it wants to.
If Dell did pick one distro, lets say Uubuntu, and supported it, what you'd see is a change in development in other similar distributions so become more compatable under the hood so they, too, would be supported. It would be exactly like the differnce between an IBM-brand PC and and and IBM-compatable PC in the eighties. Yeah, it looks differnt, but it will run the same on this hardware. Smaller Debian-based distros might push to become "Ubuntu-compatable" and supportable on Dells, other may choose to stay their own course and become the MacOS of the Linux cosmos: differnt, but with smaller marketshare. The choice would be theirs. Nobody is forcing the Linux community to all converge to one distro. If the dust clears and there aren't enough people to support the existance of (non-Ubuntu compatable distro X), then in free-market style that distro will go.
A lot of this is just political in the end. Plenty of people don't want a major corporation to influence open source OS development, which is what Dell would be doing if it did bless a single distro, becuase that how most of the world got involved in the Windows-centric mess we have today.
I don't understand why he isn't in favor of geeks getting together. More couples and new familes means more taxpayers to try to prop up broken Social Security systems and more young'ns to send into meaningless wars.
But then maybe he doesn't want them for the intelligence reasons. It's far easier to control a populace made up of idiots.
He also goes on to question whether allowing Trekkies to meet and mate is 'in the national interest.
Wow, what a coincidence! Here I was just wondering if allowing Tucker Carlson to mate was in the national interest.
Apple Computer thinks Microsoft is five years behind.
I also tell them to avoid all banners with all the flashing or strobe type colors that are just annoying, since most of them lead to crap sites anyway.
Yes, pulsating things are dangerous.
. .
.
.
or are they?
You're right. The article should be about X% of people who are not safe for web surfing.
Maybe people will want to check this chart before buying a new cell phone? Maybe not.
.45 W/kg, .22, the fairly recent N-Gage at .37, and the current Nokia Communicator, the 9300, at .24 W/kg.
From glancing through the chart it looks like the industry is cleaning up the products on their own to a degree.
My current phone (Nokia 6610, which is a few years old design) comes in at a low
while my previous phone, a much older design Nokia 5190, was rated at more than twice as much at 1.29 W/kg. Then look at new models like the N90 at
Despite the much lower output, my 6610 gets as good maybe even slightly better reception than my 5190 did. The race to miniturize components and extend battery life is affecting these radiation outputs in a positive way in the process.
This side effect of Norton's attempt to protect the user, or that Symantec thinks this is the best way to protect the user.
I mean, if Norton is aware of a keylogger worm on IRC, wouldn't it make more sense to have Norton Internet Security kill the keylogger process or block the data the keylogger tries to send out? It is a firewall after all. Or, for Norton Antivirus to identify the keylogger and remove it as part of removing the worm. Would it not be part of the worm, and therefore something Norton is supposed to be removing, as part of the program's specified function?
If stopping access to a service is how one should protect themselves from threats on it, maybe Norton should just block all TCP/IP traffic to prevent viruses, worms, and identity theft.
Good thing the keylogger trigger wasn't "hello everyone".
If they were less blatantly anti-consumer, and if they focused more on providing a product that consumers want, they might be able to compete.
Ah, but there's the rub. It's not that Sony itself is anticonsumer, it's that important divisions (specifically Sony Music and Sony Pictures) are, so everyone else must play along. This has already been discussed here in past Sony related articles and more throughly in a past Wired magazine article.
What needs to happen is for Sony to be split into separate music/content and electronics companies, and maybe even split the gaming platform off of that, too. But corporate dogs like having it all as one (one big company means more power and prestige than running one of three little ones).
Getting a breakup like that to happen will be next to impossible without a shareholder lawsuit (the different divisions holding each other back from competing and maximizing profits for shareholders is a real issue).
AOL's customers aren't capable of comprehending such a thing, that is why they are still AOL users.
All kidding aside, AOL completly relies on the fact that their customer doesn't know a thing about how computers or the internet actualy work.
Their customers will get more educated as they deal with their new tech support contacts. When they have issues with signing onto AOL, AOL will do some simple checks from their side and then refer/transfer the customers to the real support people (the DSL support agents for the RBOC they partnered with). The first thing a decent broadband support agent will do when dealing with someone who can't sign onto AOL is have them try without AOL (using IE, Safari) and at some point the customer will realize they can get on the internet just fine without AOL and there really is no reason they have to keep using it (and paying for the piggy-back AOL access).
This plan is going to backfire for AOL in the end. They are selling out their dialup business to broadband partnerships. The first rule of keeping customers is to have direct control to their connetion. AOL loses this and people will see AOL subscriptions aren't worth the money when they aren't needed to actually connect. Add to this the AOL screename/email account they're allowed to keep now and AOL has lost another tool for retention (email address lockin).
But then maybe AOL's plan is to simply become a subscripion entertainment porthole (a la Yahoo Radio) in the end.
They should just leave their wives at home!
She then heads home and proceeds to configure her new computer, but to her absolute dismay, she finds that she's unable to do everything that she was previously able to do (like burn CD's, or use DirectX applications) on her old Windowsw XP box. She calls MS support who gingerly inform her that "Oh, that functionality is only included in Windows Vista Ultimate Edition, which you can have for the low low price of $300". Sally has no choice but to pay for another copy of Windows
Or she can take the $400 she spent on the new PC and the $300 Microsoft wants for Windows Vista Ultimate Edition and just buy a fully loaded Mac Mini, thereby saving her the yearly AV subscription costs, the time running spyware scans, ect.
