The Nao is decidely reminiscent of MegaMan, while the Choromet looks like a cross between something from any of the Gundams and Bubblegum Crisis. Is it possible to build a humanoid robot that doesn't rip off a Japanese TV show or videogame, people?
...it also varies from language to language and also permits alternative ways of saying the same thing, which just don't have the "offensive" tag. It is dictated by the traditions of particular religions and groups, having little to do with morality.
It's not just a moral/religious issue; it's a regional/language one as well. A native French speaker may not see anything wrong with the F-word while they would have serious problems with religious-based swearing (tabernacle, chalice, etc.). British film/TV uses the word "fag" frequently (meaning "cigarette"), but and American person could be offended by the word's use, assuming that it meant something else. Aussies use the word "root" as synonymous with the F-word. I could go on, but I'd guess you get the idea.
The real question is, do we all want one (or a small group of) Americans deciding what should be acceptable viewing for our children? The rating system, while it can be flawed, pretty much gives us an idea of the age level that a TV show/movie was intended for. However, if I want to be a cautious parent and be sure that nothing I consider inappropriate is watched by my children, I pre-screen everything first.
Hell, your kids don't have to watch TV all the time, and if you don't want to take the time to pre-screen things, send them outside to play! Then they'll only have to contend with the violence, sex, and rude language in the real world.
...google made a mistake saying they couldn't filter them out when they do regularly filter results anyways (china's google for instance?)...
One of the reasons that Google can't effectively filter in the States is that in English (and, I assume, most other languages), one word can have multiple meanings. There are many reasons that the word "crack" (or some such) and the name of a piece of software can legitimately be on the same page. They don't even have to be related -- multiple entries on the same page, for example. And, unlike in China, the government has not told them to filter out anything related to a certain word without care for the good wheat that gets thrown out with the chaff. In an environment that praises free speech, it is logistically impossible to filter a word in relation to another word without going actual people going through each page individually and searching for context. Think about how well your anti-spam filter works, for example.
Another point here is that Google offers an international service. Even if some judge does rule that Google has to, for example, keep program searches from turning up toolbar results for the cracks to those programs, this ruling would only be in effect in the US. This would mean separate Googles for each and every country... But the thing is, unless you rely on China-like tactics (which aren't particularily effective to begin with), there's no reason that someone in the US can't access google.ca or some such. i.e. Going through the trouble of censoring the American Google site really won't be effective. It'll just be a big waste of taxpayer (for enforcement) and corporate (for implementation) money, which will end up hurting the average Joe more than the occasional software "pirate".
I wonder how many PS3 owners will actually play Blue-Ray disks using their PS3. The original X-Box and the PS2 both had DVD player remotes available, very few people actually used their X-Boxes or PS2's as DVD players.
I passed on the purchase of an X-Box when it first came out because I couldn't afford it. However, I got into Halo at a friend's house and started renting an X-Box on weekends so that I could play the game. When Halo 2 was announced, I decided that I'd stop pissing my money away on rentals and finally buy the console and the game. Bad move. The single-player game was ridiculously short and if you want to play to the end of the plot, you'll have to buy yet another console. To get any kind of decent multiplayer action, you have to sign up for X-Box live. Add to that the fact that everyone had gotten spoiled by playing Halo on their PC and no longer has the patience to crowd four people to a TV screen... And of course the X-Box doesn't support a lot of the other games I wanted to play -- they required a PS2. What a waste of money.
Of course, I realized all this within a week of purchasing the console. However, since I had opened the package and everywhere these days has an "oh noes, teh piracy!" outlook on software/hardware bundles, I couldn't return it. So I bought a remote and used the X-Box to replace my aging DVD player.
With all of the complaints about lack of titles and how hard it is to develop games for the PS3, I'd say it's a damned good thing that it will have a Blu-Ray disc (and, I assume, normal DVD) player. That way, once people realize how ripped off they've been and can't return the system, they can at least get some use out of it.
A while back, I ordered an indie movie on DVD from the States (I live in Canada), as this was the only way that I could get a legit copy. The DVD cost me $20 USD, plus delivery, plus customs, so it came to something like $45 CAD. It also took 8 weeks to arrive. After going through all that, when I finally opened the package, I discovered that Customs had opened it first with an x-acto knife or some such and had sliced through part of the DVD cover and packaging. Needless to say, after having gone through this whole rigamarole to get the bloody DVD and spending a fair chunk of change, I was pissed that it had arrived damaged.
What will happen in the States when a large number of packages containing DVDs (most of which I would guess are totally legit) are opened in order to check for pirated content? When X number of packages are opened every day by bored employees doing extremely repetitive work, I would guess that the amount of damage will increase significantly. I don't know about everyone else, but to me the mail is already too prone to damaging the stuff you send out. Do we really need yet another step in which our packages can be damaged?
So far as I know, there's already a distro of Linux that can be installed on the Nano and will run Doom. Granted, it still needs some work (if I remember correctly, the bots just stand there and let you shoot them), but it's a step in the right direction.
One of the things that SpaceNeeded failed to metion is whether the support he is providing is on a personal or professional level. However, I have suggestions for either:
Professional - Charge by the hour with a minimum number of hours (e.g. 3) per support request. - If you don't have the time/resources to deal with the support calls even if you're getting more money for it, pass the support on to a coworker who is sitting there twiddling his/her thumbs. - No coworkers with free time? Hire a student/temp. Take a cut off the top of what you're charging the customer, and pay the rest to the person who's actually doing the work. Trust me, even if you charge $100/hr and only pay a student half of that, $50/hr is still a hell of a lot better than working at McDicks.
Personal - If he/she is your friend, they probably already know about the issues with your personal life right now. You may have to gently remind them, though. - Get them to bring their computer to your place and have them wait around while you fix the problem. If they have to take time out of their day(s) as opposed to sitting you down in front of their computer and buggering off, I've found that your friends/family are less likely to contact you about trivial problems. - Since they're over at your place anyway, ask for a trade: they can clean house/cook/walk the dog/whatever while you spend X number of hours working on their computer.
If after all of this you still don't have time to deal with supporting everybody's computer, JUST SAY NO. Politely, mind you -- rudeness just alienates people, and whether you're talking about customers or friends, you really don't want to do that. Still, there's no reason that you have to be everybody's doormat.
First it takes you to a Flash ad, then you get sent directly to the main page instead of to the article... Screw this for a lark. Here's the full article, without all of the annoyances:
The Best of the Worst By KATHERINE MEYER May 3, 2006
What were they thinking?
The Internet spawned so many weird gizmos and bad business ideas that mocking dot-com duds became something of a sport in the post-bubble era. But some ideas still stand out for pure silliness. These are products and services that attracted lots of publicity -- and, in some cases, millions of dollars in funding -- before folding.
In the earlier days of the Web, "nobody seemed to care if there was a real business there," said Alan Meckler, chief executive of Jupitermedia Corp. and Internet industry pundit.
If It Seems Too Good to Be True
Take CyberRebate.com, which thought it could make money by giving stuff away for free. The online retailer, founded in 1998, sold an assortment of goods at heavily marked up prices (some items going for up to 10 times their retail values), but promised customers a hefty rebate that often amounted to 100% of the purchase price.
For example, CyberRebate charged about $1,100 for a 13-inch RCA television that normally retailed for a few hundred dollars. Buyers could get a full refund of the purchase price as long as they jumped through some hoops -- rebate forms had to be submitted by a deadline, and checks came 10 to 14 weeks later. CyberRebate banked on the idea that some percentage of buyers would forget to fill out the rebate form, or fail to do so in time, leaving the company to pocket the money.
