People feel so threatened if an alternative to their 3 ton gas-guzzling SUVs are offered.
{flame on}
Ah... what a nice load of steaming crap that sentance is.
How does (the assumption of) not using something mean we're "threatend" by it? Is a vegatarian "threatened" by beef if she or he doesn't eat it? Am I "threatened" by Paulie Shore movies because I refuse to watch them.
Don't confuse not using something with malice.
Why is not having to lug yourselves around in 6000 pounds of metal so unappealing?
Why to you is it? Uh, maybe because its different stokes for different folks. It may seem unfathomable to you but maybe some people like driving around in tanks (I don't, but that's just me). Since when did the world revolve around what satsujin thinks?
Depends on how you define "cracked." I could take the CD, put it in my CD player, connect the optical out from that to my soundblaster card (with Optical In) and rip away. Nice digital copy. Sure, not as fast or as easy, but doable nevertheless.
... but there just seems to be a lot of hype about the abilities of these new machines. I'd wager that when released they'll have about 1/3 the proposed functionality. And that goes for anyone trying to produce these boxes, not just MS.
Remember a few years ago when Sony claimed the PS2 would be a digital hub with all of these same capabilities? Funny how its now been pushed back to the PS3.
It looks as if the bulk of what will make the MS unit work is going to rely on MS servers on the backend. Considering that they can't even deliver the software for their cable boxes on time I'd be real surprised if they can get this out in the next few years.
Again, not a MS bash. If Sony, Sega, Panasonic, Scientific Atlanta, et al were making such huge claims I'd be bashing as well.
Seriously, does anybody expect this pay-for-mp3's thing to take off?
Nope. I've said it before and I'll say it again. None of the services are going to do gang busters. They may trudge along and not lose horrid amounts of money, but they're not going to be reaping in the profits like they think they will.
Why? Its cheaper to buy CDs that aren't copy controled. Sure, the big 5 are trying to make CDs uncopyable, but as Lessig (I believe) said that's a mere speed bump in the road. It'll slow ya down, but it won't stop you. So pay $16 (or $10 as some are now predicting) for a CD and do what the hell you want / take it where the hell you want or $10 a month to rent 50 songs that have lower fidelity, can only be played on your computer, etc. Hmmm.. which choice am I going to make....
Of course, it won't be spun that way. Broadband/Hackers/Communists/Thieves/College Kids will be blamed by PressPlay/Napster/MusicNet/et al instead of their lack of a compelling product.
2) Lamborghini is owned by the VM group. And as such part of the worlds 4th largest carmaker.
Yeah, I was struggling with the car one since all the high end car shops have been bought out (Lotus, Jag, etc).
As for Ford, I wasn't trying to say they were profitable (they usually are), just that there's a difference between a mass market and a more niche market. The companies that cater to those markets are no better or worse than each other (in terms of serving the market).
But the GPL does more than allow folks to share (since the BSD allows folks to share as well). The GPL forces any distributed changes to have their source shared as well. Without Copyright protection you couldn't enforce it (in theory...will not get into the enforacability arguement of the GPL).
What Katz is saying is that McDonalds is more successful (with success defined, I assume, as profits) than a 5* Michelin-approved restaurant. From a purely profit standpoint McDonalds is the champion. BUT, as you so rightly point out, there's more to something than necc. who makes the *most* money.
I assume that most 5* eateries do well enough to keep their staff employed, their investers happy and those that appreciate fine dining happy.
The same goes for Ford vs. Lamborguini (a spelling hatched job), or any other mass market vs. high end product.
I personally have some tastes that are more center of the road (therefore own stuff that lots of other folks own) and some that are more unique. I think that everyone does. So Apple markets a machine that appeals to me. I ask Mr. Katz, what's wrong with that?
My own workstation is testing/woody, as are most things at home. But test/production servers I leave a Potato because they're configured to do certain things, and I would rather not update stuff (beyond security updates... add that security line to your sources file) on a continous basis, and I want them to be rock solid.
I'd argue that the VAST majority of home/workstation folks are on at least woody, but there are very good reasons/situations to keep boxen off the bleeding (or in woody's case scabbed over) edge.
But the lions are not in control of their "economic system" and we are.
Yes and no. On a macro sense we can push and nudge (by gov't or central bank meddling), usually not for the better (the jury is out on the Fed Reserve, although I think they've done a pretty good job). The economy, like evolution, has a bottoms-up type structure, not a centrally controled.
If we see that our economic system is not self-sustaining, we can change it. Basic economic theory shows that the sooner we start on the change, the cheaper it will be.
