Dumba$$. Plasma is SO out (it has a finite life, and once the gas is used up, your TV is worthless).
Get yourself a kick a$$ front projector and a nice screen. You'll spend less than a comparable plasma, just have to replace bulbs every 2000-5000 hours, and will have an AWESOME picture 3-10 times larger than the biggest "plasma."
Plasma meant something 5 years ago, like when Sony Metreon first opened. It's NOTHING now. Get over plasma. All of us true videophiles have a long time ago.
"That's basically what the US patent system does now. Remember, the USPTO makes no guarantee that the patent they issue is valid. They are doing an initial check for form and to weed out obviously invalid patents. They just don't have the resources to do any more."
That's why we should turn the USPTO into something like the U.S. Copyright Office. Why shouuld our tax dollars pay examiners who are literally unable to do their job?
Look at the patent law. There is SO much that can be construed as prior art. How is an examiner (or even 2, 3, or 100 examiners) supposed to find a thesis (printed publication, thus 102 art) written by some unknown Masters candidate in the University of Syberia? It ain't happenin.
My point is: Why do we even have the joke that is patent prosecution? Let's eliminate patent prosecution and have it ALL go to the courts. It doesn't ALL go to the courts now. Saying that means you have no idea what patent prosecution is.
At least inventors wouldn't have to pay thousands to a patent scribe to draft a patent. They would do it themselves, and only hire an attorney when they seek enforcement/invalidity/whatever.
If this was the case since, say, 1980, perhaps slashdotters here would have patents to 1-click, double click, etc, etc. Then you would be suing Microsoft/Amazon/whoever when they used them, and get rich.
If you make patents really easy to get (i.e., you don't need patent scribes (prosecution attorneys)), creative people like the geeks here would get more patents to cover everything conceivable and get rich when big companies want to use your patented invention.
If it were that easy to get a patent, perhaps so many patents would be obtained that innovative would be public domain. Then an outcry would lead to a Constitutional Amendment that would remove patents as being covered by IP laws. I don't see a problem here...
Since we have to have patents now, I'd rather have slashdotters easily obtaining patents to everything they can think of instead of big companies...
The problem is that the USPTO cannot thoroughly review all applications. Thus too many fall through the cracks.
Belgium has solved this problem. They issue patents as easily as we can register copyrights. Got a dispute? Take it to the courts.
I like that system. Take the power out of the examiners hands altogether and let courts decide these issues. Yes I know courts already decide issues, but with the way courts invalidate patents, what is the point of the USPTO?
Sure someone will say that might favor big companies as they can afford patent litigation, but we know that getting rid of IP legal protection is not going to work.
We are not going to simply eliminate the patent process (although you can, by Congressional action, or by amending the Constitution). Any of you geeks who think this will happen are in fantasy-land. We simply need to take power out of the hands of the USPTO.
Another good effect of this would be that all those patent prosecution attorneys (aka patent scribes) would lose their jobs, quit the practice of law (since they only went to make more money than an engineer), and flood the engineering/ computer programming market. All the while the demand for patent litigators (more of a REAL lawyer than a patent scribe) would skyrocket.
That would at least stop the outsourcing of patent prosecution to India...
"I had this "Simpsons wannabe" attitude and thought the show was OK, but nothing special. It was only years later that I discovered how great the show actually is."
You discovered that you would like the show, not that it is great. Futurama is for geeks. It is smart in a "Geek" sort of way. The Simpsons is smart, but you don't have to be a Slashdotter to get the stuff.
Face reality: You were right the first time, sort of. I wouldn't call it a Simpsons wannabe, but rather "Simpsons in the Future" or
"Slashdot Simpsons."
There is nothing special unless you are a geek. That's why Futurama won't come back. It *only* appeals to geeks (like "Firefly," but better).
I think it's definitely a win for G4. G4 proved video games 24/7 didn't cut it. Before the merger, G4 was showing episodes from 2003. Having TechTV programs fill the spots of OLD repeats is good.
TechTV had a similar problem, but not as bad. Look at the weekend on TechTV. All of TSS of the past week (and any other new show of the week) repeated, along with repeats from earlier this year. It would be nice for TechTV to be able to have G4 programming keep us from watching the same Fresh Gear or X-Play episode over and over again.