But selling items at such wildly inflated prices just about guaranteed customers would go out of their way to get their rebates, quickly sinking CyberRebate into heavy debt. The company, founded by law school student Joel Granik, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May 2001, listing liabilities of $83.4 million. Much of that debt was owed to consumers who were promised rebates but hadn't received them.
Both Mr. Granik and his business partner, Joseph Lichter, settled with the Federal Trade Commission for $40,000 in August 2004 and were barred from running a rebate-based business. Some rebate claimants eventually received partial reimbursement of about nine cents for every dollar, according to a statement on CyberRebate's Web site.
Money Matters
Then there was Flooz.com, which tried to create a form of digital currency. Similar to the also-ill-fated Beenz.com, users could purchase "flooz" and give it to others as a sort of virtual gift certificate. Flooz could only be spent at participating online retailers, which included BarnesandNoble.com and J. Crew.
The company managed to raise over $50 million in funding from 1999-2001 and even signed on comedian Whoopi Goldberg as a celebrity spokeswoman before bad times hit.
According to Flooz founder and Chief Executive Robert Levitan, who previously co-founded women's Web site iVillage, the beginning of the end came in spring 2001. That's when Flooz's corporate clients began to cut back on orders for gift certificates to be used in promotional giveaways -- a revenue stream Flooz was counting on -- amid the softening economy. Then a ring of thieves in Russia and the Philippines charged about $300,000 in Flooz to stolen credit cards. The online piggy bank officially declared itself broke in August 2001.
Several other online-payment companies also failed, though PayPal survived, largely because it positioned itself as a money-transfer service. PayPal's offerings became particularly popular with online auction users, and that company was acquired by eBay Inc. in 2002.
"I would have wanted a different outcome," said Mr. Levitan, who has since moved on to start-up Pando Networks Inc., which aims to simplify the sen
And how many times have you sent out a document for comment and gotten back 30 different versions with markups, which you then have to reintegrate into one document and somehow handle inconsistencies and overlap? Then of course you need the document, but don't have a copy where you're at, so you retrieve one from an email and use that, but it's an old version, so you have to recreate revisions. And then someone always emails you their revisions late, after you think you're all done (usually it's your boss, so it's not like you can just leave them out)
Or you could just save the document to a shared folder and have everyone work on the same copy of the document. Having everyone work on the same file could mean that people save over other peoples' work, though. Or you could send it to one person, get it back, make the changes... Although this means that it could take a while.
Honestly, though, it's no worse than printing up the document and having all of the proofers mark it up in red pen. At least this way there's not as much paper waste.
We = Us, our Wee = Small, tiny Whee = Used to express extreme pleasure or enthusiasm (Dictionary.com)
If you think about as meaning any of the above, the Wii isn't that silly of a name. Granted, if you have a puerile mind, it can also be a homonym meaning "pee". With so many words with double-meanings in the English language, you have to take it all in context. As a well-known example, "faggot" can be an offensive term for a homosexual man -- or it can be a bundle of twigs, or a kind of stitch, or a bassoon. A "fag" is a short form for the offensive term, or a cigarette. And you know damn well which one someone means when they ask if you'd give them a fag. When your child asks you to buy them a "wee", you'll know exactly what they're talking about.
One of the major complaints about the Wii name is that it doesn't define what the product actually is. Well, neither do iPod, Dreamcast, frisbee, Dr. Pepper, Lego, Nike... And yet these all are now memorable household names. Words can be created and then given a meaning, not just the other way around.
...because there is ample historical evidence for periods of relative oppression (or at least, of substantially reduced civil liberties) during conflicts, followed by a return to normalcy afterwards.
Not exactly. While I agree that there is a farily large base of evidence for periods of reduced civil liberties at the time of conflict being followed by a relative return to normalcy, it must be taken into account that nto everything returns to the same state afterwards. Items are often put onto the books during wartime that are not stricken when the war ends, especially if they grant the government income and/or power. Take income tax, for example. Here in Canada, it was introduced in 1917 as a war measure... And somehow it just never went away.
I think that one of the things that moderate "oppression conspiracy" theorists fear is that when the United States are no longer in a major conflict, most civil liberties will be returned, but not all. The thing is, people will be so happy with the relative freedom that enduring a few restrictions/laws/taxes that came into effect during the conflict will seem like a small price to pay for getting most of their civil liberties back. Then, enter the next conflict, and the cycle continues...
Here's a direct link to the Wall Street Journal article. It may be fixed now, but when I originally clicked on the link, it just sent me to the WSJ homepage. Come on, guys!
...it gains wireless LAN (802.11g). Combine that with a keyboard accessory, the N80 could be very handy for remote on-the-go system administration (via whatever Series 60 SSH client exists) or blogging while on-the-go with the built-in 3MP camera.
I personally can't see myself investing in a small all-in-one electronic device (i.e. smaller than a laptop) until they figure out a way of making the keyboard comfortably fit adult hands. Blackberries are a step in the right direction as they use the standard QWERTY format (argue as much as you like about whether that's the better format, but it is the standard). However, for many the buttons are still too small -- you "thumb-type" instead of touch-typing. Perhaps the incorporation of one of these laser virtual keyboards would be a good solution, although it still has the restriction of needing a flat surface. Even so, a clipboard or some kind of folding plastic surface is a hell of a lot easier to carry around than a laptop. You could always go with a folding or roll-up keyboard instead, but at least with the laser one you have the option of not bringing anything else with you. How hard is it to find a flat surface, after all?
For that matter, the screens on many portable devices are also too small to make them practical for all-in-one use... Perhaps a device could use a tiny projector or something built into eye glasses to solve that problem as well. Essentially, it's possible to squeeze lots of functionality into a very small package, but the human body is only capable of dealing comfortably with interfaces of a certain size.
(Disclaimer: No, I don't have one of the laser keyboards, nor do I know how well that model works, nor do I work at ThinkGeek. It's just the idea that I think is interesting.)
I'll go you one further. What about electric/hybrid city buses?
I know that it may sound absurd/impractical at first glance, but when I'm standing at the curb waiting for my bus and watching these road behemoths belch deisel fumes into the air, I can't help but think that there has to be a better way.
A lot of people take the bus because it is more eco-friendly to run one bus over the same route as 50 cars (no, I don't have numbers, that's just an estimate), and also because owning and maintaining a car is expensive. And in a lot of cities, the construction of a subway/light rail system just isn't feasable. City transport companies shell out mega-bucks each year to keep their current fleet running, as well as to purchase new vehicles to replace broken old ones and to cover the new routes in a growing city. They also spend serious cash on fuelling their fleet. Wouldn't it make sense to slowly integrate some kind of electric/hybrid bus onto the market? What with all of the stopping and starting in traffic that these vehicles do, they'd be the perfect candidates for an engine that can shut off instead of idling. And you'd figure that an electric bus would be quieter than a diesel engine (or, God forbid, those clanking old streetcars). That would be a huge bonus for anyone who lives/works on a major route.
I'm not a vehicle designer, and even I realize that this may not be possible or feasable. But when I'm being choked by bus exhaust while waiting at a major downtown stop, I can't help but dream...
...even when you're doing everything legitimately!