And as I said in an earlier post there IS a lot of research going on into alternative fuel sources, some funded by gov'ts, others by private business. Those that claim otherwise have no idea what they're talking about. They equate the fact that we're not all driving around in solar cars TODAY is because the big, bad oil companies, in cahoots with corrupt gov't officials are holding back all research. Bullshit! Very few technological breakthroughs come easily, they take a lot of time and effort, with advances being made one bit at a time. If and when we move away from petroleum it will be "cheaper" than having to start from scratch because folks HAVE been working on it for a while.
I've found this happeneing a lot on their (now defunct, replaced by launch) music news site. I always chalked it up to technical errors. I assume the same thing applies here as well.
To paraphrase a great sig I've read here on slashdot: Never assume something's sinister if it can be explained by stupidity.
True, but $18 a month (bare minimum) is enough for someone to say "no way." Again, it comes down to usage. Why pay $18 a month more if you're basically going to get the same usage out of it? That's like me saying "hey, I'm going to pay $18 more dollars a month to get premium cable channels I'm not going to watch." Just because $18 a month isn't that much in the grand scheme of things means I'm going to waste it on something I'm not going to use. For folks like me that saturate bandwidth its worth it and then some, I contend for most folks it just isn't.
Check out ZDNet News today. Dvorak (sp) has a good editorial about why broadband hasn't taken off. Some of the blame goes to pisspoor rollout from providers, but a fair chunk (in his opinion) can be blamed on the fact that for most folks dialup does what they need.
I guess I was trying to point out that just because the poster doesn't see "value" in oil/gas it doesn't mean its not there, or that the economy has somehow "got it wrong."
The economy goes for what works now, just like evolution. Oil rules right now because the technology to take advantage of it is in place, and its currently cheaper (on the whole) than anything else out there. When that situation changes (for whatever reason) you can expect the big push to look at other avenues for energy.
You can argue that its prudent to look into the future and try to plan, and I'd agree (as would lots of people-- there's currently TONNES of alternative research going on, a lot of it done by the 'big, bad' oil companies) but the fact of the matter is until something head and shoulders better/cheaper comes along that the market embraces the incumbant tends to keep its advantage.
You could argue that instead of the market deciding you should mandate it from above, but history shows any large scale, long term, top down attempt to dictate a market just doesn't work.
The fact that something that is renewable cost more than something that is irreplaceable is a pointer to the shortcomings of our economic system, not to problems with solar, wind, or other alternative energy sources.
Sort of how the fact that a lion sustains its life from eating other animals instead of just converting sunlight to energy is a pointer to the shortcomings of evolution.
Then I would argue that the responsibility to stop any illegal activity from crossing their borders. If I publish something that breaks a law in Australia and it finds its way there thru one of thier servers / datalines, then the gov't should blame those that are allowing such material to cross into their countries.
Of course, this is hard as hell for them to do, so its politically easier to go after the orig. author.
You also shouldn't be able to use graphing calculators in calculus. The reason we make you graph equations *isn't* to get homework with pretty little pictures... its to drill you on doing first and derivitives, find maxima/minima/inflection points, etc.
the compelling reasons are "always on", and not tying up an expensive phone line.
For you and I, yes. For someone who doesn't sit in front of their machine a lot, I don't think so. Not yet at least.
I also find the 'always on' aspect of my DSL is more compelling than the speed, but I'm a power user. I apt-get like crazy, surf a lot, VPN to work sometime, and a goober computer lover. That's not the average computer user though. To check mail and do some lite surfing dialup is fine. It may be a bit of a pain and tie up a phone line, but people will put up with it and save $40 a month. As I said in a previous post either the price has to come down or a "killer app" that makes you want to be online / suck bandwidth needs to come along.
True, but I still don't see a great flood of content being the killer app. Something that trades that content (like Napster used to be) maybe... but in my opinion that's not enough to really promote broadband.
Remember, porn is one of the great drivers of technology. It was one of the things that boosted the VCR in the early days, not to mention its still one of the only profitable things on the internet today. If there's a way to make a buck/spur interest in a technology the porn guys will do it. But it hasn't done much to spur on broadband. If porn can't jumpstart broadband (and there's no shortage of that kind of content floating around) then I doubt anything Disney has to offer will either.
I still think its more of an issue of cost. For the average Joe (i.e. someone who isn't apt-get'ing tonnes of MB a night) $40 a month just for the broadband service is a lot of cash. Then factor in the price of content (even if they set it fairly low) and you're talking about a lot of money. At this point I think folks would rather spend that money on cable or satalite TV service.