But is it a win-win? I don't know about that. Firing TechTV's staff (okay, not really a firing. Moving to LA) was horrible. The TechTV part of it should never move from San Francisco, which was close enough to Silicon Valley to mean something.
Sure LA makes sense for G4 (I guess), but not TechTV. Even with that said, TechTV shows will get a good cast. Even SoCal has some geeks!
**(Of course I can't help wonder if our San Fran crew could have been saved if Morgan Webb and company had posed for Playboy. That kind of hype would have brought enough attention to TechTV that Comcast would have likely moved all G4 stuff to San Francisco [And fired all G4 dudes, and all G4 chicks who wouldn't go naked] and at least kept TechTV as we know it intact)
Another sad reality is that G4 wasn't even as good re: video games as TechTV. TechTV reviews, whether on X-Play, Fresh Gear/TSS (game hdware reviews), etc were very unbiased. G4 review shows do a decent job of giving pros and cons about games, but I don't remember them ever calling out any game to be horribly bad. If I remember correctly, their reviews for games seemed always to be lukewarm -> hot. G4 never did a good job on PC games and PC gaming hardware. TechTV gave equal time to PC games and talked A LOT about gaming hdware. Again, the merger favors G4 as TechTV's video game programming may rub off on G4's.
Thus G4 wins, TechTV loses, and G4TechTV (unless changes for the better are made) looks to be a mediocre (read: average) network. It will have its moments, and it will have its lows.
Re: make up your own excuses
on
TechTV.com RIP
·
· Score: 1
Does anyone have any ratings numbers on TechTV?
Yes more and more people have computers at home. That doesn't mean they are/were watching TechTV.
TechTV has always appealed to geeks and geeks alone. G4TechTV promises to appeal to a broader audience. From Comcast's perspective, it makes sense.
I don't like it: I love TechTV, but there is no use getting pi$$ed off. People who are getting pi$$ed off over TechTV are the same people who think "Firefly" is a great show, when I think it stinks, and so does the rest of mainstream america. (Please give up the "Friday night banishment argument." FOX already know Firefly would only appeal to Whedon fans (if that), so they gave it a "cult night.")
"The point you're missing is that the male has to be a very willing participant in order for the act to happen."
Not if a women puts on a "Strap on" and bangs the guy in his rear-end..
Besides...women do rape men, it DOES happen.
http://www.teenwire.com/index.asp?taStrona=http:// www.teenwire.com/ask/2003/as_20030624p592_rape.asp
REAL Answers to your questions
on
TechTV.com RIP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think this makes perfect sense from Comcast's point of view. We may not like it, but we are a minority. This is what is going on:
Money is in video games. Video games = cash. People in the mainstream are into video games.
Comcast owned the G4 network, a 24/7 network for games. It stinks. Turns out anyone who likes video games, including their key demographic (males age 12-34), and tuning into TechTV.
Why???? Because TechTV has enough stuff on video games: X-Play is better than G4 game review shows, and The Screen Savers and other shows talk about games/gaming hardware/software.
So....what is Comcast to do????
Why not:
1.) Buy TechTV, thus eliminating the competition
2.) Merge G4 and TechTV, to make one network, basically dedicated to gaming, G4TechTV.
3.) Fire TechTV staff and (eventually) turn the "TechTV portion" into programming that is video game related.
4.) Thus while we lose the small minority of geeks, if we make a good video game network, consists of game/hardware/software preview/review/discussion shows, we'll get a larger audience.
Basically G4 was hurting Comcast because it sucked, but Comcast wanted to tap into the video game market. Eliminating TechTV and making G4 better is the plan. If it will work remains to be seen.
However, I'm sure Comcast isn't crying because the geeks will be leaving in droves. They are looking to gain a more mainstream audience. G4TechTV just might do that (just because you, the geek, are not watching doesn't mean it cannot go mainstream).
Slashdot Mirror
Dumba$$. Plasma is SO out (it has a finite life, and once the gas is used up, your TV is worthless).