I purchased a copy of Windows XP way back when for my home PC. However, I do not use the legit version, preferring instead to use a pirated copy that does not require liscensing. I've already paid for a legit version, so why do I use a hacked version? BECAUSE I'M SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING TO CALL MICROSOFT FOR AUTHENTICATION EVERY TIME I RE-INSTALL WINDOWS. I recently decided to wipe my hard drives and re-install my OS. Happens all the time when you're running Windows, right? Well, I had to re-install four times in one day because as soon as I ran Windows Update, I'd get a BSOD. Finally solved the problem -- apparently the latest Windows updates didn't like the version of my motherboard drivers that came with the board, I had to have the latest version. But that meant calling some outsourcing firm in India four times to re-authenticate my OS. Every person that I talked to was obviously ESL and with just a bare grasp of English, btw. I'd always thought that this was just an anti-M$ prejudice/stereotype. Not anymore.
And before someone starts a rant about why I should be using Linux/OSX instead, the only reason that I run Windows in the first place is because it supports some apps that I couldn't run otherwise. Really, I much prefer OSX. And when the time rolls around to purchase a new PC, you can bet your ass that I'll be buying a dual-bootable Mac, and only rarely using Windows to access select apps, too. (And how many people out there are actually going to pay for Windows when it's their secondary OS?)
To me, by adding even more nagging to Windows, M$ is just making those of us who would have purchased a legit version reluctant to go with a non-hacked deal... Or it might just make users like me leave the M$ world entirely. Smooth move, guys!
Atsuo Takanishi, an engineering professor at Tokyo's Waseda University, has demonstrated a pair of robotic legs that may one day eliminate the need for wheelchairs.
Unfortunately, no. Even if this product is without flaws, it cannot eliminate the need for wheelchairs -- not everyone is in a wheelchair because only their legs don't work properly. A paraplegic would have a really hard time operating the joysticks -- although, from TFA, there are plans to develop controls that would "model that could function more freely without such input". Even so, some people are in wheelchairs because something wrong with their brains or the way that their brains communicate with the rest of their body. Yet these people still have to get to (or be brought from) point A to point B. Also, as many people have pointed out, wheelchairs will still have to be alternative until robotic legs become both affordable and never run out of power.
The goal is noble, but these robotic legs could never "eliminate the need for wheelchairs" or "replace wheelchairs" completely. Yes, this is a nitpick. I just hate it when (admittedly interesting) innovations create false hope by being mis-marketed as the be-all and end-all by over-enthusiastic people.
CNNMoney and Salary.com have ranked the title of Software Engineer the best job in America.
Well, based on personal experience and the experience of friends/family, I can say that the job of the software engineer is apparently much less valued here in Canada than in the States. My husband is a software engineer, and he, with his four-year degree, went from university to a job that pays only $5K a year more than I make as an administrative temp (and my job doesn't require post-secondary education). That's after the temp agency takes its cut! If I were to get hired on permanent to do the same thing I am currently doing as a temp, I'd be making $10K to $15K more a year than my software engineer hubby. Also, I managed to find a job very quickly; it took my husband eight months to find the job that he currently has.
I realize that one person's anecdote does not a trend make, but I have observed a similar phenomenon among friends and family who are software engineers (and since I hung out in the "engineer's bar" on my spares during my post-secondary education, I know a lot of Canadian software engineers).
Designing, developing and testing computer programs requires some pretty advanced math skills and creative problem-solving ability. If you've got them, though, you can work and live where you want: Telecommuting is quickly becoming widespread.
I'd also have to say that this, too, is not true from my experience, for one very simple reason: very few companies trust that telecommuting is secure. This holds true whether it be a small company that develops games or a huge company geared towards top-secret national defence. It's much harder to secure X number of privately-networked home (or "home/business") machines than one large internal network. It's also much harder to restrict access to the physical machines and guard against theft. To many businesses, it is worthwhile to shell out the cash for offices for all of their employees as well as decent IT and security departments, rather than face the consequences of leaked information and/or stolen equipment.
I've noticed that one of the prevalent comment subjects with regards to this article is that either "I can always find a use for my old hardware" or "I know somewhere around here that has a free swap/refurbish service." Which is great, don't get me wrong. The thing is, computer-techy-types are, by their very nature, not inclined to throw out old hardware, as they will be able to find some use for it, whether it be to re-purpose it at home or create a Frankenstien box that they can give to someone who can use it. Most enthusiasts of any kind are like this -- car enthusiasts will save parts in their garage for years after they've sold the car, just in case they need it someday; handicrafts enthusiasts just won't throw out that leftover/old piece of fabric/paper/etc. because they know that once they do, that'll be just the thing that they have to go out and buy.
It's not the enthusiasts that fill up junkyards/landfills/ships to China/India. It's people who don't know/care much about the subject that just junk their stuff as soon as it's no longer the "latest and greatest." It's not just individuals, but companies that do this (although larger companies often have a plan where they send their older hardware to be used in schools or community centers or some such).
Something that every nerd and geek can do to help reduce useful hardware going to junkyards/landfills/overseas is to let their friends and coworkers know that much of the stuff that people are throwing out can be repurposed. This goes for not just computers, but most electronic equipment. A lot of people just throw out their old TVs/VCRs/DVD players/etc. too (even though they still work or just need a tiny repair). And being the person that everyone knows is into recycling/repurposing has the side benefit of probably being the person who receives the hand-me-down hardware!
First he states that "Poor Attention Span" is a problem for geeks then his argument is that they have a GOOD attention span and get bored when running... which is it?
Yet another article that uses facts and numbers manipulatively to prove a point? "In related studies, 100% of cigarette smokers die. Story at 11." The problem is, this article tries to argue both sides of the argument... And both sides are losing.
To say that a PC sold without an OS will undoubtedly be used to pirate Windows is an absurd stance.
And even if it is....it is not the PC makers responsibility!
Exactly! Would we stand for this in any other business situation?
I'll give you a real-life example of something that happened to me. I went to the local liquor store one day (please note, when comparing to Microsoft, that where I live all alcohol sales are through a monopoly -- if a government one). When I brought my purchases to the counter, the store clerk refused to sell me the liquor. The cashier's rationale was that I might give the alcohol to a minor. (Apparently one of my friends looked too young to be legal, even though he was 22.) After much arguing with the cashier, I went home and got my husband (who had not been with us on the original trip) to go to the store and pick up the liquor for me.
Here are the morals of the story:
1) It is not the vendor's responsibility to dictate what is done with a product once it is off their premises. If something illegal is done with the product after the point of sale (violation of copyright, providing alcohol to minors, etc.), then it is up to the police or a private investigation unit to search for such crimes after they are committed. This is part of "innocent until proven guilty".
2) If, for whatever reason, it were to become the responsibility of the vendor to make sure that nothing illegal is done with their product, then they must have the same system of checks and balances that are incorporated into the legal system as police-work. There should be penalties for wrongful suits, as well as penalties to the vendor if something illegal is done with their product. After all, if the vendor was supposed to keep illegal things from being done with their product, then it is partially their responsibility if something bad happens. They can't reap all of the rewards without taking some chances. As an example, if vendors had to take responsibility for tracking and preventing crimes done with their products, then selling guns would suddenly become unprofitable, wouldn't it?
3) There is really no way to prove that someone will or will not do something illegal with a product before they actually do it. The customer may be in a high-risk category and still never commit a crime. And vice-versa.
4) Trying to prevent illegal use of a product at the point of sale is incredibly ineffective. People will get what they want, and there's always a way to work around the system. It's ridiculously easy to work around these "mandates", as has been proven time and time again. Can't buy liquor for some reason? Get someone else to buy it for you. Can't buy a computer without an OS? Buy the parts and build the computer yourself, or get a friend to do it for you if you don't have the skills. Can't get a copy of a movie/song without it being DRM-ed to death? Rip it or download it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it is not the responsibility of a vendor to tell us what we can do with a product once we get it home!
