I agree. As much as I like Netflix and think it's worthwhile now, they really need to get some deals together so that their catalog is approaching something like "complete". I can understand not having new releases, but you should be able to count on them for movies that were released decades ago, and I'd be willing to pay a little extra to get that.
Honestly, right now I pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus. On top of that, there are some shows that aren't on either of those services (e.g. "The Walking Dead") that I buy on iTunes. Then beyond that, I'll rent some movies now and then, because there are loads of movies that aren't on Netflix or Hulu. All told, I'm sure I spend at least $25/month on video content, and I don't mind that. Before I cancelled cable, my bill was closer to $100/month, so it's still much cheaper. If Netflix (or someone else) could get enough of the licensing worked out that I could replace all of it with a single service, I'd be willing to pay a little extra just for the convenience of having it all together. So that puts me around $30/month.
So yeah, ultimately I'd be willing to pay something like $30/month for a service that I could count on to have every movie and TV shows, including new release movies and current seasons on TV shows. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry doesn't want anyone to provide such a service at any price.
Yup. How do people not see the problem with this line of thinking? "Well, there have been a couple of individuals who have managed to make billions of dollars in spite of lacking a college education. Hmmm.... let's build our economy around this! Everyone can become a billionaire college drop-out!
Sorry, no. You can have a few people in society who are extremely shrewd as well as extremely lucky, who make themselves rich while bucking the system. You can't have an entire system made up of those people. You can't even have an entire system made up of highly educated college graduates. It takes all kinds of people to make things work. You need a few Mark Zuckerbergs in a society, a bunch of hard working college graduates, and then also a bunch of hard working janitors and garbage men and fast food workers.
You need all of these kinds of people, but you only need a couple of Zuckerbergs and Gates out of millions. A tiny fraction of a percent. It's not a viable economic plan.
One thing I always found odd were the personal media payers that could play MPEG4 video, but couldn't play back AAC based tracks.
Such a thing is technically possible, since an MPEG4 container can hold a variety of codecs, and so not all MPEG4 files are the same.
But yes, there has been some misunderstanding. People seem to think that AAC is a proprietary Apple codec. In reality, the standard is made by MPEG, the same group that made the MP3 standard. It is at least as open, and at least as much of a standard. MP3 is not without patent issues.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or you're just uninformed.
Personally I dislike the AAC tracks which are incompatible with everything, which is the trouble with patent encumbered formats [No MP3 has nothing like the same problems].
I haven't had trouble playing Apple's AAC files in Windows media player or VLC, so I'm under the impression they're not too difficult to find a player for. And if anything MP3s have worse patent issues than AAC. MP3s require a licensing fee for selling encoders, decoders, and any files that are encoded with MP3. AAC, however, does not require that you may a license for encoded files.
I also find it kind of sad that those who bought those DRM (128-bit) laden tracks are not getting those tracks either upgraded to a higher quality version...or having the DRM removed.
Generally they have enabled users to upgrade. There are a few tracks were were sold as DRM-encumbered and then removed from the store, and some of those haven't been upgraded, but I know I can re-download my old purchases without DRM at 256kbps whenever I want.
I don't think that's the big problem, personally. What, were they supposed to wait another 5 years?
I got my Windows 8 upgrade for $15 or something like that, and it has improvements that make that worthwhile. Performance is a little better. The way it handles file copying is much better. I like the UI design a lot better. Little things, but it all adds up to be worth $50 or so, in my opinion.
But all that is overshadowed by Metro. It may be a good UI for tablets, but it's not good for desktops. I had hoped it'd be good for a media center computer, but it seems to me like you still need a keyboard/mouse or a touchscreen to use it effectively.
It's almost like someone within Microsoft is trying to sabotage the company by forcing Metro on the desktop.
Actually, just to add on to this, they should have made Metro an optional install for tablets, touchscreens, and media centers. They should have made sure that the Metro UI was easily navigated by a remote control or game controller.
I like the idea, except that it's not just developers and gamers who would prefer the start menu. They should have kept Metro as an optional install for tablets and touchscreen-enabled desktops. It's not about whether you want your RAM used up for pretty sliding menus, it's about whether those pretty sliding menus are an appropriate design for the way the computer is being used.
