I understand what you're saying, BUT, I don't think it's made *clear* at all that this is the case. Windows Activation is made out to be the end-all,be-all of authorizing or denying you the right to use a particular copy of Windows XP on a system. Yes, you can call Microsoft by phone and request a new activation code -- but that's a big pain. You have to read off the huge key code on your screen to a voice-recognition system on the other end, only to have it run through another time and fail to recognize your key as valid. Then you get put on hold while being forwarded to a live human, who AGAIN asks for the first part of that key on your screen. Then you get grilled about things like 'Is this a retail or an OEM version of Windows?" and "Do you have this copy installed on any other machines?", and "What is the make and model of the PC you're using?" After you answer to their satisfaction, you're finally given another key which has to be painstakenly keyed in as they read off the letters to you.
A big problem here lies in what constitutes a given system. To the typical end-user, the "original system" is the computer they purchased, no matter how many components in it eventually get replaced either under warranty, or as paid repairs after the warranty expires.
To Microsoft, however, the "original system" seems to mean the original motherboard used in the PC. If a user has a dead motherboard 3 months into ownership of the computer, and it's swapped out with a different model (happens all the time, the way motherboard manufacturers discontinue product lines and release new ones every time you turn around!), all of a sudden, XP thinks it's loaded on a different PC and activation fails.
As long as it really IS cheaper to be wasteful, then that's exactly what people will continue to do! And that also illustrates the fact that things aren't nearly as "dire" as some of the environmentalists and promoters of "less technology/simpler lifestyle" want you to believe.
At some point, our tendencies to embrace the disposable, short lifespan consomer goods will lead us to a situation where they're no longer the cheaper option and *that* is when you'll see change come about.
It's fine to preach about how much stuff we're tossing into landfills and trying to guilt people into changing, but all that does is push back the timeline a little bit on when it won't make economic sense anymore. A real *solution* can only come about when the best choice really becomes conservation.
Let's take, for example, recycling of glass bottles. Right now, it uses *more* total energy/resources to recycle them than it's worth. There are places that accept glass containers for recycling (though you won't get paid anything for dropping off the glass), but they're typically profitable only because of government tax breaks and subsidies. Glass is largely made up of sand, and we've got no shortage of sand. Meanwhile, think of all the diesel fuel or gasoline used to transport the waste glass around, etc.
As another example, cellphones. Currently, there's just no compelling reason for most people not to toss out an old one and get a new one (often free with a phone contract!) every 2 or 3 years. Totally wasteful and pointless, really -- except for the fact that you pay so much for the usage of the device, it makes little sense to put all of that towards some beat-up, feature-lacking phone that's starting to fall apart on you. The whole business model encourages the disposability of the hardware. It would change if consumers started getting rewarded for turning in their old phones for credit. The question is, are old cellphones really worth enough to make this a profitable option for cell companies to offer it? Apparently not... yet. When the landfills realy DO get filled up enough though, you'll see this change itself without any legislation or govt. incentives necessary.
Actually, the superior cooling found in older, expensive server machines usually meant longer mean-times between failure for them. My workplace has an old Compaq Proliant server (the first real "server" they ever bought, in fact) that still runs great, even though the drives in it and everything else in it is circa 1997-98. They took it out of production about a year ago, when they got new P4 rack-mounted hardware... but I fired it up, loaded Linux on it, and was going to use it as a web proxy server just a couple months ago. (I cancelled that attempt, only because I found another unused rack-mountable PIII box that took up less space to use instead.)
But I'd agree.... if you're talking about real *server class* PCs, it's reasonable to expect some will last 10 years or more. PC desktops or laptops however? Cutting that number in half is probably acceptable, really. The cheap fans and relative overall lack of cooling, poor grades of power supplies, and everything else will end up killing them off earlier.
I've owned 2 iPods so far, and only got rid of the first one because I wanted to upgrade to a "bigger and better" 60GB video iPod model. I've had zero problems with either of them, unless you count one time I had to do a soft-reset on the 60GB video after it froze up trying to play some corrupted MP3 files I accidently put on it.
I use mine pretty much every day, since it's normally attached to a Pioneer adapter on my car stereo.
I'm not denying *some* people have had problems with theirs, of course. But my experience is, this is a device that feels quite "solid" compared to most of the competitors. (The buttons feel like they could fall out of some of the other models I've used!) Sure - they're easy to scratch up, but that's just a cosmetic issue. In some respects, I actually like the way they show poor/rough handling like they do. It gives second-hand purchasers immediate knowledge of whether the previous owner was the type to take care of his/her electronics, or just throw them about.
Not always true! For example, I have a new Motorola Razr phone and although it supports bluetooth hotsyncing to my Mac with "iSync" - it won't sync the calendar entries at all. Keeps saying that function is "unsupported" (although it syncs the phone numbers from Address Book fine).
I think people mis-quote the original line fairly often? Wasn't it supposed to say, "Information strives to be free!"??
That seems much closer to the truth to me. Any given piece of information, relative to its usefulness to people lacking said information, is liable to be "freed" from its source and spread.