I have to say that your arguments are totally bogus.
1. [Other players exist that are] Smaller.
Of course there are. However, size in itself is not an accurate benchmark. You have to compare capacity and functionality in relation to size. Here are the dimension specs from the Apple website (imperial and metric):
iPod Shuffle (512MB to 1GB) 3.3 x 0.98 x 0.33in (84 x 25 x 8.4mm).78oz (22g)
iPod Nano (1GB to 4GB) 3.5 x 1.6 x 0.27in (90 x 40 x 6.9mm) 1.5oz (42g)
iPod Video (30GB) 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.43in (103.5 x 61.8 x 11mm) 4.8oz (136g)
iPod Video (60GB) 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.55in (103.5 x 61.8 x 14mm) 5.5oz (157g)
As an example, in comparison, the 1GB Sony Walkman Core is 3 1/3 x 1 2/15 x 6/11in (84.9 x 28.8 x 13.9mm) and weighs 1.66 oz (47g). It is bigger than both the Shuffle and the Nano, and the Nano can have up to four times as much music-storing capacity. The Walkman does have an FM radio, but the Nano displays pictures and has a larger screen, so in my mind the extra features come out to about equal.
Of course the iPod Video models are larger than the Walkman. But they have thirty to sixty times the capacity, plus the ability to play back video. They're hardly in the same ballpark.
There are probably one or two mp3 players out there that are smaller and have comparable capacity and functionality, but they're hard to find. Not saying that they don't exist, but one of the reasons that the iPod is so popular is that it's easy to buy off the shelf and get the capacity, functionality, and size that you want.
2. Dont attempt to lock users into Apples music format and the iTunes store.
I think that the key word here is attempt. Most companies want you to stay with them for all of your needs -- this isn't a new strategy. However, there's no reason why you can't buy music from other mp3 stores, record your own music, or rip CDs to mp3 format and load them on your iPod. If you choose to buy music from a store that supplies it in a DRM-ed proprietary format that won't play in another company's mp3 player, that's nobody's fault but your own.
3. Have battery lives that match vendors claims.
Speaking from personal experience, I have yet to have problems with the battery life of my 1+-year-old 30GB iPod Photo. I have not had to replace the battery, and it still gets more than the predicted 15 hours of battery life. Like any other battery, performance does depend somewhat on temperature -- leave your iPod in the car at +30C or -40C, and it will affect your battery life. Common sense would predict that if you use the backlight on the screen all the time, it will drain the battery faster. Additionally, iPods with screens have a standby feature, which does decrease the power of your battery over time, even when the device is "off". However, all this included, I still get 15+ hours of playback time for every full charge of my iPod!
4. Don't cost $50 to replace the failing battery.
If you want the size of an mp3 player to go down (see point 1), then you're going to have to use a proprietary battery, or at the very least an expensive non-proprietary battery. Anyone who's had to replace the battery on an ultra-thin portable CD or minidisc player will also have encountered this. If you want everything to be powered by a cheap AA or AAA battery, you will have to accept an increase in size of the player and a decrease in battery life.
If the size of the player wasn't a comparison point, then perhaps AA or AAA batteries, which are usually the cheapest to purchase, could be used. Good alkaline AA non-rechargable batter
Alright, let me get this straight. French parliament is considering making it mandatory that iTunes is capable of playing music bought from music services other than the iTunes store. The thing is, iTunes already plays most non-proprietary formats, such as MP3. Other services that use formats unsupported by iTunes (or other competing music players) do so in order to lock their customers to their proprietary player, and hence to make themselves more money. My point is that other music services choose to distribute music in uncommon formats. So how is this Apple's fault, or their responsibility?
Additionally, if this were to go through, Apple would be charged with the task of keeping up with every music format going. Since other music services are distributing music in formats that are incompatible with iTunes/WinAmp/etc. for money-making reasons, then you can be damn sure that they will change their formats quickly if a competing player can play their music.
Also, there are copyright and patent considerations. I'm guessing that many of these proprietary formats have copyrights, patents, and other legal red tape that would keep Apple from ever being able to incorporate them into iTunes.
Incorporating support for audio file formats that are proprietary to another company is not Apple's responsibility. If another company wants "their" music to be played through iTunes, I'm sure that Apple would be more than happy to oblige by supporting their file format -- after all, it would increase the percentage of people who could use iTunes to play all of their music. Alternately, a service that wants their music to play on iTunes can use a common format like mp3. However, if another music service wishes to use their own format to keep their customers using their proprietary player, then it's not Apple's responsibility to change that.
If a casino is outside the U.S's jurisdiction, they shouldn't be able to be held to any U.S. laws. Sure, you can outlaw this behaviour by making it illegal for a citizen to place a bet, or more likely by forbidding U.S. financial services (e.g. banks) from processing the request, but surely you can't affect those to whom U.S. laws don't apply?
There's really no way that American authorities could enforce their anti-gambling laws on other countries -- or would have the resources to even if they wanted to. Granted, it wouldn't be the first time that the States tried to force their morals and opinions on an unwilling international populace. Especially since gambling is legal in some states, I can't see there ever being a "War on Gambling".
I can see how the U.S. Govt. could make outlaw online casinos based in states in the U.S. where gambling is illegal. However, how could justify making it illegal to place a bet in a casino that's based where gambling is legal? As previous posters have pointed out, with all of the banks out there clamouring for your business, it can't be that hard to get an account or credit card from out-of-state, if not out-of-country. Really, how would that be any different from people living in one state to drive over the state line to go gambling? That sure as hell isn't illegal -- and you can bet that the brick-and-mortar casinos would raise hell if it became so.
Additionally, having banks not allow transactions to online casinos presents a logistical nightmare. They'd have to monitor every transaction that all of their customers make, 24 hours a day, to screen all the millions of ways that an online transaction could be a disguised casino transaction. I mean, think of how many companies that bill customers use "discreet" names already so that purchases don't cause you to get the evil eye from your wife... It would be a worse logistical nightmare than trying to track identity theft, because in some places it would be legal, and some places not, and if someone crossed the border to another country or state, the "criminal" purchases wouldn't be criminal anymore... For identity theft, too, to a certain degree banks count on the customers noticing something is up with their account, and reporting it to the bank -- which won't happen if people are trying to get away with something illegal. Wow, I can just see the administrative fees on bank accounts/credit cards soaring...
Another option is to try and censor the internet state-by-state... But as we've seen with the internet censorship in China, there's always ways to get around it.
...if you can do something to prevent a problem and you don't, you're just as responsible as anyone else involved.
This may be true if someone throws out/recycles whole applications. However, in the case of the Chase bank in the original article, their own guide to protecting your identity reccomended that "If you receive financial solicitations that you're not interested in, tear them up before throwing them away, so thieves can't use them to assume your identity." So they shouldn't be accepting torn-up applications anyway, as they have stated that ripped up applications are not valid.
But say that every person who receives a pre-approved credit card application that they don't want shreds it with a good cross-cut shredder before they throw it out/recycle it. If identity theives don't have any problems dumpster diving, what's to stop them from the simple act of stealing from outdoor mailboxes? Sure, everyone could invest in a postal box or a secure mail slot, but the mail is still not secure before it gets to the mailbox. Identity theives will always find a way to get at these applications. Your average Joe won't know that their mail has been stolen, either, because the offers were unsolicited, so they weren't expecting them!
Why should we suffer from potential identity theft over what is essentially an unsolicited marketing scheme?
