I agree. I'm also getting ready to switch from cable to DSL because cable is just too darn fast.
Heh, where I live it's the opposite: standard cable is 3Mbps down, 256Kbps up (Charter Communications) and *standard* (this surprised me) DSL IS 7Mbps down, 1Mbps up (Qwest). Given that my roommates and I are completely fucking fed up with Charter's service and customer support, we were more than happy to spend *less* money for over double the upload (even though the advertised speed is technically quadruple our old up, in practice upload seems to be just over double, which is still pretty sweet).
Interestingly - having a link in a slashdot article in the user link doesn't generate much clicking!
I moused over it, saw it was youtube, and was immediately disinclined to click on it. Also, given the fact that you submitted a slashvertisement, you're probably not going to get as many clicks as a real story would get.
Don't get me wrong... I know the fanboys are a minority, but I just get the impression that a lot of the hype over Boot Camp was from the fanboy base. You (and others) provide excellent examples of why Boot Camp or being able to run XP on the Mac is good, and I'm glad you're able to do so. My problem lies with those who were fervent Windows haters but now are excited by Boot Camp because it's 'new and popular.'
Like you, I couldn't care less as to the choice of someone's operating system, but the argument about the price of OSX does bother me. Directly from Apple, OSX Tiger is $129 USD. Directly from MS, XP Pro w/SP2 is $204 USD, XP Home is $141 USD.
Bringing up OSX when arguing for the value of a Mac can be based on either price or quality. Since the price of OSX is 'officially' cheaper (is it possible to get an OEM version of OSX? just curious), or at least very similiar, the price argument doesn't seem fair. Given that there are many good things to say about the quality of OSX, I would more receptively hear that argument. If that be the case, I'm confused as to why XP on a Mac is suddenly so popular among the stereotypical Mac fanboy crowd.
How much do you like that Panasonic? I remember trying out out in a store once (I think so, anyways... maybe a different model?) and wondered if I'd like it after a few months of normal usage.
Yeah, I picked up a few after I ran out of internal monitor bays in my case. They're more convenient, yeah, but usually more expensive than their internal counterparts.
You're going to game on a laptop with a 13.3" screen?
[sarcasm]And you're going to browse the internet/chat online/write a paper/view your digital pictures/watch a movie on a laptop with a 13.3" screen?[/sarcasm]
Why would screensize be the main argument against purchasing a laptop? Small size usually = mobility, which is sorta the point with laptops.
Still $200 more and you don't get all that great software (OS X and iLife)
^An amusing comment amidst all the "OMG my Mac can run XP using Boot Camp now!" going on now.
Not to single you out, but what is the standard mac fanboy's take on XP/Macs/etc? I was under the assumption that *most* of Apple's allure came from the OS. Without that, you've just got hardware (that looks sexy, sure, but these are still PCs that I'd imagine are used functionally, something the look of the case has little to do with). Then came came the Intel CPUs and Boot Camp, and suddenly running (or dual-booting with OSX) XP became the 'in' thing. It doesn't seem to make much sense.
Heh... I could've sworn I saw a "49% of all MP3 players are iPods" headline recently, but I must've been seeing things, so I'm sure you're right with ~80%. My bad.
Is Sony's top selling item a desktop computer? Is HP's? Is IBMs? How about Toshiba? Those are the brands people think of when they think computers.
First off, the parent mentioned personal computing, something IBM no longer does. Second, Sony isn't primarily known for its laptops (coughplaystationcough).
I'd venture a guess that Toshiba's top selling item *is* a destop computer; they're probably closest to Dell when it comes to range of products offered. HP, on the other hand, has been more well known for their printers over the years than anything else.
Your argument against the parent's discovered irony isn't very good. Your exception (Dell) just happens to be the largest PC maker, making it one hell of a big exception.
I'd say that one of the halmarks of a successful computer company is having your feet in many pools at once, some of which are much, much more profitable than desktop PCs.
Remembering that 'hallmark' means "distinctive characteristic or attribute," neither Apple nor Dell fit your statement. Apple is (primarily) in two pools: Macs and iPods, as is Dell: PCs and servers (well, there was the repackaged Creative DAP the "Dell Jukebox," but I don't think that's around anymore). I would, however, agree with you on this, if only with other companies (Microsoft comes to mind).