Should all information BE free? No. Should the keepers of sensitive or personal information realize that it has a strong tendency to "leak out" (and take measures to prevent it)? Yep!
Unfortunately, I think you're correct. Apple made a smart move when they started speaking of the whole "halo effect" to investors and potential investors. (Basically, Apple claimed that people would buy iPods as their introduction to Apple products, and it would then lead them down the path to buying their first Mac.) That helped tie stock price increases to the new Mac announcements, whether or not they directly generated enough sales to justify it. (Hey, it's "good news" because it potentially gives all these iPod buyers another new possibility to buy next, right!?)
I think there's some truth to the "halo effect" concept, too. iPods did give a big boost to the respect/credibility of Apple's name - and some people surely did see how well the whole iTunes/iPod thing worked together, and thought "If all the Mac stuff is this easy to use, maybe I should buy one of those computers next time?"
But I think just as often, a die-hard Windows user saw an iPod purchase as their token way to acknowledge Apple products while still shunning everything else they made. (What better a way to prove you're not just a "mindless Mac hater" than to whip out your new iPod, right? "See, I give everything a chance! But I'm telling you, Macs still suck right now!")
And now, with iPod competition heating up (as the market is about saturated anyway), it's time for Apple to push in other directions.
Yeah, I'm aware of the Mac's ability to migrate your info over from an older Mac to the new one. That's a pretty cool feature, too. Apple didn't always include that with OS X though. I forget exactly when it was rolled in with new systems, but I know I had the very last model of the G4 tower (dual processor 1.42Ghz mirrored drive-door version) and OS X on it had no such feature. I'm almost certain my original G5 dual proc. 2.0Ghz tower didn't include it either.
I disagree. Despite all the hype, switching platforms is hardly more difficult than buying a new computer running the same platform. New, out of the box, most machines come pre-loaded with some flavor of Windows - which you may or may not choose to keep on there and use. If you don't, then you're looking at a "from scratch" format and install of your OS of choice, and all the hunting for prerequisite drivers that goes with it. If you do keep it, you probably have to reboot many times as you uninstall a plethora of garbage you don't want that they threw in with the new machine. (Scratch the Norton Personal Firewall, the 30-day McAfee anti-virus trial, the "enhancements" to the media player, etc. etc.)
If you, say, switch from PC to Mac, or Mac to Linux, you're looking at pretty much the same hassles you get with a new machine. You have to reinstall all the apps you want to use on it, restore your backed-up data files of significance, etc.
If you're a self-proclaimed "nerd", I'm assuming the "learning curve" shouldn't be much of an issue? (Or do you really think guys like Mark, Tim and Cory need a while to "get the hang of" Ubuntu?)
MOST people have already concluded that Linux distros don't meet their needs, as illustrated by the fact that so many people rely on Windows every day, while many others paid quite a bit for a Mac running OS X. A few prominent people in tech. circles announcing they're tired of their previous platform of choice is no canary in a coal mine. It's more of a dull thud in the mine, ignored by all the other miners making similar but louder sounds with their pick-axes as they work.
This isn't meant to be a "troll" against Linux.... but rather, a cold, hard look at the facts. Linux enjoys great success when it's used as a mail, file, print or web server. It also enjoys success as the basis for embedded devices, from routers to PVRs. It never has been a significant player in the workstation space, and I dare say it may never be - as long as it's built "by geeks, for geeks". Geeks don't tend to add "fluff" to code just for the sake of saving a user some time reading the instructions. Geeks only consider a GUI an "afterthought project" when it relates to configuring a system-level application or service. (How many rock-solid reliable GUIs in X have you seen for point and click easy configuration of *all* the possible optiions for an Apache web server, for example? And that's a high-profile app in the Linux world that's used by many folks who use Linux for practically nothing else!)
Quite true! To this day, Corel Draw has a niche following among commercial sign-makers, because it's a great tool for working with vinyl sign cutting machines. (The "CorelTrace" portion of CorelDraw is invaluable for translating a bitmapped image to vector format so it can be sent to a sign-cutter -- which works just like a plotter, but with a knife instead of a pen. Plus, there are 3rd. party drivers like "Sign Tools 3" that add native support to CorelDraw for hundreds of sign cutters.)
They really would have been best served to concentrate on sales of CorelDraw, instead of many of the other projects they chose to do. Especially now with the merger of Adobe and Macromedia, it looks like choices in graphics tools will become even more limited. (Most indications point to Adobe cancelling Macromedia's "Freehand" illustrating software.)
I don't think they've put out a Mac OS X version of CorelDraw in quite some time, despite having a pretty new WIndows edition. That would be a good place to start, with Macs being so popular with graphics professionals.
I think Corel was always looking for that "next big break" instead of accepting the idea that they could do well for themselves as a niche market player with a few useful, time-tested products. WordPerfect is still the word processor of choice for many folks in the legal field, despite the "general public" having switched to MS Word as a general rule. (Law firms tend to be heavy users of complex macros and templates - and they tend to have lots of custom stuff built for WordPerfect that they rely on daily.) It's these special groups of users of their "classic" products they need to start catering to.