Slashdot Mirror
The Nao is decidely reminiscent of MegaMan, while the Choromet looks like a cross between something from any of the Gundams and Bubblegum Crisis. Is it possible to build a humanoid robot that doesn't rip off a Japanese TV show or videogame, people?
...it also varies from language to language and also permits alternative ways of saying the same thing, which just don't have the "offensive" tag. It is dictated by the traditions of particular religions and groups, having little to do with morality.
It's not just a moral/religious issue; it's a regional/language one as well. A native French speaker may not see anything wrong with the F-word while they would have serious problems with religious-based swearing (tabernacle, chalice, etc.). British film/TV uses the word "fag" frequently (meaning "cigarette"), but and American person could be offended by the word's use, assuming that it meant something else. Aussies use the word "root" as synonymous with the F-word. I could go on, but I'd guess you get the idea.
The real question is, do we all want one (or a small group of) Americans deciding what should be acceptable viewing for our children? The rating system, while it can be flawed, pretty much gives us an idea of the age level that a TV show/movie was intended for. However, if I want to be a cautious parent and be sure that nothing I consider inappropriate is watched by my children, I pre-screen everything first.
Hell, your kids don't have to watch TV all the time, and if you don't want to take the time to pre-screen things, send them outside to play! Then they'll only have to contend with the violence, sex, and rude language in the real world.
Whoops, forgot to log in. The Anonymous Coward comment (#15635664) was made by me.
...google made a mistake saying they couldn't filter them out when they do regularly filter results anyways (china's google for instance?)...
One of the reasons that Google can't effectively filter in the States is that in English (and, I assume, most other languages), one word can have multiple meanings. There are many reasons that the word "crack" (or some such) and the name of a piece of software can legitimately be on the same page. They don't even have to be related -- multiple entries on the same page, for example. And, unlike in China, the government has not told them to filter out anything related to a certain word without care for the good wheat that gets thrown out with the chaff. In an environment that praises free speech, it is logistically impossible to filter a word in relation to another word without going actual people going through each page individually and searching for context. Think about how well your anti-spam filter works, for example.
Another point here is that Google offers an international service. Even if some judge does rule that Google has to, for example, keep program searches from turning up toolbar results for the cracks to those programs, this ruling would only be in effect in the US. This would mean separate Googles for each and every country... But the thing is, unless you rely on China-like tactics (which aren't particularily effective to begin with), there's no reason that someone in the US can't access google.ca or some such. i.e. Going through the trouble of censoring the American Google site really won't be effective. It'll just be a big waste of taxpayer (for enforcement) and corporate (for implementation) money, which will end up hurting the average Joe more than the occasional software "pirate".
I wonder how many PS3 owners will actually play Blue-Ray disks using their PS3. The original X-Box and the PS2 both had DVD player remotes available, very few people actually used their X-Boxes or PS2's as DVD players.
I passed on the purchase of an X-Box when it first came out because I couldn't afford it. However, I got into Halo at a friend's house and started renting an X-Box on weekends so that I could play the game. When Halo 2 was announced, I decided that I'd stop pissing my money away on rentals and finally buy the console and the game. Bad move. The single-player game was ridiculously short and if you want to play to the end of the plot, you'll have to buy yet another console. To get any kind of decent multiplayer action, you have to sign up for X-Box live. Add to that the fact that everyone had gotten spoiled by playing Halo on their PC and no longer has the patience to crowd four people to a TV screen... And of course the X-Box doesn't support a lot of the other games I wanted to play -- they required a PS2. What a waste of money.
Of course, I realized all this within a week of purchasing the console. However, since I had opened the package and everywhere these days has an "oh noes, teh piracy!" outlook on software/hardware bundles, I couldn't return it. So I bought a remote and used the X-Box to replace my aging DVD player.
With all of the complaints about lack of titles and how hard it is to develop games for the PS3, I'd say it's a damned good thing that it will have a Blu-Ray disc (and, I assume, normal DVD) player. That way, once people realize how ripped off they've been and can't return the system, they can at least get some use out of it.
A while back, I ordered an indie movie on DVD from the States (I live in Canada), as this was the only way that I could get a legit copy. The DVD cost me $20 USD, plus delivery, plus customs, so it came to something like $45 CAD. It also took 8 weeks to arrive. After going through all that, when I finally opened the package, I discovered that Customs had opened it first with an x-acto knife or some such and had sliced through part of the DVD cover and packaging. Needless to say, after having gone through this whole rigamarole to get the bloody DVD and spending a fair chunk of change, I was pissed that it had arrived damaged.
What will happen in the States when a large number of packages containing DVDs (most of which I would guess are totally legit) are opened in order to check for pirated content? When X number of packages are opened every day by bored employees doing extremely repetitive work, I would guess that the amount of damage will increase significantly. I don't know about everyone else, but to me the mail is already too prone to damaging the stuff you send out. Do we really need yet another step in which our packages can be damaged?
So far as I know, there's already a distro of Linux that can be installed on the Nano and will run Doom. Granted, it still needs some work (if I remember correctly, the bots just stand there and let you shoot them), but it's a step in the right direction.
One of the things that SpaceNeeded failed to metion is whether the support he is providing is on a personal or professional level. However, I have suggestions for either:
Professional
- Charge by the hour with a minimum number of hours (e.g. 3) per support request.
- If you don't have the time/resources to deal with the support calls even if you're getting more money for it, pass the support on to a coworker who is sitting there twiddling his/her thumbs.
- No coworkers with free time? Hire a student/temp. Take a cut off the top of what you're charging the customer, and pay the rest to the person who's actually doing the work. Trust me, even if you charge $100/hr and only pay a student half of that, $50/hr is still a hell of a lot better than working at McDicks.
Personal
- If he/she is your friend, they probably already know about the issues with your personal life right now. You may have to gently remind them, though.
- Get them to bring their computer to your place and have them wait around while you fix the problem. If they have to take time out of their day(s) as opposed to sitting you down in front of their computer and buggering off, I've found that your friends/family are less likely to contact you about trivial problems.
- Since they're over at your place anyway, ask for a trade: they can clean house/cook/walk the dog/whatever while you spend X number of hours working on their computer.
If after all of this you still don't have time to deal with supporting everybody's computer, JUST SAY NO. Politely, mind you -- rudeness just alienates people, and whether you're talking about customers or friends, you really don't want to do that. Still, there's no reason that you have to be everybody's doormat.
First it takes you to a Flash ad, then you get sent directly to the main page instead of to the article... Screw this for a lark. Here's the full article, without all of the annoyances:
The Best of the Worst
By KATHERINE MEYER
May 3, 2006
What were they thinking?
The Internet spawned so many weird gizmos and bad business ideas that mocking dot-com duds became something of a sport in the post-bubble era. But some ideas still stand out for pure silliness. These are products and services that attracted lots of publicity -- and, in some cases, millions of dollars in funding -- before folding.
In the earlier days of the Web, "nobody seemed to care if there was a real business there," said Alan Meckler, chief executive of Jupitermedia Corp. and Internet industry pundit.
If It Seems Too Good to Be True
Take CyberRebate.com, which thought it could make money by giving stuff away for free. The online retailer, founded in 1998, sold an assortment of goods at heavily marked up prices (some items going for up to 10 times their retail values), but promised customers a hefty rebate that often amounted to 100% of the purchase price.
For example, CyberRebate charged about $1,100 for a 13-inch RCA television that normally retailed for a few hundred dollars. Buyers could get a full refund of the purchase price as long as they jumped through some hoops -- rebate forms had to be submitted by a deadline, and checks came 10 to 14 weeks later. CyberRebate banked on the idea that some percentage of buyers would forget to fill out the rebate form, or fail to do so in time, leaving the company to pocket the money.