Actually, Apple's iPod accounts for around 50% of the DAP market, which is certainly substantial and more than any other product (or company), but not the "80%+" you mention.
The difference between digital audio players and computers (when it comes to brand or type) is the user interface and compatibility. Audio players in general are very much alike in terms of usage. On the computing side, however, "switching" from PC to Mac is a big deal for a lot of people.
It's interesting that it's usually the technologically-inclined that choose one side over the other (and have a more difficult time making the switch), considering PCs and Macs are fairly cross compatible. I know the/. crowd *understands* that we can do pretty much everything on either platform, but we choose to argue in the fashion of "PCs aren't elegant and crash all the time!" or "Macs can't play my games and are too expensive!"
Personally, I can't see myself switching my main computer from Windows PC to Mac, primarily for gaming reasons. If I were to need a laptop in the future, though, I'd probably go with a Mac; they look sexy, and I have no desire to get a gaming laptop.
711 is relay in most (all?) states. Hearing people can call that to connect to a relay operator that in turn dials a deaf, hard of hearing, or speech disabled person on TTY. It's standard voice-to-text relay, and once connected works the same way as text-to-voice (a la MCI's IP relay, Sprint relay, etc). Since 711 is handled by state contracts, I'm not sure if *every* state has one, but there are also 800 numbers hearing people can use (for free, like 711) from anywhere to dial a TTY.
No, myspace is the inside of a bunch of 14 year old girls' lockers. Popularity is based on how many 'friends' one has, coolness defined by how totally fucking batshit someone's "design" is (if flashing, tiled, animated gif backgrounds and shitty-quality imbedded videos can actually be referred to as design).
People do not congregate towards things that are free, available, and simple to use... they follow "everyone else" to trends that the misinformed take as gospel. A person may be smart, but generally 'people' are pretty dumb.
I do agree with you... but remember circa-1998 Geocities sites? Or background midis? There's always been crap on the web, but yeah, you're right; it's *easier* to put crap on the web now.
However, I'd argue it's also easier to put cool stuff on the web now. The average blogging software tends to look good, as do a lot of the "ready-to-deploy" messageboards. The problem with myspace is it was horribly coded and designed from the beginning, and it took off in popularity. If some sexy, fast, and powerful web app had been used under the hood for myspace, your average myspace page might've been a lot nicer than they tend to be in reality. *shrug*
Having used the previous Beta MCS, I would definitely recommend trying it out.
I'm not sure why you should care, though, considering you seem pretty much against the whole MS thing. If you're interested, however, run through some examples online after installing it and see what you make of it.
Unrelated installation note:
I had the previous Monad shell installed along with the.NET Framework 2.0. To install this PowerShell, you need the old beta Monad uninstalled (fair, in my opinion). However, to uninstall Monad you need the *beta*.NET Framework 2.0, not the release. Thankfully, I had the old distro package for the beta framework, but it's still annoying to have to uninstall the release framework, install the beta framework, uninstall Monad, reinstall the release framework, and finally install PowerShell. Can't complain too much, though, considering Monad was beta.
He said his right monitor (the one not pictured) was for his browser. It looks like the one on the left was email, and the middle is probably for everything else.
I think the argument contrary to your position is that the company was denied a potential sale in your copying. If that's the case, then yes, your action affected their bottom line.
I understand where you're coming from though, because you could always say "well, there's no guarantee I'd purchase the product if I hadn't copied it."
This is why there's even a discussion about software piracy, where one doesn't exist in the realm of anything physically sold (including boxed software; no one is trying to legitimize pulling CDs off the shelf themselves).
I don't feel like I'm making excuses with regards to copying... I know it's not legal, but it doesn't feel wrong. All of the in-house programming I did for the last company I worked at I got paid for... but if that code was actually sold, I'd feel weird getting money for it.
Since the code was fairly specific to our own web apps, there was no reason to release it (that, and maybe for potential security reasons), but I've taken the code with me (which is technically the property of that company) and wouldn't feel wronged if anyone got the code for free. My former bosses and coworkers (whom I developed the code with) know that I have it, and are ok with that.
I would feel wronged if my code was 'stolen' and credited to someone else, which is what I take the gist of open source software to be: copy it, use it, learn from it, add to it, but please give credit where it's due.
