I waited many hours before posting this comment, waiting for someone else to do or say something. Is Slashdot truly the sort of place that allows the subject line "Nigger" to remain in place and publicly visible? Is it only considered "flamebait" and not pure hatred and ignorance? If so, I cannot imagine ever being more disappointed in both Slashdot and what are supposed to be some of the internet's brightest [and most open?] minds. Once again, I see there is still a very long road ahead to all being equally respected as nothing more than human beings.
CowboyNeal, thank you for the moderation points, but as long as such is apparently endorsed by lack of any action or statement I must elect not to participate in anyway with Slashdot and its seemingly tacit approval of this slight (to put it mildly) against both me and other members of my race. Indeed, for me this posting's continued presence (for many hours now) may well be Slashdot's nadir.
Yes, within that storyline is indeed a link to the FBI's web site.
Good to know it's not just me. I thought Bush's administration had gone so far as to start hijacking browsers of its critics! That would be one helluva way to send a "We're watching you." message.
I still have my hotmail account from pre-microsoft. It's now so overloaded with spam that I only check it once a month or so to sift through the garbage...
Interesting. I also have a Hotmail account that dates back to the internet's Copper Wire Age. However, several months ago it went from being a spam magnet to one of the cleanest free web-mail accounts I have.
Even better, as one of the ancient and original Hotmail accounts, it has [free] POP3 access -- a Hotmail option now only available by paying for either MSN Hotmail Plus or MSN Premium.
BTW, the only [known?] way to determine if your basic free Hotmail account is POP3-accessible is by trying it. Use your full e-mail address as the username (e.g., somebody@hotmail.com) and your normal Hotmail password. The server's address is: http://services.msn.com/svcs/hotmail/httpmail.asp .
Are we not talking about the possibility of "Amazon's Online Movie Service?" Were not Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios, and Warner Bros. (of the motion picture industry) specifically mentioned? How then are we not talking about the internet, movies and their distribution (via Amazon) over the internet?
Granted, as someone pointed out earlier, this is a lot of chat about a mere possibility, if not almost only a rumor.:)
But we are talking about movies. The motion picture industry has a long history of using very narrow distribution channels, and imposing strict conditions. That is why independent films often are not seen on the "BIG" screens.
Yes, implicit [I think] in your comment is the notion of "artificial barriers to entry." I immediately get worried now whenever I see any specific companies negotiating [only] with any other specific companies. If the movie industry sits down at the table with Amazon, then it should be all but required they also sit down with any other legitimate potential partners.
Apple successfully built a barrier to entry with iTunes and the iPod that is only now just barely being challenged. (Sorry folks, but it's not just the technology. If it were only "ease of use," then virtually every WinTel computer would not be bought by consumers with a choice to also buy Macintosh.) What could Amazon offer the movie industry or specific players within to insure placement of itself at the top of the food chain, and then remain there as competitors drown? I do not know, but I do know we all have our price -- especially big business.
Given that, I cannot help but wonder if even our current anti-trust laws are up to speed enough for the internet. Although no one seemed to mind, I thought iTunes and the requisite iPod with which to play them were indeed artificial barriers to entry when I first saw them. And now, even after a couple of years or more, we see Apple still has 70% of that market's share. But, as competitors have been able to squeeze their way in, they have offered more competitive pricing (e.g., Yahoo at 79 cents).
So again, just what is being said between Amazon and film companies during these [open to all?] negotiations? Are there backroom machinations to keep prices and profits up, and consumers down? I strongly suspect that is not entirely improbable.
We know what you have. (You've indexed your hard drives.) We know where you [and family] live. (All mark their homes on Google Maps.) We know who you like; we know who you hate. (Chat & e-mail.) We know what you buy. (Let's be frugal.) We know where you go. (What's happening G-locally?) We know when you sleep; when you awaken. (Usage analysis.) And now, we know virtually all your thoughts & plans. (Using Writely?)
Hmmm,...50-50? It appears Charles Dickens was no fool. That explains his following CYA:
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity...."
And in the same paragraph, he predicted Slashdot:
"...its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."
BTW, as we get more mobile, our attention spans will actually improve and be more focused, since we'll have information we want to review on demand; more time to focus on that information.
I am not certain about that. In fact, all current research points to "information overload" now occurring. There are those who even feel the rise of ADHD is related to more mobility and larger numbers of diversions. Attention spans have gotten much shorter, and we hear that in sound bites on TV and see it in the gloss-over articles of USA TODAY.