That's what I'm talking about.... no analog signal degradation. The original source being "heavily compressed" is hardly the point, since if you think that's a noticeable problem with the source audio - then you probably have no business being a customer of that music service in the first place.
To my ears, the material I'm getting from iTunes or Yahoo music sounds "near CD quality". Granted, I'm not trying to play it back on multi-thousand dollar speakers or stereos. But I am picky enough a listener to despise most 128-bit MP3 music I've downloaded from p2p sources. (To me, most of it sounds "dull" and "compressed"... FM radio quality at best.)
When I re-encode this material to MP3 minus the DRM, I always select 192-bit, which doesn't seem to lose anything discernable over the DRM source.
I've got a hands-free kit for my cellphone, but when the batteries need recharging in it (it's a remote speakerphone type of gadget that clips on the visor), I've had to take calls holding my flip-phone while driving.
I know for sure I feel "distracted" when I have to do this, vs. being able to have a conversation with both hands on the wheel.
In fact, trying to take a call on a cellphone before I had a hands-free kit used to really bother me while driving. I *knew* it was making me a less attentive driver, trying to hold onto the phone with one hand the whole time - plus the psychological factors at work. (You get so accustomed to the idea of concentrating on a caller when a phone is held to your ear that it's hard to change habits for a cell used in the car.) With a hands-free kit, I really don't think it interferes at all.... I just quit talking/listening for a minute if something dangerous is happening in front of me.
For that matter, I think many people overlook another "twist" on burning music to CD. Products like Nero allow a virtual disc to be created. So you don't even have to use up any physical CD media to accomplish this type of conversion.
Honestly, I think DRM on digital music is going to prove to be utterly pointless - since computers allow making perfect digital copies of the original work, as long as it can be played on the system at all. It only serves to add an extra "speed bump" in the way of making copies of the songs you download.
Right now, for example, any Windows user can sign up for one of these unlimited music download services like Yahoo Music, Virgin Digital, or Rhapsody, and with a $19 copy of "muvaudio", batch process everything they download into DRM-free MP3s of any bitrate they desire. It uses "virtual audio patch cable" device drivers to make lossless digital copies of the music while it plays in Media Player, even keeping any sounds generated by other applications separate from what's recording, so you can still use the PC while it works.
Apple Mac users can do something pretty similar with "Audio Hijaack Pro" (although maybe not quite as automated and "fancy" with handling queued up playlists of songs).
The thing with Yahoo email is, they partnered up with other big players, so they host more email than you might at first realize.
EG. I've been a Southwestern Bell DSL Internet customer for years. At one point, SBC partnered up with Yahoo, and migrated email over to Yahoo's servers. I still got to keep my "@swbell.net" address, however. It just runs through Yahoo POP and SMTP servers instead of SBC's own mail server.
Many other users of SBC/AT&T DSL services are doing similar things with addresses ending in "@sbcglobal.net".
Yep! The thing is, whenever you have a company releasing new products that are designed significantly differently than the "norm", or differently than their own previous products, *and* they're not exactly a "market leader" in sales to begin with - you're going to have some flaws in first revisions.
I bought a Macbook Pro about 5 weeks after they were released, and mine arrived completely dead. It was obvious it was getting power, but that was about it. No display or sound.... That was quite irritating, but to Apple's credit, they shipped me a replacement that arrived with absolutely no issues. (None of the buzzing, whining, extreme overheating, sound only out of one speaker, or any of that other stuff you see complaints about on these machines.) I've used it almost every day since then and so far, so good.
I also had a "rev. 1" PowerMac G5 dual 2.0Ghz tower that always seemed to be just a little "flaky". I must have owned it for close to a year, using it all the time, and still couldn't really pin down anything specific. It just crashed a little more often than it should have, and had an above-average number of odd problems with "sleep" mode and so forth, which seemed to always vary with OS X updates. (And yes, I swapped out RAM, reformatted the drives and reinstalled OS X from scratch, etc. etc.) I ended up selling it and getting a newer revision of the exact same PowerMac G5 and to this day, I use this one and it's rock solid by comparison.
So yeah, my recent experience bear out the fact that Apple products are good, but only after you give them a chance to iron out the bugs in a particular model.
Sure... but your advice is just like telling people not to "waste $10 or so for a movie ticket,when you can wait long enough and see that same movie a year later for as little as $3.99 in someone's DVD bargain bin!"
We're all aware of that, and most of us do that from time to time. But there's also some value/enjoyment in getting your hands on something brand new, and getting to be among the first to experience it. It is, after all, entertainment - and not anything you HAVE to buy/own. If you get a kick out of bragging rights for a little while that you've got a game title that everyone else you know still "wants to see" - that might be worth an extra $20-30, every so often?