But selling items at such wildly inflated prices just about guaranteed customers would go out of their way to get their rebates, quickly sinking CyberRebate into heavy debt. The company, founded by law school student Joel Granik, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May 2001, listing liabilities of $83.4 million. Much of that debt was owed to consumers who were promised rebates but hadn't received them.
Both Mr. Granik and his business partner, Joseph Lichter, settled with the Federal Trade Commission for $40,000 in August 2004 and were barred from running a rebate-based business. Some rebate claimants eventually received partial reimbursement of about nine cents for every dollar, according to a statement on CyberRebate's Web site.
Money Matters
Then there was Flooz.com, which tried to create a form of digital currency. Similar to the also-ill-fated Beenz.com, users could purchase "flooz" and give it to others as a sort of virtual gift certificate. Flooz could only be spent at participating online retailers, which included BarnesandNoble.com and J. Crew.
The company managed to raise over $50 million in funding from 1999-2001 and even signed on comedian Whoopi Goldberg as a celebrity spokeswoman before bad times hit.
According to Flooz founder and Chief Executive Robert Levitan, who previously co-founded women's Web site iVillage, the beginning of the end came in spring 2001. That's when Flooz's corporate clients began to cut back on orders for gift certificates to be used in promotional giveaways -- a revenue stream Flooz was counting on -- amid the softening economy. Then a ring of thieves in Russia and the Philippines charged about $300,000 in Flooz to stolen credit cards. The online piggy bank officially declared itself broke in August 2001.
Several other online-payment companies also failed, though PayPal survived, largely because it positioned itself as a money-transfer service. PayPal's offerings became particularly popular with online auction users, and that company was acquired by eBay Inc. in 2002.
"I would have wanted a different outcome," said Mr. Levitan, who has since moved on to start-up Pando Networks Inc., which aims to simplify the sen
And how many times have you sent out a document for comment and gotten back 30 different versions with markups, which you then have to reintegrate into one document and somehow handle inconsistencies and overlap? Then of course you need the document, but don't have a copy where you're at, so you retrieve one from an email and use that, but it's an old version, so you have to recreate revisions. And then someone always emails you their revisions late, after you think you're all done (usually it's your boss, so it's not like you can just leave them out)
Or you could just save the document to a shared folder and have everyone work on the same copy of the document. Having everyone work on the same file could mean that people save over other peoples' work, though. Or you could send it to one person, get it back, make the changes... Although this means that it could take a while.
Honestly, though, it's no worse than printing up the document and having all of the proofers mark it up in red pen. At least this way there's not as much paper waste.
We = Us, our
Wee = Small, tiny
Whee = Used to express extreme pleasure or enthusiasm (Dictionary.com)
If you think about as meaning any of the above, the Wii isn't that silly of a name. Granted, if you have a puerile mind, it can also be a homonym meaning "pee". With so many words with double-meanings in the English language, you have to take it all in context. As a well-known example, "faggot" can be an offensive term for a homosexual man -- or it can be a bundle of twigs, or a kind of stitch, or a bassoon. A "fag" is a short form for the offensive term, or a cigarette. And you know damn well which one someone means when they ask if you'd give them a fag. When your child asks you to buy them a "wee", you'll know exactly what they're talking about.
One of the major complaints about the Wii name is that it doesn't define what the product actually is. Well, neither do iPod, Dreamcast, frisbee, Dr. Pepper, Lego, Nike... And yet these all are now memorable household names. Words can be created and then given a meaning, not just the other way around.
...because there is ample historical evidence for periods of relative oppression (or at least, of substantially reduced civil liberties) during conflicts, followed by a return to normalcy afterwards.
Not exactly. While I agree that there is a farily large base of evidence for periods of reduced civil liberties at the time of conflict being followed by a relative return to normalcy, it must be taken into account that nto everything returns to the same state afterwards. Items are often put onto the books during wartime that are not stricken when the war ends, especially if they grant the government income and/or power. Take income tax, for example. Here in Canada, it was introduced in 1917 as a war measure... And somehow it just never went away.
I think that one of the things that moderate "oppression conspiracy" theorists fear is that when the United States are no longer in a major conflict, most civil liberties will be returned, but not all. The thing is, people will be so happy with the relative freedom that enduring a few restrictions/laws/taxes that came into effect during the conflict will seem like a small price to pay for getting most of their civil liberties back. Then, enter the next conflict, and the cycle continues...
Here's a direct link to the Wall Street Journal article. It may be fixed now, but when I originally clicked on the link, it just sent me to the WSJ homepage. Come on, guys!
...it gains wireless LAN (802.11g). Combine that with a keyboard accessory, the N80 could be very handy for remote on-the-go system administration (via whatever Series 60 SSH client exists) or blogging while on-the-go with the built-in 3MP camera.
I personally can't see myself investing in a small all-in-one electronic device (i.e. smaller than a laptop) until they figure out a way of making the keyboard comfortably fit adult hands. Blackberries are a step in the right direction as they use the standard QWERTY format (argue as much as you like about whether that's the better format, but it is the standard). However, for many the buttons are still too small -- you "thumb-type" instead of touch-typing. Perhaps the incorporation of one of these laser virtual keyboards would be a good solution, although it still has the restriction of needing a flat surface. Even so, a clipboard or some kind of folding plastic surface is a hell of a lot easier to carry around than a laptop. You could always go with a folding or roll-up keyboard instead, but at least with the laser one you have the option of not bringing anything else with you. How hard is it to find a flat surface, after all?
For that matter, the screens on many portable devices are also too small to make them practical for all-in-one use... Perhaps a device could use a tiny projector or something built into eye glasses to solve that problem as well. Essentially, it's possible to squeeze lots of functionality into a very small package, but the human body is only capable of dealing comfortably with interfaces of a certain size.
(Disclaimer: No, I don't have one of the laser keyboards, nor do I know how well that model works, nor do I work at ThinkGeek. It's just the idea that I think is interesting.)
I'll go you one further. What about electric/hybrid city buses?
I know that it may sound absurd/impractical at first glance, but when I'm standing at the curb waiting for my bus and watching these road behemoths belch deisel fumes into the air, I can't help but think that there has to be a better way.
A lot of people take the bus because it is more eco-friendly to run one bus over the same route as 50 cars (no, I don't have numbers, that's just an estimate), and also because owning and maintaining a car is expensive. And in a lot of cities, the construction of a subway/light rail system just isn't feasable. City transport companies shell out mega-bucks each year to keep their current fleet running, as well as to purchase new vehicles to replace broken old ones and to cover the new routes in a growing city. They also spend serious cash on fuelling their fleet. Wouldn't it make sense to slowly integrate some kind of electric/hybrid bus onto the market? What with all of the stopping and starting in traffic that these vehicles do, they'd be the perfect candidates for an engine that can shut off instead of idling. And you'd figure that an electric bus would be quieter than a diesel engine (or, God forbid, those clanking old streetcars). That would be a huge bonus for anyone who lives/works on a major route.
I'm not a vehicle designer, and even I realize that this may not be possible or feasable. But when I'm being choked by bus exhaust while waiting at a major downtown stop, I can't help but dream...
...even when you're doing everything legitimately!