What about Live365? I may well be mistaken, but from the outside looking in it seems to doing quite well. Their model to provide both free and premium levels of service also seems to be working.
It also points to something possibly missing in the assessment that internet radio is dead or dying -- all the "little" stations run by individuals. Are they not the bread and butter of Live365? Stop looking only at the big players and I think you'll see internet radio is indeed not fairing so poorly.
Another area overlooked may be something I've seen recently -- internet radio streamed over Skype. Internet FM (run by a 14 y/o kid in Australia) can be quite decent at times. And then there is PirateRadio or RadioDestiny, again allowing individuals to run their own IP radio stations.
Internet radio is far from dead or dying. People simply aren't looking in the right direction. IP radio not a big entity only media source, but instead is alive and well in the hundreds if not thousands of "little" radio stations all over the internet. Just because the big boys aren't making out like bandits does not mean it's an undesirable business.
In fact, maybe it's all those little individual-run internet stations that are giving the bigger players a run for their money. They seem just enough off the radar screen to be unnoticed and not greatly feared by the larger players, but they do have listeners. In the words of Satchel Paige, "Don't look back; something may be gaining on you." Maybe that applies in this case.
(In fact, I hope to soon start my own little IP talk radio station. Stay tuned!)
Microsoft's naming of this release reminds me of something from several years ago. It was the occasion (but I cannot recall the precise problem) where everyone else in the known universe saw something in one of Microsoft's products as a "bug," but Microsoft publicly went on record to call it a "feature." Remember that one? Everybody got a kick out of it.
So to call this release a "beta 2 preview" seems not at all different. Had I been thinking, I would have read between the lines to translate the nomenclature from Micro-Speak to real world terminology -- that is, an "alpha" release.
To support my observation, try searching on "beta 2 preview." Unless you get results different than I, you will see the *only* time that nomenclature has ever been used is now by Microsoft. That is not at unlike other behaviors where Microsoft has decided to do things their own way and eschew recognized standards. The only difference is that in this case it's recognized nomenclature.
BTW, guinea pigs are not the same as beta testers. The definition of guinea pig is an animal or person used in an *experiment*; -- also applied to people who are unwillingly or unknowingly subjected by authorities to policies or procedures which might cause bodily or mental harm. (Note: It certainly harmed my computer. Does that count? Thank goodness for ERUNT.)
And from Wikipedia: "The alpha version of a product...**is feature complete** and ready for testing. A build is feature complete if it implements all of the features in the software requirements." Even Microsoft [at least implicitly] admits this release does not meet that definition. That is, this release is not "feature complete." (Okay, I'll admit to personal bias and say I certainly hope this is not what Microsoft considers a "feature complete" browser.)
In sum, and by standard accepted definitions, this is indeed an "alpha release" unleashed on "guinea pigs."
Microsoft once again found itself playing catchup, this time in the browser market [again]. And with virtually all firms, that means a product often gets pushed out the door too quickly. That is clearly the case with I.E.7 (a.k.a. Deep-Six 7).
This release qualifies as no more than an alpha. Anyone who feels otherwise has either done little beta testing, or refuses to open their eyes. (And no, I am not a MS basher. In fact, I still use IE6.) Think about it. It's been over a year since Firefox began stealing market share. Microsoft saw (and clearly thought) it could wait no longer, even if the release was far from ready. They simply had to get "a new browser" on the market.
It may backfire, however. I tried Deep-Six 7, saw it was only an alpha, attempted to uninstall it, and then found it left my system in tatters! A beta should not do that; an alpha well may, however.
Microsoft sees its customers as guinea pigs, at least in this case. There is no way that junk should have been released on an unsuspecting public. Many here clearly forget that only 1% of computer users are geeks. The rest are "normal people." The latter will see a download available and simply get it, with no thought [knowledge?] of what they're actually doing. Microsoft should remember that itself.
I'm certain there were heated discussion about releasing it now (for marketing purposes) or holding off (for better quality before any public release). And now, the quality assurance folks are saying, "I told you so." This release has only further tarnished Microsoft's image as an innovative and quality-focused company. Instead, it now appear to be a behemoth that can barely move its own weight around, and certainly not nimbly keep up with its major competitors.
Even as a kid with absolutely no programming experience, I could create my own SeaMonkeys by simply adding water! Does this mean we'll be seeing shrink-wrapped SeaMonkey CD-ROMs in comic books?!
("Hey kids! Get your own SeaMonkey code and watch it grow right before your very eyes! How? Send in 99 cents and one I.E. boxtop!)