In the past, I would have scoffed at the idea of "video game addiction" being a valid concept. Traditionally, sure, you had people who *really* liked playing video games - but even then, most games involved you vs. the machine. Eventually, you'd solve all the puzzles, finish the levels, or just plain get burnt out on the repetition of it all. Once you've mastered the art of defeating the A.I. in a given game title, it quickly loses its charm. (I remember all of my friends who bought the sports games for their consoles, and within weeks, were guaranteed to start complaining about how it got "too easy" to do certain sequences of moves and perpetually fake out the computer.)
Therefore, your options were either A) invite a friend or two over and play "head to head" against each other instead of vs. the console or computer, or B) quit gaming for a while, until something else exciting enough was released and you had money to buy a copy.
With either choice, you were getting in some social interaction with other people, and were likely to get distracted from the "gaming" interest for a little while too.
But MMORPGs are a whole different beast. All of a sudden, not only is the world your playground, but you're *always* playing against real people on the other end. No longer do you feel that bit of guilt when you can't get any of your friends to come over to play you at the game because they've all got "better things to do". You *always* have willing opponents. The game designers even keep modifying the world you play in so it doesn't get too "stale".
I won't go so far as to claim an MMORPG "ruined my marriage", but it was a big contrbuting factor. My ex-wife got hooked on Shadowbane, to the point where we'd really have nothing to talk about when I got home from work besides her babbling on about this or that event that happened in the game. We had a kid, and I started realizing that while I was at work, she was often neglecting her to play her game during the day. (One of my friends clued me in when he told me about coming over and finding my kid up on a glass kitchen table, about to fall off, while she was completely oblivious because she was in the computer room concentrating on organizing a raiding party against someone's "clan".) I even had to deal with long-distance phone calls coming in at 3AM from people on the other side of the planet calling to get her to sign in to the game because their group had something or other "important" going on. (I guess they forgot about the time zone differences?)
I can see it already.... Idiots are going to be seen with one of these things backing up and turning their car a little bit, moving forward a few feet again, etc. etc. - trying to make sure they've got exactly what they want in the camera's view to snap a "perfect" photo for the location they're at.
I agree with the other person who posted a complaint that too many devices are adding useless "fluff", trying too hard to be "unique" instead of incorporating truly useful featurea in their products. Sure, it may not be as "sexy" to sell durability or reliability, but frankly, I'd much rather pay for an appliance that'll last 5-10 more years, or a laptop computer that won't die the first time I accidently drop it on a concrete floor than for some gee-whiz, unneeded gadget merged into it.
With all the cameras being put in cellphones, you'd think practically everyone would be able to capture a photo of anyplace they happen to go already. Does a GPS system need to do it too??
Oh, come on... If they put them in the bathroom, they're just *begging* for artistic editing to be done to them. A pair of eyes? Where's my sharpie? This needs a nose, a mouth, a couple ears, some goofy hair and a mustache.....
Oh, I doubt very much the publisher *wanted* the BSA to come audit them voluntarily. Typically, the BSA use scare-tactics and threats to convince you to let them audit you, instead of "forcing them to take further steps" involving lawsuits.
They can't *make* a company let them in to audit their software, but a company's refusal to allow a voluntary audit, coupled with a signed statement from an ex-employee stating he/she observed illegal software in use there is enough to get the law involved.
If you cooperate with the BSA thugs, sure - they'll offer to waive any fines or fees, and may even negotiate some sort of discounted "package deal" on licensing everything you were illegally using before. These folks are supported and funded by commercial software developers, after all. If anyone can arrange a "special discount" on your licensing, you'd think the BSA would rank up near the top of the list.
If a company wanted my advice on how to deal with a BSA threat, I'd recommend they pay their attorney to shoot back a letter stating that "To the best of our knowledge and ability, we believe ourselves to be fully compliant on all of our software licensing." and point out that they will NOT be allowing any private organizations to perform audits on their property. (Then, of course, it would be wise to make sure you are, indeed, compliant. If not, delete the software that's not supposed to be installed and perhaps replace with suitable open-source or inexpensive shareware alternatives.)
It's not (normally) that someone is too lazy to get up and walk over to the soda fountain to refill their own drink!
The reason a lot of customers come in and order a larger drink, despite "free refills" is because they want to take a decent amount of soda with them when they leave. If you only order a small drink, sure - you can refill it as much as you like while you're in the restaurant... but many people want to take the cup with them in the car and drink some of it after they get back to work or whatever.
I think the rationale behind the time-limts on eBay auctions was the idea that the longer an auction is listed, the more "eyeballs" get a chance to view it. eBay could also make the argument that auctions that run longer are more "expensive" for them to host in terms of system resources and bandwidth. Therefore, they could justify billing higher initial listing fees, relative to the time-limits imposed on them.
But yeah, "sniping" has gotten so prevelant on eBay that on any given item, you're pretty much either going to be the *only* bidder due to it being so specialized that barely anyone would want it, or you're going to have to snipe at the end to win it.