I purchased a copy of Windows XP way back when for my home PC. However, I do not use the legit version, preferring instead to use a pirated copy that does not require liscensing. I've already paid for a legit version, so why do I use a hacked version? BECAUSE I'M SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING TO CALL MICROSOFT FOR AUTHENTICATION EVERY TIME I RE-INSTALL WINDOWS. I recently decided to wipe my hard drives and re-install my OS. Happens all the time when you're running Windows, right? Well, I had to re-install four times in one day because as soon as I ran Windows Update, I'd get a BSOD. Finally solved the problem -- apparently the latest Windows updates didn't like the version of my motherboard drivers that came with the board, I had to have the latest version. But that meant calling some outsourcing firm in India four times to re-authenticate my OS. Every person that I talked to was obviously ESL and with just a bare grasp of English, btw. I'd always thought that this was just an anti-M$ prejudice/stereotype. Not anymore.
And before someone starts a rant about why I should be using Linux/OSX instead, the only reason that I run Windows in the first place is because it supports some apps that I couldn't run otherwise. Really, I much prefer OSX. And when the time rolls around to purchase a new PC, you can bet your ass that I'll be buying a dual-bootable Mac, and only rarely using Windows to access select apps, too. (And how many people out there are actually going to pay for Windows when it's their secondary OS?)
To me, by adding even more nagging to Windows, M$ is just making those of us who would have purchased a legit version reluctant to go with a non-hacked deal... Or it might just make users like me leave the M$ world entirely. Smooth move, guys!
Atsuo Takanishi, an engineering professor at Tokyo's Waseda University, has demonstrated a pair of robotic legs that may one day eliminate the need for wheelchairs.
Unfortunately, no. Even if this product is without flaws, it cannot eliminate the need for wheelchairs -- not everyone is in a wheelchair because only their legs don't work properly. A paraplegic would have a really hard time operating the joysticks -- although, from TFA, there are plans to develop controls that would "model that could function more freely without such input". Even so, some people are in wheelchairs because something wrong with their brains or the way that their brains communicate with the rest of their body. Yet these people still have to get to (or be brought from) point A to point B. Also, as many people have pointed out, wheelchairs will still have to be alternative until robotic legs become both affordable and never run out of power.
The goal is noble, but these robotic legs could never "eliminate the need for wheelchairs" or "replace wheelchairs" completely. Yes, this is a nitpick. I just hate it when (admittedly interesting) innovations create false hope by being mis-marketed as the be-all and end-all by over-enthusiastic people.
CNNMoney and Salary.com have ranked the title of Software Engineer the best job in America.
Well, based on personal experience and the experience of friends/family, I can say that the job of the software engineer is apparently much less valued here in Canada than in the States. My husband is a software engineer, and he, with his four-year degree, went from university to a job that pays only $5K a year more than I make as an administrative temp (and my job doesn't require post-secondary education). That's after the temp agency takes its cut! If I were to get hired on permanent to do the same thing I am currently doing as a temp, I'd be making $10K to $15K more a year than my software engineer hubby. Also, I managed to find a job very quickly; it took my husband eight months to find the job that he currently has.
I realize that one person's anecdote does not a trend make, but I have observed a similar phenomenon among friends and family who are software engineers (and since I hung out in the "engineer's bar" on my spares during my post-secondary education, I know a lot of Canadian software engineers).
Designing, developing and testing computer programs requires some pretty advanced math skills and creative problem-solving ability. If you've got them, though, you can work and live where you want: Telecommuting is quickly becoming widespread.
I'd also have to say that this, too, is not true from my experience, for one very simple reason: very few companies trust that telecommuting is secure. This holds true whether it be a small company that develops games or a huge company geared towards top-secret national defence. It's much harder to secure X number of privately-networked home (or "home/business") machines than one large internal network. It's also much harder to restrict access to the physical machines and guard against theft. To many businesses, it is worthwhile to shell out the cash for offices for all of their employees as well as decent IT and security departments, rather than face the consequences of leaked information and/or stolen equipment.
I've noticed that one of the prevalent comment subjects with regards to this article is that either "I can always find a use for my old hardware" or "I know somewhere around here that has a free swap/refurbish service." Which is great, don't get me wrong. The thing is, computer-techy-types are, by their very nature, not inclined to throw out old hardware, as they will be able to find some use for it, whether it be to re-purpose it at home or create a Frankenstien box that they can give to someone who can use it. Most enthusiasts of any kind are like this -- car enthusiasts will save parts in their garage for years after they've sold the car, just in case they need it someday; handicrafts enthusiasts just won't throw out that leftover/old piece of fabric/paper/etc. because they know that once they do, that'll be just the thing that they have to go out and buy.
It's not the enthusiasts that fill up junkyards/landfills/ships to China/India. It's people who don't know/care much about the subject that just junk their stuff as soon as it's no longer the "latest and greatest." It's not just individuals, but companies that do this (although larger companies often have a plan where they send their older hardware to be used in schools or community centers or some such).
Something that every nerd and geek can do to help reduce useful hardware going to junkyards/landfills/overseas is to let their friends and coworkers know that much of the stuff that people are throwing out can be repurposed. This goes for not just computers, but most electronic equipment. A lot of people just throw out their old TVs/VCRs/DVD players/etc. too (even though they still work or just need a tiny repair). And being the person that everyone knows is into recycling/repurposing has the side benefit of probably being the person who receives the hand-me-down hardware!
First he states that "Poor Attention Span" is a problem for geeks then his argument is that they have a GOOD attention span and get bored when running... which is it?
Yet another article that uses facts and numbers manipulatively to prove a point? "In related studies, 100% of cigarette smokers die. Story at 11." The problem is, this article tries to argue both sides of the argument... And both sides are losing.
To say that a PC sold without an OS will undoubtedly be used to pirate Windows is an absurd stance.
And even if it is....it is not the PC makers responsibility!
Exactly! Would we stand for this in any other business situation?
I'll give you a real-life example of something that happened to me. I went to the local liquor store one day (please note, when comparing to Microsoft, that where I live all alcohol sales are through a monopoly -- if a government one). When I brought my purchases to the counter, the store clerk refused to sell me the liquor. The cashier's rationale was that I might give the alcohol to a minor. (Apparently one of my friends looked too young to be legal, even though he was 22.) After much arguing with the cashier, I went home and got my husband (who had not been with us on the original trip) to go to the store and pick up the liquor for me.
Here are the morals of the story:
1) It is not the vendor's responsibility to dictate what is done with a product once it is off their premises. If something illegal is done with the product after the point of sale (violation of copyright, providing alcohol to minors, etc.), then it is up to the police or a private investigation unit to search for such crimes after they are committed. This is part of "innocent until proven guilty".
2) If, for whatever reason, it were to become the responsibility of the vendor to make sure that nothing illegal is done with their product, then they must have the same system of checks and balances that are incorporated into the legal system as police-work. There should be penalties for wrongful suits, as well as penalties to the vendor if something illegal is done with their product. After all, if the vendor was supposed to keep illegal things from being done with their product, then it is partially their responsibility if something bad happens. They can't reap all of the rewards without taking some chances. As an example, if vendors had to take responsibility for tracking and preventing crimes done with their products, then selling guns would suddenly become unprofitable, wouldn't it?
3) There is really no way to prove that someone will or will not do something illegal with a product before they actually do it. The customer may be in a high-risk category and still never commit a crime. And vice-versa.
4) Trying to prevent illegal use of a product at the point of sale is incredibly ineffective. People will get what they want, and there's always a way to work around the system. It's ridiculously easy to work around these "mandates", as has been proven time and time again. Can't buy liquor for some reason? Get someone else to buy it for you. Can't buy a computer without an OS? Buy the parts and build the computer yourself, or get a friend to do it for you if you don't have the skills. Can't get a copy of a movie/song without it being DRM-ed to death? Rip it or download it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it is not the responsibility of a vendor to tell us what we can do with a product once we get it home!