Metro is inappropriate for a desktop computer. If you get rid of Metro, than Windows 8 is a nice little upgrade to Windows 7.
If it can be done elsewhere why not where you are? It seems you are being ripped off
I think you kind of answered your own question. I don't know where you are, but most places in the US, there is little or no competition among ISPs. It's very common to have only two choices: Cable or DSL, and DSL speeds might top out at 2 Mbps. In many places, even in high population areas, you don't even have that choice.
And the reason is, we're being ripped off. The telecommunications industry has things rigged up with the government so they get nice little monopolies with no regulation.
I was hoping you wouldn't ask for an analysis, but would realize yourself why your argument is poor. Your argument, as it's structured, is to contrast two events in order to illicit an emotional aversion to what seems like injustice:
someone produces a patent good enough that the world uses and, and receives nothing.
someone produces a design patent for a portable computer, and receives a lot of money
So there are a few problems here. First, you're assuming that the two can't be the same. The guy who produces a design patent may have produced something so good that the world uses it. Your ability to contrast these ideas assumes that design patents are stupid and invalid.
However, at the same time, your argument assumes that I *favor* those kinds of design patents and think that they should still be enforced, even though it's obvious that I'm suggesting some pretty major patent reform. It would be more reasonable to assume that I'd also favor design patent reform.
Beyond that, your argument assumes that the purpose of the patent system to to reward inventors and punish people who steal ideas. However, it could easily be gleaned from my post that I don't share that view. I believe that the ultimate purpose should be to improve technological development and to improve the way our society functions. Any rewards to inventors or punishments to idea-stealers are only a means to that end.
I'm saying I think there should be a blanket exception for patents being applied to the exchange of information in computers. I'm not convinced to the point where I wouldn't be interested in hearing objections, and I don't know how you'd write the law, but that's what I think right now.
So this would mean, for example, that Adobe can patent clever image processing techniques that they use in Photoshop, but if they use those techniques to create a new ultra-small file format, and GIMP includes support for that format, they can't sue GIMP for infringement for reading/writing that format. Perhaps they could still sue if GIMP uses the same techniques in image filters, but not in reading/writing file formats.
I think this sort of logic should apply to file formats, file systems, and network protocols. In short, anything that is directly related to exchanging/sharing information and general interoperability of computer systems. My position may be radical, but I believe it would be an improvement.
That still doesn't really explain for me why, with smartphones as cheap and thin and nice as we have, graphing calculators are still big overpriced blocks of under-powered computing with crappy screens. You'd think they'd either be able to make them nicer, or else make them cheaper.
Students need a calculator that is "dumb enough" to not write the entire exam for them and not be able to wirelessly share answers between neighbouring students.
Well it seems to me you could still start with something comparable an Android phone, include specialized software, and not include any wireless communications. Either way, it's not really going to stop kids from cheating somehow. And perhaps more importantly, when we hit the point where we all have calculators in our pockets that can solve these things for us, I'd question how vital it is to get kids to memorize it all, whether they're interested or not.
He may be on the correct side of the law as far as current patent law goes, but I'm of the opinion that, at least sometimes, the fact that it's prevalent means that it should be free. Particularly when it comes to computer software, and particularly when it comes to communications and the exchange of information. File formats should be able to be written and read without a license. You should be able to make your software communicate with others using network protocols that are unencumbered.
I don't know that I have an objection to software patents per se, but when it comes to file format standards and network communications standards, you should not have to pay in order to participate.
Yeah, frankly I'm surprised people are still using these. It seems like they should be able to make an iPhone/Android app that could do much better. For $100, I'd think they could make something comparable to a cheap Android phone in terms of computing power and capabilities. If they're worried about power consumption, maybe they could switch to a high-quality e-paper display. If they're worried about security, they could make a device that lacked network connectivity.
It's a good point, but ultimately a very different issue. First, you can turn off those ads very easily. Second, these are ads for music which are essentially included inside a music store, served by a recommendation engine that may be giving legitimately useful recommendations.