I think you're correct that moving to secret bids might make the most sense for both eBay and users. Let it work just like it does today, except give all auction listers the option to set a "reserve price" at no extra charge, and then only display the reserve or starting bid amount until the end. Indicating the number of people who placed bids would be incentive for people to bump up their high bid, if they start getting scared they've got competition - but that's probably all that needs to be shown. Not only would secret auctions eliminate the sniping issue, but it would also put a stop to shill bidding.
One of my best friends was short on money, but used some of the last cash he had in his wallet to get a pizza. As he was walking back to his apartment with it, a homeless guy on the sidewalk begged him for some money. He told the guy, "I don't have any more money, but I just bought this pizza. I'll share a piece with you." and proceeded to hand the guy a slice. The guy just flashed him a disgusted look, yelled "I didn't say I wanted no damn pizza! I asked for money!" and dumped his pizza on the sidewalk.
Having once played in a local band myself (all original music that I'd guess you'd loosely categorize as "alternative rock"), I think I know a little bit about the "musicians clamoring to put their music in front of people" and finding it difficult.
I also think that as I've stepped back from actively being involved in that "scene", I've come to realize that it's a perpetual and universal complaint among musicians. I'm also not so sure there's any real "failure" of the system involved with it. Selling yourself has *never* been anything but a lengthy, uphill battle. Many musicians have an inflated ego which leads them to believe their music is something the masses would really enjoy listening to, if they only had the chance to really hear it. In reality, 99% of the time, the world could easily do without it.
When the average person speaks of wanting "better choice in music", they're not usually saying "I want my local radio stations to play a bunch of new stuff by completely unknown musicians, playing genre-busting songs I can't even categorize!" They're usually just saying "I wish my favorite station would play a few more songs off my favorite albums, instead of putting the same 1 or 2 songs in endless rotation."
Commercial radio is going under.... no argument. But that's because the conglomerates destroyed most of the individual "personality" the stations had before. That personality doesn't take a whole lot of change to create or nurture, and not a whole lot to destroy. It can be as simple as playing some favorite songs from a few local/regional bands, rather than a generic playlist of only nationally known acts, or as simple as having local DJs instead of syndicated morning shows heard in 50 markets simultaneously.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand what you're saying, BUT, I don't think it's made *clear* at all that this is the case. Windows Activation is made out to be the end-all ,be-all of authorizing or denying you the right to use a particular copy of Windows XP on a system. Yes, you can call Microsoft by phone and request a new activation code -- but that's a big pain. You have to read off the huge key code on your screen to a voice-recognition system on the other end, only to have it run through another time and fail to recognize your key as valid. Then you get put on hold while being forwarded to a live human, who AGAIN asks for the first part of that key on your screen. Then you get grilled about things like 'Is this a retail or an OEM version of Windows?" and "Do you have this copy installed on any other machines?", and "What is the make and model of the PC you're using?" After you answer to their satisfaction, you're finally given another key which has to be painstakenly keyed in as they read off the letters to you.
A big problem here lies in what constitutes a given system. To the typical end-user, the "original system" is the computer they purchased, no matter how many components in it eventually get replaced either under warranty, or as paid repairs after the warranty expires.
To Microsoft, however, the "original system" seems to mean the original motherboard used in the PC. If a user has a dead motherboard 3 months into ownership of the computer, and it's swapped out with a different model (happens all the time, the way motherboard manufacturers discontinue product lines and release new ones every time you turn around!), all of a sudden, XP thinks it's loaded on a different PC and activation fails.
As long as it really IS cheaper to be wasteful, then that's exactly what people will continue to do! And that also illustrates the fact that things aren't nearly as "dire" as some of the environmentalists and promoters of "less technology/simpler lifestyle" want you to believe.
... yet. When the landfills realy DO get filled up enough though, you'll see this change itself without any legislation or govt. incentives necessary.
At some point, our tendencies to embrace the disposable, short lifespan consomer goods will lead us to a situation where they're no longer the cheaper option and *that* is when you'll see change come about.
It's fine to preach about how much stuff we're tossing into landfills and trying to guilt people into changing, but all that does is push back the timeline a little bit on when it won't make economic sense anymore. A real *solution* can only come about when the best choice really becomes conservation.
Let's take, for example, recycling of glass bottles. Right now, it uses *more* total energy/resources to recycle them than it's worth. There are places that accept glass containers for recycling (though you won't get paid anything for dropping off the glass), but they're typically profitable only because of government tax breaks and subsidies. Glass is largely made up of sand, and we've got no shortage of sand. Meanwhile, think of all the diesel fuel or gasoline used to transport the waste glass around, etc.