I have to say that your arguments are totally bogus.
.78oz (22g)
1. [Other players exist that are] Smaller.
Of course there are. However, size in itself is not an accurate benchmark. You have to compare capacity and functionality in relation to size. Here are the dimension specs from the Apple website (imperial and metric):
iPod Shuffle (512MB to 1GB)
3.3 x 0.98 x 0.33in (84 x 25 x 8.4mm)
iPod Nano (1GB to 4GB)
3.5 x 1.6 x 0.27in (90 x 40 x 6.9mm)
1.5oz (42g)
iPod Video (30GB)
4.1 x 2.4 x 0.43in (103.5 x 61.8 x 11mm)
4.8oz (136g)
iPod Video (60GB)
4.1 x 2.4 x 0.55in (103.5 x 61.8 x 14mm)
5.5oz (157g)
As an example, in comparison, the 1GB Sony Walkman Core is 3 1/3 x 1 2/15 x 6/11in (84.9 x 28.8 x 13.9mm) and weighs 1.66 oz (47g). It is bigger than both the Shuffle and the Nano, and the Nano can have up to four times as much music-storing capacity. The Walkman does have an FM radio, but the Nano displays pictures and has a larger screen, so in my mind the extra features come out to about equal.
Of course the iPod Video models are larger than the Walkman. But they have thirty to sixty times the capacity, plus the ability to play back video. They're hardly in the same ballpark.
There are probably one or two mp3 players out there that are smaller and have comparable capacity and functionality, but they're hard to find. Not saying that they don't exist, but one of the reasons that the iPod is so popular is that it's easy to buy off the shelf and get the capacity, functionality, and size that you want.
2. Dont attempt to lock users into Apples music format and the iTunes store.
I think that the key word here is attempt. Most companies want you to stay with them for all of your needs -- this isn't a new strategy. However, there's no reason why you can't buy music from other mp3 stores, record your own music, or rip CDs to mp3 format and load them on your iPod. If you choose to buy music from a store that supplies it in a DRM-ed proprietary format that won't play in another company's mp3 player, that's nobody's fault but your own.
3. Have battery lives that match vendors claims.
Speaking from personal experience, I have yet to have problems with the battery life of my 1+-year-old 30GB iPod Photo. I have not had to replace the battery, and it still gets more than the predicted 15 hours of battery life. Like any other battery, performance does depend somewhat on temperature -- leave your iPod in the car at +30C or -40C, and it will affect your battery life. Common sense would predict that if you use the backlight on the screen all the time, it will drain the battery faster. Additionally, iPods with screens have a standby feature, which does decrease the power of your battery over time, even when the device is "off". However, all this included, I still get 15+ hours of playback time for every full charge of my iPod!
4. Don't cost $50 to replace the failing battery.
If you want the size of an mp3 player to go down (see point 1), then you're going to have to use a proprietary battery, or at the very least an expensive non-proprietary battery. Anyone who's had to replace the battery on an ultra-thin portable CD or minidisc player will also have encountered this. If you want everything to be powered by a cheap AA or AAA battery, you will have to accept an increase in size of the player and a decrease in battery life.
If the size of the player wasn't a comparison point, then perhaps AA or AAA batteries, which are usually the cheapest to purchase, could be used. Good alkaline AA non-rechargable batter
Alright, let me get this straight. French parliament is considering making it mandatory that iTunes is capable of playing music bought from music services other than the iTunes store. The thing is, iTunes already plays most non-proprietary formats, such as MP3. Other services that use formats unsupported by iTunes (or other competing music players) do so in order to lock their customers to their proprietary player, and hence to make themselves more money. My point is that other music services choose to distribute music in uncommon formats. So how is this Apple's fault, or their responsibility?
Additionally, if this were to go through, Apple would be charged with the task of keeping up with every music format going. Since other music services are distributing music in formats that are incompatible with iTunes/WinAmp/etc. for money-making reasons, then you can be damn sure that they will change their formats quickly if a competing player can play their music.
Also, there are copyright and patent considerations. I'm guessing that many of these proprietary formats have copyrights, patents, and other legal red tape that would keep Apple from ever being able to incorporate them into iTunes.
Incorporating support for audio file formats that are proprietary to another company is not Apple's responsibility. If another company wants "their" music to be played through iTunes, I'm sure that Apple would be more than happy to oblige by supporting their file format -- after all, it would increase the percentage of people who could use iTunes to play all of their music. Alternately, a service that wants their music to play on iTunes can use a common format like mp3. However, if another music service wishes to use their own format to keep their customers using their proprietary player, then it's not Apple's responsibility to change that.
If a casino is outside the U.S's jurisdiction, they shouldn't be able to be held to any U.S. laws. Sure, you can outlaw this behaviour by making it illegal for a citizen to place a bet, or more likely by forbidding U.S. financial services (e.g. banks) from processing the request, but surely you can't affect those to whom U.S. laws don't apply?
There's really no way that American authorities could enforce their anti-gambling laws on other countries -- or would have the resources to even if they wanted to. Granted, it wouldn't be the first time that the States tried to force their morals and opinions on an unwilling international populace. Especially since gambling is legal in some states, I can't see there ever being a "War on Gambling".
I can see how the U.S. Govt. could make outlaw online casinos based in states in the U.S. where gambling is illegal. However, how could justify making it illegal to place a bet in a casino that's based where gambling is legal? As previous posters have pointed out, with all of the banks out there clamouring for your business, it can't be that hard to get an account or credit card from out-of-state, if not out-of-country. Really, how would that be any different from people living in one state to drive over the state line to go gambling? That sure as hell isn't illegal -- and you can bet that the brick-and-mortar casinos would raise hell if it became so.
Additionally, having banks not allow transactions to online casinos presents a logistical nightmare. They'd have to monitor every transaction that all of their customers make, 24 hours a day, to screen all the millions of ways that an online transaction could be a disguised casino transaction. I mean, think of how many companies that bill customers use "discreet" names already so that purchases don't cause you to get the evil eye from your wife... It would be a worse logistical nightmare than trying to track identity theft, because in some places it would be legal, and some places not, and if someone crossed the border to another country or state, the "criminal" purchases wouldn't be criminal anymore... For identity theft, too, to a certain degree banks count on the customers noticing something is up with their account, and reporting it to the bank -- which won't happen if people are trying to get away with something illegal. Wow, I can just see the administrative fees on bank accounts/credit cards soaring...
Another option is to try and censor the internet state-by-state... But as we've seen with the internet censorship in China, there's always ways to get around it.
...if you can do something to prevent a problem and you don't, you're just as responsible as anyone else involved.
This may be true if someone throws out/recycles whole applications. However, in the case of the Chase bank in the original article, their own guide to protecting your identity reccomended that "If you receive financial solicitations that you're not interested in, tear them up before throwing them away, so thieves can't use them to assume your identity." So they shouldn't be accepting torn-up applications anyway, as they have stated that ripped up applications are not valid.
But say that every person who receives a pre-approved credit card application that they don't want shreds it with a good cross-cut shredder before they throw it out/recycle it. If identity theives don't have any problems dumpster diving, what's to stop them from the simple act of stealing from outdoor mailboxes? Sure, everyone could invest in a postal box or a secure mail slot, but the mail is still not secure before it gets to the mailbox. Identity theives will always find a way to get at these applications. Your average Joe won't know that their mail has been stolen, either, because the offers were unsolicited, so they weren't expecting them!
Why should we suffer from potential identity theft over what is essentially an unsolicited marketing scheme?