What needs to happen (IMHO) is the price of broadband will have to come down quite a bit, or something new and innovative that harnesess the unique aspects of broadband IP for broadband to really, really take off.
Its not *that* bad. Most of the problems I've ever had with it were with drivers (the WindRiver drivers Verizon provide with their DSL service. The things SUCK HARD). I use a linux box as a gateway and the thing rarely goes down (average 30+ day uptimes on the link) Maybe I've been incredibly lucky or have a pretty 'clean' connection to the router, but I can't complain all that much.
It's just amazing to me that content control freaks can actually impede the progress of broadband network access in the U.S.
As much as I'd like to think the big content companies are behind the crap rollout of broadband, I think Mr. Lessig is stretching it here. I find it a little hard to believe that the likes of Disney, Universal, et al are getting Mafioso on the likes of Verizon, et al.
I chalk it more up to economics. It ain't cheap rewiring the world, and the Phone/Cable companies of the world will go as slow as the market allows. Cable's a great example. Cable service (at least around my parts) all of the sudden got A LOT better when satalite and (the failed) Telco companies started eyeing their turf.
For the average person there's no compelling reason to get broadband. Now, once you have it its hard as hell to go back (I have DSL) but at $40 a month you need a 'killer app.' of some sort to justify it.
I'm still hooking my shingle with cheap wireless networks. I think they're now in the same position as ISPs were in the early 90s. Tonnes of them are going to spring up, offer good enough / cheap enough service to give other broadband services a kick in the pants. I know of a couple of companies out in my area that are going after the middle/upper middle class neighborhoods that the phone/cable companies have been telling "broadband's coming in a few months" for the last three years. I suspect if they do well (and I think they will) it'll be amazing how fast Comcast and Verizon will be offering broadband.
Re:I wish that laptops had the cool screen arm thi
on
New iMac Announced
·
· Score: 2
Simple Solution:
USB Keyboard/Mouse and one of those adjustable monitor arms to place your laptop. Maybe not the most elegant, but will work in a pinch.
The cord is too short if you're right handed and you're using an iBook. Other than that I love the damn thing (well, a second button would be nice.....:)
Slashdot Mirror
People feel so threatened if an alternative to their 3 ton gas-guzzling SUVs are offered.
{flame on}
Ah... what a nice load of steaming crap that sentance is.
How does (the assumption of) not using something mean we're "threatend" by it? Is a vegatarian "threatened" by beef if she or he doesn't eat it? Am I "threatened" by Paulie Shore movies because I refuse to watch them.
Don't confuse not using something with malice.
Why is not having to lug yourselves around in 6000 pounds of metal so unappealing?
Why to you is it? Uh, maybe because its different stokes for different folks. It may seem unfathomable to you but maybe some people like driving around in tanks (I don't, but that's just me). Since when did the world revolve around what satsujin thinks?
{Flame off}
The parent of Universal is Vivendi/Universal. #51 in Forbes' International 500.
Depends on how you define "cracked." I could take the CD, put it in my CD player, connect the optical out from that to my soundblaster card (with Optical In) and rip away. Nice digital copy. Sure, not as fast or as easy, but doable nevertheless.
As Lessig said, "just a speedbump"
... but there just seems to be a lot of hype about the abilities of these new machines. I'd wager that when released they'll have about 1/3 the proposed functionality. And that goes for anyone trying to produce these boxes, not just MS.
Remember a few years ago when Sony claimed the PS2 would be a digital hub with all of these same capabilities? Funny how its now been pushed back to the PS3.
It looks as if the bulk of what will make the MS unit work is going to rely on MS servers on the backend. Considering that they can't even deliver the software for their cable boxes on time I'd be real surprised if they can get this out in the next few years.
Again, not a MS bash. If Sony, Sega, Panasonic, Scientific Atlanta, et al were making such huge claims I'd be bashing as well.
Seriously, does anybody expect this pay-for-mp3's thing to take off?
Nope. I've said it before and I'll say it again. None of the services are going to do gang busters. They may trudge along and not lose horrid amounts of money, but they're not going to be reaping in the profits like they think they will.
Why? Its cheaper to buy CDs that aren't copy controled. Sure, the big 5 are trying to make CDs uncopyable, but as Lessig (I believe) said that's a mere speed bump in the road. It'll slow ya down, but it won't stop you. So pay $16 (or $10 as some are now predicting) for a CD and do what the hell you want / take it where the hell you want or $10 a month to rent 50 songs that have lower fidelity, can only be played on your computer, etc. Hmmm.. which choice am I going to make....