Get yourself a kick a$$ front projector and a nice screen. You'll spend less than a comparable plasma, just have to replace bulbs every 2000-5000 hours, and will have an AWESOME picture 3-10 times larger than the biggest "plasma."
Plasma meant something 5 years ago, like when Sony Metreon first opened. It's NOTHING now. Get over plasma. All of us true videophiles have a long time ago.
They DO exist. You are right.
We have a word to describe them: RICH.
Simply put, rich folk buy these gaming PC's. Geeks and wannabe geeks get very good systems, for gaming, for under $1k (not incl. monitor).
Those gaming PC's are for people like Jack Osbourne when he decides he wants to be a wannabe "Gamer."
that *nothing innovative would be in the public domain...
"That's basically what the US patent system does now. Remember, the USPTO makes no guarantee that the patent they issue is valid. They are doing an initial check for form and to weed out obviously invalid patents. They just don't have the resources to do any more."
That's why we should turn the USPTO into something like the U.S. Copyright Office. Why shouuld our tax dollars pay examiners who are literally unable to do their job?
Look at the patent law. There is SO much that can be construed as prior art. How is an examiner (or even 2, 3, or 100 examiners) supposed to find a thesis (printed publication, thus 102 art) written by some unknown Masters candidate in the University of Syberia? It ain't happenin.
My point is: Why do we even have the joke that is patent prosecution? Let's eliminate patent prosecution and have it ALL go to the courts. It doesn't ALL go to the courts now. Saying that means you have no idea what patent prosecution is.
At least inventors wouldn't have to pay thousands to a patent scribe to draft a patent. They would do it themselves, and only hire an attorney when they seek enforcement/invalidity/whatever.
If this was the case since, say, 1980, perhaps slashdotters here would have patents to 1-click, double click, etc, etc. Then you would be suing Microsoft/Amazon/whoever when they used them, and get rich.
If you make patents really easy to get (i.e., you don't need patent scribes (prosecution attorneys)), creative people like the geeks here would get more patents to cover everything conceivable and get rich when big companies want to use your patented invention.
If it were that easy to get a patent, perhaps so many patents would be obtained that innovative would be public domain. Then an outcry would lead to a Constitutional Amendment that would remove patents as being covered by IP laws. I don't see a problem here...
Since we have to have patents now, I'd rather have slashdotters easily obtaining patents to everything they can think of instead of big companies...
The problem is that the USPTO cannot thoroughly review all applications. Thus too many fall through the cracks.
Belgium has solved this problem. They issue patents as easily as we can register copyrights. Got a dispute? Take it to the courts.
I like that system. Take the power out of the examiners hands altogether and let courts decide these issues. Yes I know courts already decide issues, but with the way courts invalidate patents, what is the point of the USPTO?
Sure someone will say that might favor big companies as they can afford patent litigation, but we know that getting rid of IP legal protection is not going to work.
We are not going to simply eliminate the patent process (although you can, by Congressional action, or by amending the Constitution). Any of you geeks who think this will happen are in fantasy-land. We simply need to take power out of the hands of the USPTO.
Another good effect of this would be that all those patent prosecution attorneys (aka patent scribes) would lose their jobs, quit the practice of law (since they only went to make more money than an engineer), and flood the engineering/ computer programming market. All the while the demand for patent litigators (more of a REAL lawyer than a patent scribe) would skyrocket.
That would at least stop the outsourcing of patent prosecution to India...
"I had this "Simpsons wannabe" attitude and thought the show was OK, but nothing special. It was only years later that I discovered how great the show actually is."
You discovered that you would like the show, not that it is great. Futurama is for geeks. It is smart in a "Geek" sort of way. The Simpsons is smart, but you don't have to be a Slashdotter to get the stuff.
Face reality: You were right the first time, sort of. I wouldn't call it a Simpsons wannabe, but rather "Simpsons in the Future" or
"Slashdot Simpsons."
There is nothing special unless you are a geek. That's why Futurama won't come back. It *only* appeals to geeks (like "Firefly," but better).