The people behind all the commercial apps and games should be paid for what they do, but there's such a big separation between the money someone pays for Windows and the paycheck of a single Microsoft employee. Again, this doesn't make software piracy a 'right', but it makes it easier to gloss over the fact that it's not legal.
First off, I'm assuming you're referring to Doom 3, as Quake 4 was made by Raven, not id.
Anyways, when was the last *great* game from id? It's not as if only the newest id titles have been less than stellar. Don't get me wrong; I've been a fan of the Doom and Quake incarnations over the years, but none of them have been "great" games.
The big thing the original Doom had going for it was the fact that it was the first wildly popular shooter. Games based off of the id engines have been widely accepted as better than the previous id projects (ie, Half Life), and I don't really think anyone working at id would disagree.
That's exactly what Broussard was saying. Despite that, his claims of the game being in 'full production' tell us that it might not be vaporware like we've thought for nearly a decade. From the interview [http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId= 3147571] (why was the joystiq post linked...? fucking blogs):
1UP: And when's that due out again?
GB: [Laughs] I think it'll be out when pigs fly. But it's definitely going well now. Things are together; we're in full production. We're basically just pulling all the pieces together and making the game out of it. There's a lot that's finished. All the guns are finished. Most of the creatures are finished. And as I said, we're just basically pulling it all together and trying to make it fun. We've kind of got all these disassociated elements that make up a game, and you put them together and things happen. And then you just tweak it and polish it until it's fun, and that's kind of the phase we're in now, just trying to make something that is really fun to play and interesting.
You're assuming that people only watch tv for their specific series-based shows. What if I want to watch CNN or one of the financial channels while I have breakfast? What if I want to watch sports (especially hockey, as all NHL is now exclusively on cable where I live)? What if I want to simply relax for an hour or two and channel surf?
Yes, cable is expensive, and yes, I routinely yell curses at Charter for less than stellar quality of service. Last year when I didn't have cable, my roommate and I would get the torrents of the HD releases of the shows we'd watch and then throw them on a modded xbox to watch on the tv. The quality was great, the price was free, and yet I still missed not being able to watch some live tv every once in awhile.
When I can afford the ~$30 it costs to get cable in my apartment now (price with a roommate, of course), I'll take the "less than perfect" encoding of tv versus newer video formats and some live television over a system where *everything* is pay-per-view.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it really *is* a photo of Malda... but it's a gif, so it's just low quality.d ontmatter/slashdot.gif
Following is the 'photo' used in TFA. You be the judge:
http://i.cnn.net/money/popups/2006/biz2/peoplewho
I'd like to have a link to a comparison picture, but most of the photos I have of CmdrTaco are... well, kinda private. ;)
Heh, where I live it's the opposite: standard cable is 3Mbps down, 256Kbps up (Charter Communications) and *standard* (this surprised me) DSL IS 7Mbps down, 1Mbps up (Qwest). Given that my roommates and I are completely fucking fed up with Charter's service and customer support, we were more than happy to spend *less* money for over double the upload (even though the advertised speed is technically quadruple our old up, in practice upload seems to be just over double, which is still pretty sweet).
I moused over it, saw it was youtube, and was immediately disinclined to click on it. Also, given the fact that you submitted a slashvertisement, you're probably not going to get as many clicks as a real story would get.
Don't get me wrong... I know the fanboys are a minority, but I just get the impression that a lot of the hype over Boot Camp was from the fanboy base. You (and others) provide excellent examples of why Boot Camp or being able to run XP on the Mac is good, and I'm glad you're able to do so. My problem lies with those who were fervent Windows haters but now are excited by Boot Camp because it's 'new and popular.'
Like you, I couldn't care less as to the choice of someone's operating system, but the argument about the price of OSX does bother me. Directly from Apple, OSX Tiger is $129 USD. Directly from MS, XP Pro w/SP2 is $204 USD, XP Home is $141 USD.