Of course, it won't be spun that way. Broadband/Hackers/Communists/Thieves/College Kids will be blamed by PressPlay/Napster/MusicNet/et al instead of their lack of a compelling product.
2) Lamborghini is owned by the VM group. And as such part of the worlds 4th largest carmaker.
Yeah, I was struggling with the car one since all the high end car shops have been bought out (Lotus, Jag, etc).
As for Ford, I wasn't trying to say they were profitable (they usually are), just that there's a difference between a mass market and a more niche market. The companies that cater to those markets are no better or worse than each other (in terms of serving the market).
you could decompile it
MUCH easier said than done. MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH easier....
But the GPL does more than allow folks to share (since the BSD allows folks to share as well). The GPL forces any distributed changes to have their source shared as well. Without Copyright protection you couldn't enforce it (in theory...will not get into the enforacability arguement of the GPL).
So it isn't redundant.
Yes and no.
What Katz is saying is that McDonalds is more successful (with success defined, I assume, as profits) than a 5* Michelin-approved restaurant. From a purely profit standpoint McDonalds is the champion. BUT, as you so rightly point out, there's more to something than necc. who makes the *most* money.
I assume that most 5* eateries do well enough to keep their staff employed, their investers happy and those that appreciate fine dining happy.
The same goes for Ford vs. Lamborguini (a spelling hatched job), or any other mass market vs. high end product.
I personally have some tastes that are more center of the road (therefore own stuff that lots of other folks own) and some that are more unique. I think that everyone does. So Apple markets a machine that appeals to me. I ask Mr. Katz, what's wrong with that?
PRODUCTION SERVERS.
My own workstation is testing/woody, as are most things at home. But test/production servers I leave a Potato because they're configured to do certain things, and I would rather not update stuff (beyond security updates... add that security line to your sources file) on a continous basis, and I want them to be rock solid.
I'd argue that the VAST majority of home/workstation folks are on at least woody, but there are very good reasons/situations to keep boxen off the bleeding (or in woody's case scabbed over) edge.
But the lions are not in control of their "economic system" and we are.
Yes and no. On a macro sense we can push and nudge (by gov't or central bank meddling), usually not for the better (the jury is out on the Fed Reserve, although I think they've done a pretty good job). The economy, like evolution, has a bottoms-up type structure, not a centrally controled.
If we see that our economic system is not self-sustaining, we can change it. Basic economic theory shows that the sooner we start on the change, the cheaper it will be.
And as I said in an earlier post there IS a lot of research going on into alternative fuel sources, some funded by gov'ts, others by private business. Those that claim otherwise have no idea what they're talking about. They equate the fact that we're not all driving around in solar cars TODAY is because the big, bad oil companies, in cahoots with corrupt gov't officials are holding back all research. Bullshit! Very few technological breakthroughs come easily, they take a lot of time and effort, with advances being made one bit at a time. If and when we move away from petroleum it will be "cheaper" than having to start from scratch because folks HAVE been working on it for a while.
Ahh... good point about the $40. I should have said "save ~$20".
I've found this happeneing a lot on their (now defunct, replaced by launch) music news site. I always chalked it up to technical errors. I assume the same thing applies here as well.
To paraphrase a great sig I've read here on slashdot: Never assume something's sinister if it can be explained by stupidity.
True, but $18 a month (bare minimum) is enough for someone to say "no way." Again, it comes down to usage. Why pay $18 a month more if you're basically going to get the same usage out of it? That's like me saying "hey, I'm going to pay $18 more dollars a month to get premium cable channels I'm not going to watch." Just because $18 a month isn't that much in the grand scheme of things means I'm going to waste it on something I'm not going to use. For folks like me that saturate bandwidth its worth it and then some, I contend for most folks it just isn't.
Check out ZDNet News today. Dvorak (sp) has a good editorial about why broadband hasn't taken off. Some of the blame goes to pisspoor rollout from providers, but a fair chunk (in his opinion) can be blamed on the fact that for most folks dialup does what they need.
I guess I was trying to point out that just because the poster doesn't see "value" in oil/gas it doesn't mean its not there, or that the economy has somehow "got it wrong."
The economy goes for what works now, just like evolution. Oil rules right now because the technology to take advantage of it is in place, and its currently cheaper (on the whole) than anything else out there. When that situation changes (for whatever reason) you can expect the big push to look at other avenues for energy.
You can argue that its prudent to look into the future and try to plan, and I'd agree (as would lots of people-- there's currently TONNES of alternative research going on, a lot of it done by the 'big, bad' oil companies) but the fact of the matter is until something head and shoulders better/cheaper comes along that the market embraces the incumbant tends to keep its advantage.