I think there's a really important distinction between "ads that I can choose to see regarding things I might actually want to buy in a relevant context" vs "being forced to view ads that I probably don't want to see in an arbitrary context".
Step 1: Learn Bob's system. If you're going to pull all the documents out and reorganize them in something better, you're going to want to know the current organization anyway. Plus, learning the system may give you more ammo to talk about why it's not sufficient, or how the new system will be better. It may give you the opportunity to find out from Bob what he finds dissatisfying about his current system, and it will show Bob and everyone else that you're serious about improving things, and not just replacing things without understanding them.
Step 2: Develop a plan for a new system. Do this after step 1. How do you know what the needs of the new system will be before you understand the old one?
Step 3: Pitch the new system: By now, you know Bob's system inside and out, and you know what the new system will be. It shouldn't be hard to sell it. If it is hard to sell, then maybe it's not worth doing.
I rent an apartment, and I expect that the things in it are still mine. I sometimes grant my landlord access, but I don't believe that gives the government the right to search my apartment. I also rent a storage unit, and I'd expect the same thing.
The myriad hardware types out there with myriad sets of less-than-optimal drivers might present myriad problems, even if Valve does master the video-card/opengl end of things.
Yeah, but the rumor has been that Valve is working on a gaming console. Supposedly it's going to be an Alienware X51 running Ubuntu, or something along those lines, booting straight into the Steam "Big Picture" interface. They're in a position to come out with a branded computer of that sort while saying, "This is our reference machine that we support and recommend, but you can install Ubuntu and Steam on any computer, or install Steam in Windows or OSX, and still get access to all those games."
Really, it's not just nerds. If you stop and pay attention to people, you'll find that they're generally pretty arrogant and proud. We tend to believe that our way of seeing things is the only correct way. We're dismissive of people who disagree. We think that other people are inferior, and we tend to praise people who share similar strengths and virtues. That is, if I'm smart and unathletic, then I'm likely to believe that being smart is much more important than being athletic. If I'm athletic but not very bright, my opinion would be reversed. People tend to be smug and too sure of themselves.
My mind isn't made up about the whole drone issue, but similar to your question, I'd wonder what the alternatives are to the drone strikes, and comparing the likelihood of success, the risk to American soldiers, and the likely civilian deaths of each.
I would guess that drones are more targeted than conventional bombing, and therefore causing fewer civilian deaths, but I don't know. I'd admit that there are a few disconcerting things about drones, but if the alternative is carpet bombing, a drone strike might be preferable. Let's not pretend that conventional war doesn't have its own disconcerting realities.
Also attributing it to luck doesn't really make sense since Apple had been planning the device for years, and only released it when the components had become cheap enough to sell the device at what they believed to be a reasonable price point. Also, cheaper components and better touch screens are insufficient to explain where the iPhone came from. Why is it that Apple was first to market with a device like the iPhone, and it took other manufacturers years to catch up?
The iPhone was not obvious. When it was first demoed, people responded in one of two ways: (a) "Holy shit, that's some amazing sci-fi tech right there and I want one,"; and (b) "No physical keyboard, less Exchange support than a Blackberry. Lame."
I wonder if the problem isn't more that people are failing to recognize that there are different audiences with different needs. For example in office suites, there are loads of people who just need a decent work processor for typing up simple documents, and then there are people who really want integration between their word processor, spreadsheet editor, and groupware client, and groupware server. The latter audience may be well served by going with the full MS Office/MS Exchange combination, and that keeps a lot of people using MS Office.
It reminds me of an argument between a GIMP fan and a Photoshop fan. The Photoshop user was saying, "GIMP is terrible because it doesn't have good support for CMYK." and the GIMP user responded by saying, "Well nobody actually uses CMYK, but GIMP lets me script things easily, so GIMP is much better!" These two users were talking past each other, failing to recognize that each had probably chosen their solution well.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. As much as I like Netflix and think it's worthwhile now, they really need to get some deals together so that their catalog is approaching something like "complete". I can understand not having new releases, but you should be able to count on them for movies that were released decades ago, and I'd be willing to pay a little extra to get that.