If all of the glacier ice on Greenland melted, worldwide ocean levels would rise 20 feet. I got this number from the history channel so I don't know how accurate they are with non-Hitlter based facts.
.5 in 2005 and the rate has doubled in the past fixe years we sould assume the rate of growth will continue (I don't forsee things getting any cooler). That would imply a sea level gain of 120% the pervious year from the galciers.
.5mm from Greenland, but it rose 2.5mm from something else (a rate that may also be accelerating).
From TFA:
"Virtually everyone agrees that the complete disappearance of the 2-mile-thick (3-kilometer-thick) Greenland Ice Sheet would cause an estimated 23-foot (7-meter) rise in global sea levels."
So I guess the History channel was only slightly off.
So we have 12,192 years until all the glacier ice melts in Greenland assuming the rate is constant. We still have some time.
Isn't the whole point that the rate has doubled in the last five years and therefore it is not constant?
If the rise in sea levels was
Y=(current year)
R=rise in sea level (in millimeters)
R=(1.2(Y-2005))(.5) so for 2015 the sea level will rise 6mm as a result of the glacial melt in Greenland, not half a millimeter.
Unfortunately my math skills are too rusty right now to take the amount of sea level gain we would experience from the entire glacier melting: 7010.4mm and working this out into a predicted year it would happen based on a constant acceleration of the amount of melting occuring, and I should be able to: I'm sure that was covered in Algrbra II in high school.
As far as pedicting the sinking of New York, one would have to take this into figures for the rest of the sea level rise. Remember, the Atlantic only rose
Maybe you'd better patent the idea so you can charge people for sleeping on a big decision.
1) Try to figure out the second step.
2) (sleep on the question so subconcious can solve)
3) Patent the second step.
4) Profit!
Wait, maybe you should sleep on the idea of patenting this to make sure it's the right thing to do.
The fact that it didn't break until a brand new processor hit the scenes tells me their QA was fine.
It was present in the Pentium M as well. So I would say it's their PR dept that's been working fine, not their QA dept.
Of course at some point broadband will simply become too cheap for dialup to continue to survive, but that doesn't mean there won't be people who just use it for 5 minutes a day to check their email.
I think they will still have to increase their usage as time goes on. More companies and government services are becoming dependant on internet access. Wanna file a FAFSA form and go to school? The paper form will be discontinued in the next few years, meaning you'll have to go online to do it. And I've noticed more companies pushing online access as the way to reach them. A friend of mine who has no internet access right now was complaining about it last time I went to see him. Companies were increasingly just giving out URL's in their commercials and have no phone number mentioned one could call instead. The cost savings are obvious for companies, and I'm sure they'll have an email address on their website, too.
It's much like paying with a check. More and more businesses aren't accepting them, making a debit card necessary. You can still pay bills by mailing a check but if you want to pay immediatly over the phone the option of using a checking routing/acct numbers is increasingly slim or incurs a fee a credit/debit card does not. And I remember when it was the opposite.
Like taking down a web page that has false information on it and making sure that nobody else is being misled? Has ATI denied any wrong doing, or are they more likely just in the process of fixing a mistake?
They can take the info down off the website to prevent further customers from being misled, but when someone who has already bought the product because of this feature asks about the mistake and the company's response is to send a copy of the corrected specs that now no longer mention HDCP support, all they are doing is denying any wrong doing.
The website could keep have a small link "info about HDCP support" that leads to a page talking about the mistake in previous marketting, but if there is nothing there and the company is not announcing the mistake publically either then I would say they are covering it up.
To have the government threaten to enact legislation is like having a parent wave their finger at a naughty child warning him not to break ANY MORE of the neighbor's windows.
Laws have already been broken and all we're seeing is warnings implying this may be made illegal in the future.
He expects a finished product to be on the market in about four to five years, adding the cost would probably be in the range of $750 each.
Prediction: By the time this guy gets his product to market, existing incumbant hard disk makers will have improved hard drive technology to capcities equal to his and without some huge IP licensing fee adding to the retail price.
Why would it be "almost unimaginable" that there will be people who won't make much use of the Internet 15 years from now?
It might not be uninmaginable that there are people who don't need broadband access to you, but it could be to people trying to run a dialup ISP. Just like there will always be a market for albums recorded on audio cassette, but at some point no record label will care.
After a certain point, there are simply not enough subscriibers in an area to justify having a local access number in a town. And when that happens it becomes more cost effective to have broadband instead, even if you don't need it. The cable company I work for has cable modem service at 256Kb down/64Kb up for $24.95 a month. Most people would not even consider such access "high-speed internet" but at a cost of only a few dollars more than AOL or Earthlink and speeds of up to five times faster than a modem with an always-on connection that doesn't tie up the phone line, it's a no brainer. The only real drawback is the service isn't portable if you're away for home. I expect low end service like this to eventually replace dialup ISP's, but I expect it will be wireless-based to cater to the buseiness user who needs access from anywhere.