As another example, cellphones. Currently, there's just no compelling reason for most people not to toss out an old one and get a new one (often free with a phone contract!) every 2 or 3 years. Totally wasteful and pointless, really -- except for the fact that you pay so much for the usage of the device, it makes little sense to put all of that towards some beat-up, feature-lacking phone that's starting to fall apart on you. The whole business model encourages the disposability of the hardware. It would change if consumers started getting rewarded for turning in their old phones for credit. The question is, are old cellphones really worth enough to make this a profitable option for cell companies to offer it? Apparently not
Actually, the superior cooling found in older, expensive server machines usually meant longer mean-times between failure for them. My workplace has an old Compaq Proliant server (the first real "server" they ever bought, in fact) that still runs great, even though the drives in it and everything else in it is circa 1997-98. They took it out of production about a year ago, when they got new P4 rack-mounted hardware ... but I fired it up, loaded Linux on it, and was going to use it as a web proxy server just a couple months ago. (I cancelled that attempt, only because I found another unused rack-mountable PIII box that took up less space to use instead.)
But I'd agree.... if you're talking about real *server class* PCs, it's reasonable to expect some will last 10 years or more. PC desktops or laptops however? Cutting that number in half is probably acceptable, really. The cheap fans and relative overall lack of cooling, poor grades of power supplies, and everything else will end up killing them off earlier.
I've owned 2 iPods so far, and only got rid of the first one because I wanted to upgrade to a "bigger and better" 60GB video iPod model. I've had zero problems with either of them, unless you count one time I had to do a soft-reset on the 60GB video after it froze up trying to play some corrupted MP3 files I accidently put on it.
I use mine pretty much every day, since it's normally attached to a Pioneer adapter on my car stereo.
I'm not denying *some* people have had problems with theirs, of course. But my experience is, this is a device that feels quite "solid" compared to most of the competitors. (The buttons feel like they could fall out of some of the other models I've used!) Sure - they're easy to scratch up, but that's just a cosmetic issue. In some respects, I actually like the way they show poor/rough handling like they do. It gives second-hand purchasers immediate knowledge of whether the previous owner was the type to take care of his/her electronics, or just throw them about.
Not always true! For example, I have a new Motorola Razr phone and although it supports bluetooth hotsyncing to my Mac with "iSync" - it won't sync the calendar entries at all. Keeps saying that function is "unsupported" (although it syncs the phone numbers from Address Book fine).
I think people mis-quote the original line fairly often? Wasn't it supposed to say, "Information strives to be free!"??
That seems much closer to the truth to me. Any given piece of information, relative to its usefulness to people lacking said information, is liable to be "freed" from its source and spread.
Should all information BE free? No. Should the keepers of sensitive or personal information realize that it has a strong tendency to "leak out" (and take measures to prevent it)? Yep!
Unfortunately, I think you're correct. Apple made a smart move when they started speaking of the whole "halo effect" to investors and potential investors. (Basically, Apple claimed that people would buy iPods as their introduction to Apple products, and it would then lead them down the path to buying their first Mac.) That helped tie stock price increases to the new Mac announcements, whether or not they directly generated enough sales to justify it. (Hey, it's "good news" because it potentially gives all these iPod buyers another new possibility to buy next, right!?)
I think there's some truth to the "halo effect" concept, too. iPods did give a big boost to the respect/credibility of Apple's name - and some people surely did see how well the whole iTunes/iPod thing worked together, and thought "If all the Mac stuff is this easy to use, maybe I should buy one of those computers next time?"
But I think just as often, a die-hard Windows user saw an iPod purchase as their token way to acknowledge Apple products while still shunning everything else they made. (What better a way to prove you're not just a "mindless Mac hater" than to whip out your new iPod, right? "See, I give everything a chance! But I'm telling you, Macs still suck right now!")
And now, with iPod competition heating up (as the market is about saturated anyway), it's time for Apple to push in other directions.
Yeah, I'm aware of the Mac's ability to migrate your info over from an older Mac to the new one. That's a pretty cool feature, too. Apple didn't always include that with OS X though. I forget exactly when it was rolled in with new systems, but I know I had the very last model of the G4 tower (dual processor 1.42Ghz mirrored drive-door version) and OS X on it had no such feature. I'm almost certain my original G5 dual proc. 2.0Ghz tower didn't include it either.
I disagree. Despite all the hype, switching platforms is hardly more difficult than buying a new computer running the same platform. New, out of the box, most machines come pre-loaded with some flavor of Windows - which you may or may not choose to keep on there and use. If you don't, then you're looking at a "from scratch" format and install of your OS of choice, and all the hunting for prerequisite drivers that goes with it. If you do keep it, you probably have to reboot many times as you uninstall a plethora of garbage you don't want that they threw in with the new machine. (Scratch the Norton Personal Firewall, the 30-day McAfee anti-virus trial, the "enhancements" to the media player, etc. etc.)
If you, say, switch from PC to Mac, or Mac to Linux, you're looking at pretty much the same hassles you get with a new machine. You have to reinstall all the apps you want to use on it, restore your backed-up data files of significance, etc.
If you're a self-proclaimed "nerd", I'm assuming the "learning curve" shouldn't be much of an issue? (Or do you really think guys like Mark, Tim and Cory need a while to "get the hang of" Ubuntu?)
MOST people have already concluded that Linux distros don't meet their needs, as illustrated by the fact that so many people rely on Windows every day, while many others paid quite a bit for a Mac running OS X. A few prominent people in tech. circles announcing they're tired of their previous platform of choice is no canary in a coal mine. It's more of a dull thud in the mine, ignored by all the other miners making similar but louder sounds with their pick-axes as they work.
