More than the PTC complained in those instances, and perhaps their complaints were legitamite. Live television offers occasional slip-ups (swearing on SNL, the death of the pro-wrestler on Wrestlemania, or "wardrobe malfunctions" during the halftime show). There is a difference between this kind of complaint and one that says "CSI is too violent. I don't want my children to see that." when you are fully warned about the content.
When a show airs, explicit ratings show up in the corner that tell you the intended audience and objectionable content. This makes shows being billed as "family entertainment" when they have objectinable material a non-issue; you are made totally aware of what is included. You do not merely have to "change the channel." Turn off the television entirely. Watch a movie with your children, or go for a walk.
You are addressing two separate issues here. You take issue with shows being full of objectionable content, and the lack of "intellectually stimulating" shows on television. These issues do NOT go hand-in-hand. Shows like 7th Heaven, which are wholesome and do not contain objectionable content, can be (and often are) poorly written, with unrealistic characters and repetitive plots. Likewise, many people find shows with objectionable content, such as CSI, to be intellectually stimulating. While I understand that some shows on the Fox channel are absolutely mindless AND cross decency lines, it's incorrect to lump the two together and claim the PTC is supporting "intellectually stimulating" programming.
When the advertising industry becomes ethical, so will I. Why is it that advertisers EXPECTED to stretch the truth and try to sell me a product I don't need, and yet, when I say "I refuse to buy this. Try the next guy," I'm being unethical?
Advertising is built on deception. You're essentially saying: you are UNETHICAL for refusing to listen to someone who is trying to take advantage of you. Do you understand how silly that sounds? When advertisers respect the customers and stop trying to trick me into buying their products, then I will give them the respect of listening to their sales pitch.
The Zen Xtra has more features than the 3gen Ipod that came out around the same time. The Zen Touch has a longer battery life, is cheaper, and probably has some neat firmware features compared to the 4gen Ipod. "Prettier" does not mean "superior."
Instead, how about cutting the price a little more? Digital music players are a huge market, and not everyone can afford an Ipod. You don't need to market it as cool and hip, just market it as functional and not so damned expensive. I have a Zen, and it's a wonderful player, but you're not gonna win anyone over appealing to style; Apple has that covered.
I think they mean that the way the web works is stagnant, rather than the content. As in, it has vast potential, but we're not using it because most of the web is being held back by IE developers sitting on their asses saying "our product is fine how it is."
And I have to agree with everyone else, Firefox works with every page I use, save Windows Update. Saying "I won't use this until everyone else uses it" makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. You are a part of "the public" that you urge to change, so quit whining and get to it.
I don't think vibrating phones will help--part of the problem is, in movie theaters especially, some people don't have a problem with not only leaving their phone ON, but ANSWERING IT and having a 5-10 minute conversation (that's rarely an emergency). Tack on the tendency to talk into cell phones louder than normal, and you've got a serious disruption that could ruin the movie. While I haven't seen it, I'm sure there are some jackasses who do this during plays as well. And think about concert halls, where they're doing live recordings--a ringing phone ruins the track.
Microsoft's strategy: downplay your security problems to appear "secure" to your customers.
Mozilla strategy: publicize security problems and the speed at which they are fixed to make the customer believe you are working diligently on security at all times.
I pick the second one. And, rewarding people for finding security problems is a lot cooler than punishing people for exploiting them.
The problem is, many people obtained Hotmail accounts when it was a good service. You got 10 MB (a lot back then), spam didn't exist, and most ISPs (still) only give you one email account. When people thought of free web email, they (then) first thought of hotmail. Now, you have plenty of people who hate hotmail for crappy limitations like this, but are attached to it because it's hard to change your email address; what if an old friend sends email to it? This is just another example of Microsoft locking in a customer and refusing to make the service any better (and sometimes making it WORSE) until competition arises.
I use Hotmail Popper to put my hotmail in Thunderbird with all of my other email. Mostly because I can't stand the hotmail interface and slooooooowness. That counts, right?
And, I'm guessing that since Microsoft seems to break something everytime they try to make something better, they're just trying to keep the complaint calls to a minimum.
Let's not forget the monthly "try msn messenger and the msn network and upgrade your account!!!" Microsoft spam that you're unable to block or filter out.
They're banking on selling to the "idiot consumer who doesn't know what they're doing and buys the first thing he hears about" demographic. I think Apple already has that demographic, and many others, covered as far as digital music goes.
Have YOU ever tried to cancel AOL? Up until a year ago, when they got SUED over it, AOL made it practically impossible to cancel their service. Even now, it's a huge headache that takes a long phone call with someone who can't speak English who tries to force you to try another two months free, so when you forget about it for awhile they can start charging again.
I think that shit alone justifies "AOL Bashing." They "dumb down" the internet so much that they take their customers for complete idiots, particularly the ones who wise up and want to change services.
Many of mine upgraded by themselves. I hunted around and found compatible versions on update.mozilla.org for some that didn't update manually. Still looking for Googlebar and BugMeNot.
The AC is correct. Any respectable car thief knows that the club may be near indestructable, but steering wheels are terribly easy to cut through. If you want to protect your car, get one of the club-type apparatuses that locks around your brakes instead; those are far more effective.
Slashdot Mirror
More than the PTC complained in those instances, and perhaps their complaints were legitamite. Live television offers occasional slip-ups (swearing on SNL, the death of the pro-wrestler on Wrestlemania, or "wardrobe malfunctions" during the halftime show). There is a difference between this kind of complaint and one that says "CSI is too violent. I don't want my children to see that." when you are fully warned about the content.