You could argue that instead of the market deciding you should mandate it from above, but history shows any large scale, long term, top down attempt to dictate a market just doesn't work.
The fact that something that is renewable cost more than something that is irreplaceable is a pointer to the shortcomings of our economic system, not to problems with solar, wind, or other alternative energy sources.
Sort of how the fact that a lion sustains its life from eating other animals instead of just converting sunlight to energy is a pointer to the shortcomings of evolution.
No, the relig. fundamentalists don't like bodies mentioned, let alone HEAD!!! Might excite the masses.
Then I would argue that the responsibility to stop any illegal activity from crossing their borders. If I publish something that breaks a law in Australia and it finds its way there thru one of thier servers / datalines, then the gov't should blame those that are allowing such material to cross into their countries.
Of course, this is hard as hell for them to do, so its politically easier to go after the orig. author.
You also shouldn't be able to use graphing calculators in calculus. The reason we make you graph equations *isn't* to get homework with pretty little pictures... its to drill you on doing first and derivitives, find maxima/minima/inflection points, etc.
the compelling reasons are "always on", and not tying up an expensive phone line.
For you and I, yes. For someone who doesn't sit in front of their machine a lot, I don't think so. Not yet at least.
I also find the 'always on' aspect of my DSL is more compelling than the speed, but I'm a power user. I apt-get like crazy, surf a lot, VPN to work sometime, and a goober computer lover. That's not the average computer user though. To check mail and do some lite surfing dialup is fine. It may be a bit of a pain and tie up a phone line, but people will put up with it and save $40 a month. As I said in a previous post either the price has to come down or a "killer app" that makes you want to be online / suck bandwidth needs to come along.
True, but I still don't see a great flood of content being the killer app. Something that trades that content (like Napster used to be) maybe... but in my opinion that's not enough to really promote broadband.
Remember, porn is one of the great drivers of technology. It was one of the things that boosted the VCR in the early days, not to mention its still one of the only profitable things on the internet today. If there's a way to make a buck/spur interest in a technology the porn guys will do it. But it hasn't done much to spur on broadband. If porn can't jumpstart broadband (and there's no shortage of that kind of content floating around) then I doubt anything Disney has to offer will either.
I still think its more of an issue of cost. For the average Joe (i.e. someone who isn't apt-get'ing tonnes of MB a night) $40 a month just for the broadband service is a lot of cash. Then factor in the price of content (even if they set it fairly low) and you're talking about a lot of money. At this point I think folks would rather spend that money on cable or satalite TV service.
What needs to happen (IMHO) is the price of broadband will have to come down quite a bit, or something new and innovative that harnesess the unique aspects of broadband IP for broadband to really, really take off.
Its not *that* bad. Most of the problems I've ever had with it were with drivers (the WindRiver drivers Verizon provide with their DSL service. The things SUCK HARD). I use a linux box as a gateway and the thing rarely goes down (average 30+ day uptimes on the link) Maybe I've been incredibly lucky or have a pretty 'clean' connection to the router, but I can't complain all that much.
A static IP would be nice of course....
It's just amazing to me that content control freaks can actually impede the progress of broadband network access in the U.S.
As much as I'd like to think the big content companies are behind the crap rollout of broadband, I think Mr. Lessig is stretching it here. I find it a little hard to believe that the likes of Disney, Universal, et al are getting Mafioso on the likes of Verizon, et al.
I chalk it more up to economics. It ain't cheap rewiring the world, and the Phone/Cable companies of the world will go as slow as the market allows. Cable's a great example. Cable service (at least around my parts) all of the sudden got A LOT better when satalite and (the failed) Telco companies started eyeing their turf.
For the average person there's no compelling reason to get broadband. Now, once you have it its hard as hell to go back (I have DSL) but at $40 a month you need a 'killer app.' of some sort to justify it.
I'm still hooking my shingle with cheap wireless networks. I think they're now in the same position as ISPs were in the early 90s. Tonnes of them are going to spring up, offer good enough / cheap enough service to give other broadband services a kick in the pants. I know of a couple of companies out in my area that are going after the middle/upper middle class neighborhoods that the phone/cable companies have been telling "broadband's coming in a few months" for the last three years. I suspect if they do well (and I think they will) it'll be amazing how fast Comcast and Verizon will be offering broadband.
Simple Solution:
USB Keyboard/Mouse and one of those adjustable monitor arms to place your laptop. Maybe not the most elegant, but will work in a pinch.
what is wrong with Apple's current mouse?
:)
The cord is too short if you're right handed and you're using an iBook. Other than that I love the damn thing (well, a second button would be nice.....