This isn't meant to be a "troll" against Linux.... but rather, a cold, hard look at the facts. Linux enjoys great success when it's used as a mail, file, print or web server. It also enjoys success as the basis for embedded devices, from routers to PVRs. It never has been a significant player in the workstation space, and I dare say it may never be - as long as it's built "by geeks, for geeks". Geeks don't tend to add "fluff" to code just for the sake of saving a user some time reading the instructions. Geeks only consider a GUI an "afterthought project" when it relates to configuring a system-level application or service. (How many rock-solid reliable GUIs in X have you seen for point and click easy configuration of *all* the possible optiions for an Apache web server, for example? And that's a high-profile app in the Linux world that's used by many folks who use Linux for practically nothing else!)
Quite true! To this day, Corel Draw has a niche following among commercial sign-makers, because it's a great tool for working with vinyl sign cutting machines. (The "CorelTrace" portion of CorelDraw is invaluable for translating a bitmapped image to vector format so it can be sent to a sign-cutter -- which works just like a plotter, but with a knife instead of a pen. Plus, there are 3rd. party drivers like "Sign Tools 3" that add native support to CorelDraw for hundreds of sign cutters.)
They really would have been best served to concentrate on sales of CorelDraw, instead of many of the other projects they chose to do. Especially now with the merger of Adobe and Macromedia, it looks like choices in graphics tools will become even more limited. (Most indications point to Adobe cancelling Macromedia's "Freehand" illustrating software.)
I don't think they've put out a Mac OS X version of CorelDraw in quite some time, despite having a pretty new WIndows edition. That would be a good place to start, with Macs being so popular with graphics professionals.
I think Corel was always looking for that "next big break" instead of accepting the idea that they could do well for themselves as a niche market player with a few useful, time-tested products. WordPerfect is still the word processor of choice for many folks in the legal field, despite the "general public" having switched to MS Word as a general rule. (Law firms tend to be heavy users of complex macros and templates - and they tend to have lots of custom stuff built for WordPerfect that they rely on daily.) It's these special groups of users of their "classic" products they need to start catering to.
That's what I'm talking about.... no analog signal degradation. The original source being "heavily compressed" is hardly the point, since if you think that's a noticeable problem with the source audio - then you probably have no business being a customer of that music service in the first place.
To my ears, the material I'm getting from iTunes or Yahoo music sounds "near CD quality". Granted, I'm not trying to play it back on multi-thousand dollar speakers or stereos. But I am picky enough a listener to despise most 128-bit MP3 music I've downloaded from p2p sources. (To me, most of it sounds "dull" and "compressed"... FM radio quality at best.)
When I re-encode this material to MP3 minus the DRM, I always select 192-bit, which doesn't seem to lose anything discernable over the DRM source.
I've got a hands-free kit for my cellphone, but when the batteries need recharging in it (it's a remote speakerphone type of gadget that clips on the visor), I've had to take calls holding my flip-phone while driving.
I know for sure I feel "distracted" when I have to do this, vs. being able to have a conversation with both hands on the wheel.
In fact, trying to take a call on a cellphone before I had a hands-free kit used to really bother me while driving. I *knew* it was making me a less attentive driver, trying to hold onto the phone with one hand the whole time - plus the psychological factors at work. (You get so accustomed to the idea of concentrating on a caller when a phone is held to your ear that it's hard to change habits for a cell used in the car.) With a hands-free kit, I really don't think it interferes at all.... I just quit talking/listening for a minute if something dangerous is happening in front of me.
For that matter, I think many people overlook another "twist" on burning music to CD. Products like Nero allow a virtual disc to be created. So you don't even have to use up any physical CD media to accomplish this type of conversion.
Honestly, I think DRM on digital music is going to prove to be utterly pointless - since computers allow making perfect digital copies of the original work, as long as it can be played on the system at all. It only serves to add an extra "speed bump" in the way of making copies of the songs you download.
Right now, for example, any Windows user can sign up for one of these unlimited music download services like Yahoo Music, Virgin Digital, or Rhapsody, and with a $19 copy of "muvaudio", batch process everything they download into DRM-free MP3s of any bitrate they desire. It uses "virtual audio patch cable" device drivers to make lossless digital copies of the music while it plays in Media Player, even keeping any sounds generated by other applications separate from what's recording, so you can still use the PC while it works.
Apple Mac users can do something pretty similar with "Audio Hijaack Pro" (although maybe not quite as automated and "fancy" with handling queued up playlists of songs).
The thing with Yahoo email is, they partnered up with other big players, so they host more email than you might at first realize.
EG. I've been a Southwestern Bell DSL Internet customer for years. At one point, SBC partnered up with Yahoo, and migrated email over to Yahoo's servers. I still got to keep my "@swbell.net" address, however. It just runs through Yahoo POP and SMTP servers instead of SBC's own mail server.