Bringing up OSX when arguing for the value of a Mac can be based on either price or quality. Since the price of OSX is 'officially' cheaper (is it possible to get an OEM version of OSX? just curious), or at least very similiar, the price argument doesn't seem fair. Given that there are many good things to say about the quality of OSX, I would more receptively hear that argument. If that be the case, I'm confused as to why XP on a Mac is suddenly so popular among the stereotypical Mac fanboy crowd.Sources for each:x t=windows&av=&clickedsearch=1&=Go
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/results.aspx?te
How much do you like that Panasonic? I remember trying out out in a store once (I think so, anyways... maybe a different model?) and wondered if I'd like it after a few months of normal usage.
Yeah, I picked up a few after I ran out of internal monitor bays in my case. They're more convenient, yeah, but usually more expensive than their internal counterparts.
[sarcasm]And you're going to browse the internet/chat online/write a paper/view your digital pictures/watch a movie on a laptop with a 13.3" screen?[/sarcasm]
Why would screensize be the main argument against purchasing a laptop? Small size usually = mobility, which is sorta the point with laptops.
^An amusing comment amidst all the "OMG my Mac can run XP using Boot Camp now!" going on now.
Not to single you out, but what is the standard mac fanboy's take on XP/Macs/etc? I was under the assumption that *most* of Apple's allure came from the OS. Without that, you've just got hardware (that looks sexy, sure, but these are still PCs that I'd imagine are used functionally, something the look of the case has little to do with). Then came came the Intel CPUs and Boot Camp, and suddenly running (or dual-booting with OSX) XP became the 'in' thing. It doesn't seem to make much sense.
Heh... I could've sworn I saw a "49% of all MP3 players are iPods" headline recently, but I must've been seeing things, so I'm sure you're right with ~80%. My bad.
First off, the parent mentioned personal computing, something IBM no longer does. Second, Sony isn't primarily known for its laptops (coughplaystationcough).
I'd venture a guess that Toshiba's top selling item *is* a destop computer; they're probably closest to Dell when it comes to range of products offered. HP, on the other hand, has been more well known for their printers over the years than anything else.
Your argument against the parent's discovered irony isn't very good. Your exception (Dell) just happens to be the largest PC maker, making it one hell of a big exception.
Remembering that 'hallmark' means "distinctive characteristic or attribute," neither Apple nor Dell fit your statement. Apple is (primarily) in two pools: Macs and iPods, as is Dell: PCs and servers (well, there was the repackaged Creative DAP the "Dell Jukebox," but I don't think that's around anymore). I would, however, agree with you on this, if only with other companies (Microsoft comes to mind).
Actually, Apple's iPod accounts for around 50% of the DAP market, which is certainly substantial and more than any other product (or company), but not the "80%+" you mention.
The difference between digital audio players and computers (when it comes to brand or type) is the user interface and compatibility. Audio players in general are very much alike in terms of usage. On the computing side, however, "switching" from PC to Mac is a big deal for a lot of people.
It's interesting that it's usually the technologically-inclined that choose one side over the other (and have a more difficult time making the switch), considering PCs and Macs are fairly cross compatible. I know the /. crowd *understands* that we can do pretty much everything on either platform, but we choose to argue in the fashion of "PCs aren't elegant and crash all the time!" or "Macs can't play my games and are too expensive!"
Personally, I can't see myself switching my main computer from Windows PC to Mac, primarily for gaming reasons. If I were to need a laptop in the future, though, I'd probably go with a Mac; they look sexy, and I have no desire to get a gaming laptop.
711 is relay in most (all?) states. Hearing people can call that to connect to a relay operator that in turn dials a deaf, hard of hearing, or speech disabled person on TTY. It's standard voice-to-text relay, and once connected works the same way as text-to-voice (a la MCI's IP relay, Sprint relay, etc). Since 711 is handled by state contracts, I'm not sure if *every* state has one, but there are also 800 numbers hearing people can use (for free, like 711) from anywhere to dial a TTY.
It also functions horribly as a baseball. They handle poorly when hit with a bat.
Sidenote: your friends will be slightly unhappy if you borrow their iPod then bring it back in multiple (unworking) pieces.
My propensity to disagree with that statement is directly proportional to how drunk I am.
No, myspace is the inside of a bunch of 14 year old girls' lockers. Popularity is based on how many 'friends' one has, coolness defined by how totally fucking batshit someone's "design" is (if flashing, tiled, animated gif backgrounds and shitty-quality imbedded videos can actually be referred to as design).
