isn't it sort of like preaching abstinence to avoid unplanned pregnancy/hiv/aids/vd? yeah, it works and pretty much everyone knows it but it really doesn't address the meat of the issue being discussed.
this reminds me of the whole caller-id, blocked-id fiasco with the telephone companies... a company in the middle, double-dipping...
tivo can do this right by offering service credit to those willing to watch the ads while fast-forwarding. if they really mean "tv your way" then that's the right way. (the wrong way, like the caller-id crap, is to charge the customers to not watch ads during fast-forward.) if you respect the customers, tivo, then give them the choice.
while this is very nice, does this make "traditional" musicians "evil"? are volunteers always better than those who charge for their services? could majority of contributors to OSS afford to do so if they had no external income to support their "hobbies"?
don't we all have to make money somewhere to live and could we "fault" those wanting to? if you can make a living via hobbies, more power to them... but is it wrong to make a living?
i agree with your sentiment. the problem with microsoft is that they are playing catch up. so what happens is, they look at competitor's products and basically figure that by taking what others have and putting in pretty colors/more functions/more options, their product becomes superior.
such isn't so. there's something called overall design philosophy. some times, simpler is better. adding functions for the sake of adding them distracts them from the original design and makes the product worse, even though it may do more things. it's hard to beat a product that was designed by a company with a proven track record of innovative ideas/implementations by coping it. the way to beat it is to come up with another innovative ideas/implementations on their own... i think this is why iPod's competitors are also failing. they figure add more features and price a little less and it will beat iPod. such isn't the case. (though i now fear apple has stretched themselves a bit with iPod Photo... but who am i to question them? everyone thought iPod would absolutely tank..)
the fact it's a beta doesn't mean all bugs can be "excused."
it should be functional. it should be usable. if it's full of bugs that show up in routine use, then it shouldn't be a beta. it should still be an alpha because beta is testing for bugs, not for core functionality.
the fact google is a verb isn't all that significant. xerox and tivo are two verbs we use but there are many copying machine companies other than xerox and there are many different DVRs other than tivo.
if MS provides something superior, people will switch. (if they are just "copying" google, then it won't happen.) sadly, the fact they can default 95% of the computer to use msn search means it may not take much of an improvement, at at all to take over.
that and... of course they won't retaliate. it's illegal to do so - employees are exercising their legal rights.
since when is allowing the workers to exercise their legal rights a charitable deed? they certainly make it sound like they are doing workers a favor... sheesh!
just because someone kluged some function doesn't mean such function is in demand... in the same vain, would you recommend that microsoft start selling xbox with linux on it?
you can use the original iPod to have conversation by putting thousands of mp3's of voice recorded words and scrolling quickly one from another to piece a coherent sentence?
sorry to chime in completely off topic, but this kind of practice is nothing new. it happens all the time in the academia: grad students, post docs and professors routinely work insane hours, especially for grant applications or paper/conference deadlines and for far less money. grad students make $20k, if that. post docs make less than $50k, if that. full professors rarely make $100k, if that.
the only difference is, there's no CEO who may look like sipping all the profit. in academia, it's institution/research group's reputation and funding on the line and most of the work are done in the name of advancing the research and understanding. if i may say so, i think those are a lot more "worthy" goals than making video games.
and with Mac, it's easier because the new product introduction is fairly predictable. i got my 12" PB when it was introduced at WWDC 2003. i foresee it lasting a few more years and hopefully, i'll be able to purchase a G5 PB by then. (i have, in the last two years, have purchased additional RAM and some ext. HD, though. those things get cheaper, so i will probably invest in a 1 GB RAM when cheaper before the EOL for my PB...)
i don't follow product introductions for PCs as much, but at least for Mac, it's fairly easy to wait out until the upgraded offers come out from apple, as long as you can wait out ~6 months or so.
of course, i am not a gamer so a complete package in a laptop is all i need... i don't have the need to upgrade parts like some other people.
in what sense is this "great"? from the usability standpoint? i don't think gmail ads are all that intrusive.
gmail isn't "free." i mean the service must be worth something to google's operation, otherwise, what is the point? you may hate evil corporations but i am not sure about blindly labeling anything and everything that grants more "freebies" to average joes as "great."
if google decides that there's no viable way to maintain gmail's value from providing "freebies" and decides to discontinue gmail, then i'd think that's not so "great." i'd rather have "gmail with ads" than "no gmail with no ads." isn't it rather hypocritical to think "getting something for nothing" attitude is ok but companies trying to make money as not ok? aren't they both about the greed?
it doesn't have much to do with truth, i don't think. i'm just thinking that it makes for a "better" and more "shocking" news story if you brought out "evidence" that the election results may have been wrong.
if you present, both sides and mention in equal proportion cases where kerry benefitted and bush beneffited, then it just becomes e-voting related random noise (which is what i think all this is) and there's nothing to make the story "sensational."
>Maybe my aesthetic tastes are just stuck where they were 8 or 10 years ago, I'm not sure.
i think such is the case for most people. i'm a bit older than you and i haven't really moved on from the music i listened to in college: dave matthews (older stuff), REM, radiohead.
in fact, i've moved back to listening to HS music and before... pearl jam, led zeppelin... then the beatles...
i don't care for any of the music of today. my car radio - the only time i listen to radio is when i drive - has been stuck on NPR. but i'm fairly sure there are people who listens to and love hilary duff the same way some people in my youth went heads over heels for new kids on the block.