Honestly, right now I pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus. On top of that, there are some shows that aren't on either of those services (e.g. "The Walking Dead") that I buy on iTunes. Then beyond that, I'll rent some movies now and then, because there are loads of movies that aren't on Netflix or Hulu. All told, I'm sure I spend at least $25/month on video content, and I don't mind that. Before I cancelled cable, my bill was closer to $100/month, so it's still much cheaper. If Netflix (or someone else) could get enough of the licensing worked out that I could replace all of it with a single service, I'd be willing to pay a little extra just for the convenience of having it all together. So that puts me around $30/month.
So yeah, ultimately I'd be willing to pay something like $30/month for a service that I could count on to have every movie and TV shows, including new release movies and current seasons on TV shows. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry doesn't want anyone to provide such a service at any price.
Yup. How do people not see the problem with this line of thinking? "Well, there have been a couple of individuals who have managed to make billions of dollars in spite of lacking a college education. Hmmm.... let's build our economy around this! Everyone can become a billionaire college drop-out!
Sorry, no. You can have a few people in society who are extremely shrewd as well as extremely lucky, who make themselves rich while bucking the system. You can't have an entire system made up of those people. You can't even have an entire system made up of highly educated college graduates. It takes all kinds of people to make things work. You need a few Mark Zuckerbergs in a society, a bunch of hard working college graduates, and then also a bunch of hard working janitors and garbage men and fast food workers.
You need all of these kinds of people, but you only need a couple of Zuckerbergs and Gates out of millions. A tiny fraction of a percent. It's not a viable economic plan.
One thing I always found odd were the personal media payers that could play MPEG4 video, but couldn't play back AAC based tracks.
Such a thing is technically possible, since an MPEG4 container can hold a variety of codecs, and so not all MPEG4 files are the same.
But yes, there has been some misunderstanding. People seem to think that AAC is a proprietary Apple codec. In reality, the standard is made by MPEG, the same group that made the MP3 standard. It is at least as open, and at least as much of a standard. MP3 is not without patent issues.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or you're just uninformed.
Personally I dislike the AAC tracks which are incompatible with everything, which is the trouble with patent encumbered formats [No MP3 has nothing like the same problems].
I haven't had trouble playing Apple's AAC files in Windows media player or VLC, so I'm under the impression they're not too difficult to find a player for. And if anything MP3s have worse patent issues than AAC. MP3s require a licensing fee for selling encoders, decoders, and any files that are encoded with MP3. AAC, however, does not require that you may a license for encoded files.
I also find it kind of sad that those who bought those DRM (128-bit) laden tracks are not getting those tracks either upgraded to a higher quality version...or having the DRM removed.
Generally they have enabled users to upgrade. There are a few tracks were were sold as DRM-encumbered and then removed from the store, and some of those haven't been upgraded, but I know I can re-download my old purchases without DRM at 256kbps whenever I want.
I don't think that's the big problem, personally. What, were they supposed to wait another 5 years?
I got my Windows 8 upgrade for $15 or something like that, and it has improvements that make that worthwhile. Performance is a little better. The way it handles file copying is much better. I like the UI design a lot better. Little things, but it all adds up to be worth $50 or so, in my opinion.
But all that is overshadowed by Metro. It may be a good UI for tablets, but it's not good for desktops. I had hoped it'd be good for a media center computer, but it seems to me like you still need a keyboard/mouse or a touchscreen to use it effectively.
It's almost like someone within Microsoft is trying to sabotage the company by forcing Metro on the desktop.
Actually, just to add on to this, they should have made Metro an optional install for tablets, touchscreens, and media centers. They should have made sure that the Metro UI was easily navigated by a remote control or game controller.
I like the idea, except that it's not just developers and gamers who would prefer the start menu. They should have kept Metro as an optional install for tablets and touchscreen-enabled desktops. It's not about whether you want your RAM used up for pretty sliding menus, it's about whether those pretty sliding menus are an appropriate design for the way the computer is being used.