When a show airs, explicit ratings show up in the corner that tell you the intended audience and objectionable content. This makes shows being billed as "family entertainment" when they have objectinable material a non-issue; you are made totally aware of what is included. You do not merely have to "change the channel." Turn off the television entirely. Watch a movie with your children, or go for a walk.
You are addressing two separate issues here. You take issue with shows being full of objectionable content, and the lack of "intellectually stimulating" shows on television. These issues do NOT go hand-in-hand. Shows like 7th Heaven, which are wholesome and do not contain objectionable content, can be (and often are) poorly written, with unrealistic characters and repetitive plots. Likewise, many people find shows with objectionable content, such as CSI, to be intellectually stimulating. While I understand that some shows on the Fox channel are absolutely mindless AND cross decency lines, it's incorrect to lump the two together and claim the PTC is supporting "intellectually stimulating" programming.
When the advertising industry becomes ethical, so will I. Why is it that advertisers EXPECTED to stretch the truth and try to sell me a product I don't need, and yet, when I say "I refuse to buy this. Try the next guy," I'm being unethical?
Advertising is built on deception. You're essentially saying: you are UNETHICAL for refusing to listen to someone who is trying to take advantage of you. Do you understand how silly that sounds? When advertisers respect the customers and stop trying to trick me into buying their products, then I will give them the respect of listening to their sales pitch.
The Zen Xtra has more features than the 3gen Ipod that came out around the same time. The Zen Touch has a longer battery life, is cheaper, and probably has some neat firmware features compared to the 4gen Ipod. "Prettier" does not mean "superior."
Instead, how about cutting the price a little more? Digital music players are a huge market, and not everyone can afford an Ipod. You don't need to market it as cool and hip, just market it as functional and not so damned expensive. I have a Zen, and it's a wonderful player, but you're not gonna win anyone over appealing to style; Apple has that covered.
I think they mean that the way the web works is stagnant, rather than the content. As in, it has vast potential, but we're not using it because most of the web is being held back by IE developers sitting on their asses saying "our product is fine how it is."
And I have to agree with everyone else, Firefox works with every page I use, save Windows Update. Saying "I won't use this until everyone else uses it" makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. You are a part of "the public" that you urge to change, so quit whining and get to it.
I don't think vibrating phones will help--part of the problem is, in movie theaters especially, some people don't have a problem with not only leaving their phone ON, but ANSWERING IT and having a 5-10 minute conversation (that's rarely an emergency). Tack on the tendency to talk into cell phones louder than normal, and you've got a serious disruption that could ruin the movie. While I haven't seen it, I'm sure there are some jackasses who do this during plays as well. And think about concert halls, where they're doing live recordings--a ringing phone ruins the track.
Movies? with a 10 mb file limit?
This might be good for giving your friend mp3s from a new cd you bought. But movies? Probably not.
Didn't they just bust the guys who were exploiting Windows Messenger for that? Popping up messages saying "buy our product, and stop these messages!"
It's akin to extortion.
And yet, McDonald's will allow you to to take off the pickles if you don't want them.
Video content? With proper plugins, Firefox can play Quicktime, RealPlayer, and Windows Media Player files. I'm pretty sure Opera can too.
Microsoft's strategy: downplay your security problems to appear "secure" to your customers.
Mozilla strategy: publicize security problems and the speed at which they are fixed to make the customer believe you are working diligently on security at all times.
I pick the second one. And, rewarding people for finding security problems is a lot cooler than punishing people for exploiting them.
A button appears at the top right when there are new updates.
The problem is, many people obtained Hotmail accounts when it was a good service. You got 10 MB (a lot back then), spam didn't exist, and most ISPs (still) only give you one email account. When people thought of free web email, they (then) first thought of hotmail. Now, you have plenty of people who hate hotmail for crappy limitations like this, but are attached to it because it's hard to change your email address; what if an old friend sends email to it?
This is just another example of Microsoft locking in a customer and refusing to make the service any better (and sometimes making it WORSE) until competition arises.
Hotmail Popper + Thunderbird.
It's Sony, champ. Their "grand errors" don't shock mot of us anymore.
I use Hotmail Popper to put my hotmail in Thunderbird with all of my other email. Mostly because I can't stand the hotmail interface and slooooooowness. That counts, right? And, I'm guessing that since Microsoft seems to break something everytime they try to make something better, they're just trying to keep the complaint calls to a minimum.
Let's not forget the monthly "try msn messenger and the msn network and upgrade your account!!!" Microsoft spam that you're unable to block or filter out.
The IPatch is WAY cooler.
They're banking on selling to the "idiot consumer who doesn't know what they're doing and buys the first thing he hears about" demographic. I think Apple already has that demographic, and many others, covered as far as digital music goes.
Those moaning about AOL, are free to switch.
Have YOU ever tried to cancel AOL? Up until a year ago, when they got SUED over it, AOL made it practically impossible to cancel their service. Even now, it's a huge headache that takes a long phone call with someone who can't speak English who tries to force you to try another two months free, so when you forget about it for awhile they can start charging again.
I think that shit alone justifies "AOL Bashing." They "dumb down" the internet so much that they take their customers for complete idiots, particularly the ones who wise up and want to change services.
hooray! my hero!
Many of mine upgraded by themselves. I hunted around and found compatible versions on update.mozilla.org for some that didn't update manually. Still looking for Googlebar and BugMeNot.
Yeah, isn't it kinda the point of a pre-release to fix little stuff like this?
The AC is correct. Any respectable car thief knows that the club may be near indestructable, but steering wheels are terribly easy to cut through. If you want to protect your car, get one of the club-type apparatuses that locks around your brakes instead; those are far more effective.