...because "music" could be had for "free" whereas "mobile phones" cannot be.
RIAA/labels may be wrong about the effects of piracy. but it's also disturbing for a generation of kids to think nothing of downloading music illegally and wants to legitimize it by saying they can't "afford" music.
Slashdot Mirror
isn't it sort of like preaching abstinence to avoid unplanned pregnancy/hiv/aids/vd? yeah, it works and pretty much everyone knows it but it really doesn't address the meat of the issue being discussed.
tivo can do this right by offering service credit to those willing to watch the ads while fast-forwarding. if they really mean "tv your way" then that's the right way. (the wrong way, like the caller-id crap, is to charge the customers to not watch ads during fast-forward.) if you respect the customers, tivo, then give them the choice.
don't we all have to make money somewhere to live and could we "fault" those wanting to? if you can make a living via hobbies, more power to them... but is it wrong to make a living?
wow, man, us ("us" not U.S. - no pun intended) mac zealot's been lazy with /. the last few weeks, eh? :p
yep, i agree with ya... to beat windows, linux will need to offer more than just windows with bells and whistles.
such isn't so. there's something called overall design philosophy. some times, simpler is better. adding functions for the sake of adding them distracts them from the original design and makes the product worse, even though it may do more things. it's hard to beat a product that was designed by a company with a proven track record of innovative ideas/implementations by coping it. the way to beat it is to come up with another innovative ideas/implementations on their own... i think this is why iPod's competitors are also failing. they figure add more features and price a little less and it will beat iPod. such isn't the case. (though i now fear apple has stretched themselves a bit with iPod Photo... but who am i to question them? everyone thought iPod would absolutely tank..)
it should be functional. it should be usable. if it's full of bugs that show up in routine use, then it shouldn't be a beta. it should still be an alpha because beta is testing for bugs, not for core functionality.
if MS provides something superior, people will switch. (if they are just "copying" google, then it won't happen.) sadly, the fact they can default 95% of the computer to use msn search means it may not take much of an improvement, at at all to take over.
since when is allowing the workers to exercise their legal rights a charitable deed? they certainly make it sound like they are doing workers a favor... sheesh!
because basic science is harder than politics? :D
just because someone kluged some function doesn't mean such function is in demand... in the same vain, would you recommend that microsoft start selling xbox with linux on it?
you can use the original iPod to have conversation by putting thousands of mp3's of voice recorded words and scrolling quickly one from another to piece a coherent sentence?
the only difference is, there's no CEO who may look like sipping all the profit. in academia, it's institution/research group's reputation and funding on the line and most of the work are done in the name of advancing the research and understanding. if i may say so, i think those are a lot more "worthy" goals than making video games.
very cool. thanks for that info!
why can't we skip a bit to, say... 803.11?
(i have no clue about the IEEE naming convention. sorry.)
i don't follow product introductions for PCs as much, but at least for Mac, it's fairly easy to wait out until the upgraded offers come out from apple, as long as you can wait out ~6 months or so.
of course, i am not a gamer so a complete package in a laptop is all i need... i don't have the need to upgrade parts like some other people.
in what sense is this "great"? from the usability standpoint? i don't think gmail ads are all that intrusive.
gmail isn't "free." i mean the service must be worth something to google's operation, otherwise, what is the point? you may hate evil corporations but i am not sure about blindly labeling anything and everything that grants more "freebies" to average joes as "great."
if google decides that there's no viable way to maintain gmail's value from providing "freebies" and decides to discontinue gmail, then i'd think that's not so "great." i'd rather have "gmail with ads" than "no gmail with no ads." isn't it rather hypocritical to think "getting something for nothing" attitude is ok but companies trying to make money as not ok? aren't they both about the greed?
i imagine you had to use google to find such a rare person? :P
America Online Europe
(i know, i know, no one in Europe really needs to know what "A" in "AOL" stands for...)
if you present, both sides and mention in equal proportion cases where kerry benefitted and bush beneffited, then it just becomes e-voting related random noise (which is what i think all this is) and there's nothing to make the story "sensational."
crime == not legitimate
so you conclude no harm == legitimate
this is wrong because you can argue things that are not criminal are subset of things that are not harmful.
could it be that it won't make much of a news story?
i think such is the case for most people. i'm a bit older than you and i haven't really moved on from the music i listened to in college: dave matthews (older stuff), REM, radiohead.
in fact, i've moved back to listening to HS music and before... pearl jam, led zeppelin... then the beatles...
i don't care for any of the music of today. my car radio - the only time i listen to radio is when i drive - has been stuck on NPR. but i'm fairly sure there are people who listens to and love hilary duff the same way some people in my youth went heads over heels for new kids on the block.
RIAA/labels may be wrong about the effects of piracy. but it's also disturbing for a generation of kids to think nothing of downloading music illegally and wants to legitimize it by saying they can't "afford" music.
if you can't afford it, live without it.
how are they any different?