Metro is inappropriate for a desktop computer. If you get rid of Metro, than Windows 8 is a nice little upgrade to Windows 7.
But valve is a software company. Their experience with manufacturing, shipping, retailers, etc is limited at best.
There was a rumor a few months back that Valve was partnering with Dell and the official "Steam Box" would be something like the Alienware X51.
If it can be done elsewhere why not where you are? It seems you are being ripped off
I think you kind of answered your own question. I don't know where you are, but most places in the US, there is little or no competition among ISPs. It's very common to have only two choices: Cable or DSL, and DSL speeds might top out at 2 Mbps. In many places, even in high population areas, you don't even have that choice.
And the reason is, we're being ripped off. The telecommunications industry has things rigged up with the government so they get nice little monopolies with no regulation.
Right, because that doesn't happen now.
I was hoping you wouldn't ask for an analysis, but would realize yourself why your argument is poor. Your argument, as it's structured, is to contrast two events in order to illicit an emotional aversion to what seems like injustice:
So there are a few problems here. First, you're assuming that the two can't be the same. The guy who produces a design patent may have produced something so good that the world uses it. Your ability to contrast these ideas assumes that design patents are stupid and invalid.
However, at the same time, your argument assumes that I *favor* those kinds of design patents and think that they should still be enforced, even though it's obvious that I'm suggesting some pretty major patent reform. It would be more reasonable to assume that I'd also favor design patent reform.
Beyond that, your argument assumes that the purpose of the patent system to to reward inventors and punish people who steal ideas. However, it could easily be gleaned from my post that I don't share that view. I believe that the ultimate purpose should be to improve technological development and to improve the way our society functions. Any rewards to inventors or punishments to idea-stealers are only a means to that end.
That's a terrible argument.
I'm saying I think there should be a blanket exception for patents being applied to the exchange of information in computers. I'm not convinced to the point where I wouldn't be interested in hearing objections, and I don't know how you'd write the law, but that's what I think right now.
So this would mean, for example, that Adobe can patent clever image processing techniques that they use in Photoshop, but if they use those techniques to create a new ultra-small file format, and GIMP includes support for that format, they can't sue GIMP for infringement for reading/writing that format. Perhaps they could still sue if GIMP uses the same techniques in image filters, but not in reading/writing file formats.
I think this sort of logic should apply to file formats, file systems, and network protocols. In short, anything that is directly related to exchanging/sharing information and general interoperability of computer systems. My position may be radical, but I believe it would be an improvement.
That still doesn't really explain for me why, with smartphones as cheap and thin and nice as we have, graphing calculators are still big overpriced blocks of under-powered computing with crappy screens. You'd think they'd either be able to make them nicer, or else make them cheaper.
Students need a calculator that is "dumb enough" to not write the entire exam for them and not be able to wirelessly share answers between neighbouring students.
Well it seems to me you could still start with something comparable an Android phone, include specialized software, and not include any wireless communications. Either way, it's not really going to stop kids from cheating somehow. And perhaps more importantly, when we hit the point where we all have calculators in our pockets that can solve these things for us, I'd question how vital it is to get kids to memorize it all, whether they're interested or not.
He may be on the correct side of the law as far as current patent law goes, but I'm of the opinion that, at least sometimes, the fact that it's prevalent means that it should be free. Particularly when it comes to computer software, and particularly when it comes to communications and the exchange of information. File formats should be able to be written and read without a license. You should be able to make your software communicate with others using network protocols that are unencumbered.
I don't know that I have an objection to software patents per se, but when it comes to file format standards and network communications standards, you should not have to pay in order to participate.
Yeah, frankly I'm surprised people are still using these. It seems like they should be able to make an iPhone/Android app that could do much better. For $100, I'd think they could make something comparable to a cheap Android phone in terms of computing power and capabilities. If they're worried about power consumption, maybe they could switch to a high-quality e-paper display. If they're worried about security, they could make a device that lacked network connectivity.
"Fortunately" a blogger captured this? Why exactly is this a fortunate thing?
Because it's just this kind of gaffe that could cost Romney the election!