As much advancement as there has been in computers over the past 20 years, the saddest thing demonstrated by that video is the fact that computers can't really speak any better now than they did then. A computer still sounds like a computer, and pretty much like the original Mac.
So how many more years will it take before we actually talk to a HAL, and a HAL actually talks back in a voice very much like that of a human? Another 20 years? Less than 5 years? Taking bets here!
Slashdot Mirror
CowboyNeal, thank you for the moderation points, but as long as such is apparently endorsed by lack of any action or statement I must elect not to participate in anyway with Slashdot and its seemingly tacit approval of this slight (to put it mildly) against both me and other members of my race. Indeed, for me this posting's continued presence (for many hours now) may well be Slashdot's nadir.
Let's go for it. A /. attack on the FBI. All at once, everybody click...NOW!
Yes, within that storyline is indeed a link to the FBI's web site. Good to know it's not just me. I thought Bush's administration had gone so far as to start hijacking browsers of its critics! That would be one helluva way to send a "We're watching you." message.
Even better, as one of the ancient and original Hotmail accounts, it has [free] POP3 access -- a Hotmail option now only available by paying for either MSN Hotmail Plus or MSN Premium.
BTW, the only [known?] way to determine if your basic free Hotmail account is POP3-accessible is by trying it. Use your full e-mail address as the username (e.g., somebody@hotmail.com) and your normal Hotmail password. The server's address is: http://services.msn.com/svcs/hotmail/httpmail.asp .
If it works for you as it does for me, enjoy!
Are we not talking about the possibility of "Amazon's Online Movie Service?" Were not Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios, and Warner Bros. (of the motion picture industry) specifically mentioned? How then are we not talking about the internet, movies and their distribution (via Amazon) over the internet? Granted, as someone pointed out earlier, this is a lot of chat about a mere possibility, if not almost only a rumor. :)
But we are talking about movies. The motion picture industry has a long history of using very narrow distribution channels, and imposing strict conditions. That is why independent films often are not seen on the "BIG" screens.
Apple successfully built a barrier to entry with iTunes and the iPod that is only now just barely being challenged. (Sorry folks, but it's not just the technology. If it were only "ease of use," then virtually every WinTel computer would not be bought by consumers with a choice to also buy Macintosh.) What could Amazon offer the movie industry or specific players within to insure placement of itself at the top of the food chain, and then remain there as competitors drown? I do not know, but I do know we all have our price -- especially big business.
Given that, I cannot help but wonder if even our current anti-trust laws are up to speed enough for the internet. Although no one seemed to mind, I thought iTunes and the requisite iPod with which to play them were indeed artificial barriers to entry when I first saw them. And now, even after a couple of years or more, we see Apple still has 70% of that market's share. But, as competitors have been able to squeeze their way in, they have offered more competitive pricing (e.g., Yahoo at 79 cents).
So again, just what is being said between Amazon and film companies during these [open to all?] negotiations? Are there backroom machinations to keep prices and profits up, and consumers down? I strongly suspect that is not entirely improbable.
Thanks for pointing it out. But remember, I did not need to see it given I am /.'s Psychic In Residence. :)
Google:
We know what you have. (You've indexed your hard drives.)
We know where you [and family] live. (All mark their homes on Google Maps.)
We know who you like; we know who you hate. (Chat & e-mail.)
We know what you buy. (Let's be frugal.)
We know where you go. (What's happening G-locally?)
We know when you sleep; when you awaken. (Usage analysis.)
And now, we know virtually all your thoughts & plans. (Using Writely?)
Motto: At Google, your world is our world.
And in the same paragraph, he predicted Slashdot:
BTW, as we get more mobile, our attention spans will actually improve and be more focused, since we'll have information we want to review on demand; more time to focus on that information.
I am not certain about that. In fact, all current research points to "information overload" now occurring. There are those who even feel the rise of ADHD is related to more mobility and larger numbers of diversions. Attention spans have gotten much shorter, and we hear that in sound bites on TV and see it in the gloss-over articles of USA TODAY.
What about Live365? I may well be mistaken, but from the outside looking in it seems to doing quite well. Their model to provide both free and premium levels of service also seems to be working.
It also points to something possibly missing in the assessment that internet radio is dead or dying -- all the "little" stations run by individuals. Are they not the bread and butter of Live365? Stop looking only at the big players and I think you'll see internet radio is indeed not fairing so poorly.
Another area overlooked may be something I've seen recently -- internet radio streamed over Skype. Internet FM (run by a 14 y/o kid in Australia) can be quite decent at times. And then there is PirateRadio or RadioDestiny, again allowing individuals to run their own IP radio stations.