People do not congregate towards things that are free, available, and simple to use... they follow "everyone else" to trends that the misinformed take as gospel. A person may be smart, but generally 'people' are pretty dumb.
I do agree with you... but remember circa-1998 Geocities sites? Or background midis? There's always been crap on the web, but yeah, you're right; it's *easier* to put crap on the web now.
However, I'd argue it's also easier to put cool stuff on the web now. The average blogging software tends to look good, as do a lot of the "ready-to-deploy" messageboards. The problem with myspace is it was horribly coded and designed from the beginning, and it took off in popularity. If some sexy, fast, and powerful web app had been used under the hood for myspace, your average myspace page might've been a lot nicer than they tend to be in reality. *shrug*
Having used the previous Beta MCS, I would definitely recommend trying it out.
I'm not sure why you should care, though, considering you seem pretty much against the whole MS thing. If you're interested, however, run through some examples online after installing it and see what you make of it.
Unrelated installation note: .NET Framework 2.0. To install this PowerShell, you need the old beta Monad uninstalled (fair, in my opinion). However, to uninstall Monad you need the *beta* .NET Framework 2.0, not the release. Thankfully, I had the old distro package for the beta framework, but it's still annoying to have to uninstall the release framework, install the beta framework, uninstall Monad, reinstall the release framework, and finally install PowerShell. Can't complain too much, though, considering Monad was beta.
I had the previous Monad shell installed along with the
He said his right monitor (the one not pictured) was for his browser. It looks like the one on the left was email, and the middle is probably for everything else.
I think the argument contrary to your position is that the company was denied a potential sale in your copying. If that's the case, then yes, your action affected their bottom line.
I understand where you're coming from though, because you could always say "well, there's no guarantee I'd purchase the product if I hadn't copied it."
This is why there's even a discussion about software piracy, where one doesn't exist in the realm of anything physically sold (including boxed software; no one is trying to legitimize pulling CDs off the shelf themselves).
I don't feel like I'm making excuses with regards to copying... I know it's not legal, but it doesn't feel wrong. All of the in-house programming I did for the last company I worked at I got paid for... but if that code was actually sold, I'd feel weird getting money for it.
Since the code was fairly specific to our own web apps, there was no reason to release it (that, and maybe for potential security reasons), but I've taken the code with me (which is technically the property of that company) and wouldn't feel wronged if anyone got the code for free. My former bosses and coworkers (whom I developed the code with) know that I have it, and are ok with that.
I would feel wronged if my code was 'stolen' and credited to someone else, which is what I take the gist of open source software to be: copy it, use it, learn from it, add to it, but please give credit where it's due.
The people behind all the commercial apps and games should be paid for what they do, but there's such a big separation between the money someone pays for Windows and the paycheck of a single Microsoft employee. Again, this doesn't make software piracy a 'right', but it makes it easier to gloss over the fact that it's not legal.
First off, I'm assuming you're referring to Doom 3, as Quake 4 was made by Raven, not id.
Anyways, when was the last *great* game from id? It's not as if only the newest id titles have been less than stellar. Don't get me wrong; I've been a fan of the Doom and Quake incarnations over the years, but none of them have been "great" games.
The big thing the original Doom had going for it was the fact that it was the first wildly popular shooter. Games based off of the id engines have been widely accepted as better than the previous id projects (ie, Half Life), and I don't really think anyone working at id would disagree.
You're assuming that people only watch tv for their specific series-based shows. What if I want to watch CNN or one of the financial channels while I have breakfast? What if I want to watch sports (especially hockey, as all NHL is now exclusively on cable where I live)? What if I want to simply relax for an hour or two and channel surf?
Yes, cable is expensive, and yes, I routinely yell curses at Charter for less than stellar quality of service. Last year when I didn't have cable, my roommate and I would get the torrents of the HD releases of the shows we'd watch and then throw them on a modded xbox to watch on the tv. The quality was great, the price was free, and yet I still missed not being able to watch some live tv every once in awhile.
When I can afford the ~$30 it costs to get cable in my apartment now (price with a roommate, of course), I'll take the "less than perfect" encoding of tv versus newer video formats and some live television over a system where *everything* is pay-per-view.
...glad to see someone's ganking Firefly :D
It's a stellar show.