It's a good point, but ultimately a very different issue. First, you can turn off those ads very easily. Second, these are ads for music which are essentially included inside a music store, served by a recommendation engine that may be giving legitimately useful recommendations.
I think there's a really important distinction between "ads that I can choose to see regarding things I might actually want to buy in a relevant context" vs "being forced to view ads that I probably don't want to see in an arbitrary context".
Here's how you do it in 3 easy steps:
Step 1: Learn Bob's system. If you're going to pull all the documents out and reorganize them in something better, you're going to want to know the current organization anyway. Plus, learning the system may give you more ammo to talk about why it's not sufficient, or how the new system will be better. It may give you the opportunity to find out from Bob what he finds dissatisfying about his current system, and it will show Bob and everyone else that you're serious about improving things, and not just replacing things without understanding them.
Step 2: Develop a plan for a new system. Do this after step 1. How do you know what the needs of the new system will be before you understand the old one?
Step 3: Pitch the new system: By now, you know Bob's system inside and out, and you know what the new system will be. It shouldn't be hard to sell it. If it is hard to sell, then maybe it's not worth doing.
I rent an apartment, and I expect that the things in it are still mine. I sometimes grant my landlord access, but I don't believe that gives the government the right to search my apartment. I also rent a storage unit, and I'd expect the same thing.
The myriad hardware types out there with myriad sets of less-than-optimal drivers might present myriad problems, even if Valve does master the video-card/opengl end of things.
Yeah, but the rumor has been that Valve is working on a gaming console. Supposedly it's going to be an Alienware X51 running Ubuntu, or something along those lines, booting straight into the Steam "Big Picture" interface. They're in a position to come out with a branded computer of that sort while saying, "This is our reference machine that we support and recommend, but you can install Ubuntu and Steam on any computer, or install Steam in Windows or OSX, and still get access to all those games."
And that would be awesome.
Really, it's not just nerds. If you stop and pay attention to people, you'll find that they're generally pretty arrogant and proud. We tend to believe that our way of seeing things is the only correct way. We're dismissive of people who disagree. We think that other people are inferior, and we tend to praise people who share similar strengths and virtues. That is, if I'm smart and unathletic, then I'm likely to believe that being smart is much more important than being athletic. If I'm athletic but not very bright, my opinion would be reversed. People tend to be smug and too sure of themselves.
My mind isn't made up about the whole drone issue, but similar to your question, I'd wonder what the alternatives are to the drone strikes, and comparing the likelihood of success, the risk to American soldiers, and the likely civilian deaths of each.
I would guess that drones are more targeted than conventional bombing, and therefore causing fewer civilian deaths, but I don't know. I'd admit that there are a few disconcerting things about drones, but if the alternative is carpet bombing, a drone strike might be preferable. Let's not pretend that conventional war doesn't have its own disconcerting realities.
Also attributing it to luck doesn't really make sense since Apple had been planning the device for years, and only released it when the components had become cheap enough to sell the device at what they believed to be a reasonable price point. Also, cheaper components and better touch screens are insufficient to explain where the iPhone came from. Why is it that Apple was first to market with a device like the iPhone, and it took other manufacturers years to catch up?
The iPhone was not obvious. When it was first demoed, people responded in one of two ways: (a) "Holy shit, that's some amazing sci-fi tech right there and I want one,"; and (b) "No physical keyboard, less Exchange support than a Blackberry. Lame."
I wonder if the problem isn't more that people are failing to recognize that there are different audiences with different needs. For example in office suites, there are loads of people who just need a decent work processor for typing up simple documents, and then there are people who really want integration between their word processor, spreadsheet editor, and groupware client, and groupware server. The latter audience may be well served by going with the full MS Office/MS Exchange combination, and that keeps a lot of people using MS Office.
It reminds me of an argument between a GIMP fan and a Photoshop fan. The Photoshop user was saying, "GIMP is terrible because it doesn't have good support for CMYK." and the GIMP user responded by saying, "Well nobody actually uses CMYK, but GIMP lets me script things easily, so GIMP is much better!" These two users were talking past each other, failing to recognize that each had probably chosen their solution well.