Internet radio is far from dead or dying. People simply aren't looking in the right direction. IP radio not a big entity only media source, but instead is alive and well in the hundreds if not thousands of "little" radio stations all over the internet. Just because the big boys aren't making out like bandits does not mean it's an undesirable business.
In fact, maybe it's all those little individual-run internet stations that are giving the bigger players a run for their money. They seem just enough off the radar screen to be unnoticed and not greatly feared by the larger players, but they do have listeners. In the words of Satchel Paige, "Don't look back; something may be gaining on you." Maybe that applies in this case.
(In fact, I hope to soon start my own little IP talk radio station. Stay tuned!)
Microsoft's naming of this release reminds me of something from several years ago. It was the occasion (but I cannot recall the precise problem) where everyone else in the known universe saw something in one of Microsoft's products as a "bug," but Microsoft publicly went on record to call it a "feature." Remember that one? Everybody got a kick out of it.
So to call this release a "beta 2 preview" seems not at all different. Had I been thinking, I would have read between the lines to translate the nomenclature from Micro-Speak to real world terminology -- that is, an "alpha" release.
To support my observation, try searching on "beta 2 preview." Unless you get results different than I, you will see the *only* time that nomenclature has ever been used is now by Microsoft. That is not at unlike other behaviors where Microsoft has decided to do things their own way and eschew recognized standards. The only difference is that in this case it's recognized nomenclature.
BTW, guinea pigs are not the same as beta testers. The definition of guinea pig is an animal or person used in an *experiment*; -- also applied to people who are unwillingly or unknowingly subjected by authorities to policies or procedures which might cause bodily or mental harm. (Note: It certainly harmed my computer. Does that count? Thank goodness for ERUNT.)
And from Wikipedia: "The alpha version of a product...**is feature complete** and ready for testing. A build is feature complete if it implements all of the features in the software requirements." Even Microsoft [at least implicitly] admits this release does not meet that definition. That is, this release is not "feature complete." (Okay, I'll admit to personal bias and say I certainly hope this is not what Microsoft considers a "feature complete" browser.)
In sum, and by standard accepted definitions, this is indeed an "alpha release" unleashed on "guinea pigs."
Microsoft once again found itself playing catchup, this time in the browser market [again]. And with virtually all firms, that means a product often gets pushed out the door too quickly. That is clearly the case with I.E.7 (a.k.a. Deep-Six 7).
This release qualifies as no more than an alpha. Anyone who feels otherwise has either done little beta testing, or refuses to open their eyes. (And no, I am not a MS basher. In fact, I still use IE6.) Think about it. It's been over a year since Firefox began stealing market share. Microsoft saw (and clearly thought) it could wait no longer, even if the release was far from ready. They simply had to get "a new browser" on the market.
It may backfire, however. I tried Deep-Six 7, saw it was only an alpha, attempted to uninstall it, and then found it left my system in tatters! A beta should not do that; an alpha well may, however.
Microsoft sees its customers as guinea pigs, at least in this case. There is no way that junk should have been released on an unsuspecting public. Many here clearly forget that only 1% of computer users are geeks. The rest are "normal people." The latter will see a download available and simply get it, with no thought [knowledge?] of what they're actually doing. Microsoft should remember that itself.
I'm certain there were heated discussion about releasing it now (for marketing purposes) or holding off (for better quality before any public release). And now, the quality assurance folks are saying, "I told you so." This release has only further tarnished Microsoft's image as an innovative and quality-focused company. Instead, it now appear to be a behemoth that can barely move its own weight around, and certainly not nimbly keep up with its major competitors.
Even as a kid with absolutely no programming experience, I could create my own SeaMonkeys by simply adding water! Does this mean we'll be seeing shrink-wrapped SeaMonkey CD-ROMs in comic books?!
("Hey kids! Get your own SeaMonkey code and watch it grow right before your very eyes! How? Send in 99 cents and one I.E. boxtop!)
Outsource it to the Chinese. You'll get a great product and Gates' goat for another snub all at once.
As much advancement as there has been in computers over the past 20 years, the saddest thing demonstrated by that video is the fact that computers can't really speak any better now than they did then. A computer still sounds like a computer, and pretty much like the original Mac.
So how many more years will it take before we actually talk to a HAL, and a HAL actually talks back in a voice very much like that of a human? Another 20 years? Less than 5 years? Taking bets here!
Now that's a real time machine! Watching it actually gave me chills. I want my Mac back!!!