I think it's definitely a win for G4. G4 proved video games 24/7 didn't cut it. Before the merger, G4 was showing episodes from 2003. Having TechTV programs fill the spots of OLD repeats is good. TechTV had a similar problem, but not as bad. Look at the weekend on TechTV. All of TSS of the past week (and any other new show of the week) repeated, along with repeats from earlier this year. It would be nice for TechTV to be able to have G4 programming keep us from watching the same Fresh Gear or X-Play episode over and over again. But is it a win-win? I don't know about that. Firing TechTV's staff (okay, not really a firing. Moving to LA) was horrible. The TechTV part of it should never move from San Francisco, which was close enough to Silicon Valley to mean something. Sure LA makes sense for G4 (I guess), but not TechTV. Even with that said, TechTV shows will get a good cast. Even SoCal has some geeks! **(Of course I can't help wonder if our San Fran crew could have been saved if Morgan Webb and company had posed for Playboy. That kind of hype would have brought enough attention to TechTV that Comcast would have likely moved all G4 stuff to San Francisco [And fired all G4 dudes, and all G4 chicks who wouldn't go naked] and at least kept TechTV as we know it intact) Another sad reality is that G4 wasn't even as good re: video games as TechTV. TechTV reviews, whether on X-Play, Fresh Gear/TSS (game hdware reviews), etc were very unbiased. G4 review shows do a decent job of giving pros and cons about games, but I don't remember them ever calling out any game to be horribly bad. If I remember correctly, their reviews for games seemed always to be lukewarm -> hot. G4 never did a good job on PC games and PC gaming hardware. TechTV gave equal time to PC games and talked A LOT about gaming hdware. Again, the merger favors G4 as TechTV's video game programming may rub off on G4's. Thus G4 wins, TechTV loses, and G4TechTV (unless changes for the better are made) looks to be a mediocre (read: average) network. It will have its moments, and it will have its lows.
Does anyone have any ratings numbers on TechTV? Yes more and more people have computers at home. That doesn't mean they are/were watching TechTV. TechTV has always appealed to geeks and geeks alone. G4TechTV promises to appeal to a broader audience. From Comcast's perspective, it makes sense. I don't like it: I love TechTV, but there is no use getting pi$$ed off. People who are getting pi$$ed off over TechTV are the same people who think "Firefly" is a great show, when I think it stinks, and so does the rest of mainstream america. (Please give up the "Friday night banishment argument." FOX already know Firefly would only appeal to Whedon fans (if that), so they gave it a "cult night.")
Another link on women who rape men: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,95 93413%255E2,00.html
"The point you're missing is that the male has to be a very willing participant in order for the act to happen." Not if a women puts on a "Strap on" and bangs the guy in his rear-end.. Besides...women do rape men, it DOES happen. http://www.teenwire.com/index.asp?taStrona=http:// www.teenwire.com/ask/2003/as_20030624p592_rape.asp
I think this makes perfect sense from Comcast's point of view. We may not like it, but we are a minority. This is what is going on: Money is in video games. Video games = cash. People in the mainstream are into video games. Comcast owned the G4 network, a 24/7 network for games. It stinks. Turns out anyone who likes video games, including their key demographic (males age 12-34), and tuning into TechTV. Why???? Because TechTV has enough stuff on video games: X-Play is better than G4 game review shows, and The Screen Savers and other shows talk about games/gaming hardware/software. So....what is Comcast to do???? Why not: 1.) Buy TechTV, thus eliminating the competition 2.) Merge G4 and TechTV, to make one network, basically dedicated to gaming, G4TechTV. 3.) Fire TechTV staff and (eventually) turn the "TechTV portion" into programming that is video game related. 4.) Thus while we lose the small minority of geeks, if we make a good video game network, consists of game/hardware/software preview/review/discussion shows, we'll get a larger audience. Basically G4 was hurting Comcast because it sucked, but Comcast wanted to tap into the video game market. Eliminating TechTV and making G4 better is the plan. If it will work remains to be seen. However, I'm sure Comcast isn't crying because the geeks will be leaving in droves. They are looking to gain a more mainstream audience. G4TechTV just might do that (just because you, the geek, are not watching doesn't mean it cannot go mainstream).