Many other users of SBC/AT&T DSL services are doing similar things with addresses ending in "@sbcglobal.net".
Yep! The thing is, whenever you have a company releasing new products that are designed significantly differently than the "norm", or differently than their own previous products, *and* they're not exactly a "market leader" in sales to begin with - you're going to have some flaws in first revisions.
I bought a Macbook Pro about 5 weeks after they were released, and mine arrived completely dead. It was obvious it was getting power, but that was about it. No display or sound.... That was quite irritating, but to Apple's credit, they shipped me a replacement that arrived with absolutely no issues. (None of the buzzing, whining, extreme overheating, sound only out of one speaker, or any of that other stuff you see complaints about on these machines.) I've used it almost every day since then and so far, so good.
I also had a "rev. 1" PowerMac G5 dual 2.0Ghz tower that always seemed to be just a little "flaky". I must have owned it for close to a year, using it all the time, and still couldn't really pin down anything specific. It just crashed a little more often than it should have, and had an above-average number of odd problems with "sleep" mode and so forth, which seemed to always vary with OS X updates. (And yes, I swapped out RAM, reformatted the drives and reinstalled OS X from scratch, etc. etc.) I ended up selling it and getting a newer revision of the exact same PowerMac G5 and to this day, I use this one and it's rock solid by comparison.
So yeah, my recent experience bear out the fact that Apple products are good, but only after you give them a chance to iron out the bugs in a particular model.
Sure... but your advice is just like telling people not to "waste $10 or so for a movie ticket,when you can wait long enough and see that same movie a year later for as little as $3.99 in someone's DVD bargain bin!"
We're all aware of that, and most of us do that from time to time. But there's also some value/enjoyment in getting your hands on something brand new, and getting to be among the first to experience it. It is, after all, entertainment - and not anything you HAVE to buy/own. If you get a kick out of bragging rights for a little while that you've got a game title that everyone else you know still "wants to see" - that might be worth an extra $20-30, every so often?
In the past, I would have scoffed at the idea of "video game addiction" being a valid concept. Traditionally, sure, you had people who *really* liked playing video games - but even then, most games involved you vs. the machine. Eventually, you'd solve all the puzzles, finish the levels, or just plain get burnt out on the repetition of it all. Once you've mastered the art of defeating the A.I. in a given game title, it quickly loses its charm. (I remember all of my friends who bought the sports games for their consoles, and within weeks, were guaranteed to start complaining about how it got "too easy" to do certain sequences of moves and perpetually fake out the computer.)
Therefore, your options were either A) invite a friend or two over and play "head to head" against each other instead of vs. the console or computer, or B) quit gaming for a while, until something else exciting enough was released and you had money to buy a copy.
With either choice, you were getting in some social interaction with other people, and were likely to get distracted from the "gaming" interest for a little while too.
But MMORPGs are a whole different beast. All of a sudden, not only is the world your playground, but you're *always* playing against real people on the other end. No longer do you feel that bit of guilt when you can't get any of your friends to come over to play you at the game because they've all got "better things to do". You *always* have willing opponents. The game designers even keep modifying the world you play in so it doesn't get too "stale".
I won't go so far as to claim an MMORPG "ruined my marriage", but it was a big contrbuting factor. My ex-wife got hooked on Shadowbane, to the point where we'd really have nothing to talk about when I got home from work besides her babbling on about this or that event that happened in the game. We had a kid, and I started realizing that while I was at work, she was often neglecting her to play her game during the day. (One of my friends clued me in when he told me about coming over and finding my kid up on a glass kitchen table, about to fall off, while she was completely oblivious because she was in the computer room concentrating on organizing a raiding party against someone's "clan".) I even had to deal with long-distance phone calls coming in at 3AM from people on the other side of the planet calling to get her to sign in to the game because their group had something or other "important" going on. (I guess they forgot about the time zone differences?)
I can see it already.... Idiots are going to be seen with one of these things backing up and turning their car a little bit, moving forward a few feet again, etc. etc. - trying to make sure they've got exactly what they want in the camera's view to snap a "perfect" photo for the location they're at.
I agree with the other person who posted a complaint that too many devices are adding useless "fluff", trying too hard to be "unique" instead of incorporating truly useful featurea in their products. Sure, it may not be as "sexy" to sell durability or reliability, but frankly, I'd much rather pay for an appliance that'll last 5-10 more years, or a laptop computer that won't die the first time I accidently drop it on a concrete floor than for some gee-whiz, unneeded gadget merged into it.
With all the cameras being put in cellphones, you'd think practically everyone would be able to capture a photo of anyplace they happen to go already. Does a GPS system need to do it too??
Oh, come on... If they put them in the bathroom, they're just *begging* for artistic editing to be done to them. A pair of eyes? Where's my sharpie? This needs a nose, a mouth, a couple ears, some goofy hair and a mustache.....
Oh, I doubt very much the publisher *wanted* the BSA to come audit them voluntarily. Typically, the BSA use scare-tactics and threats to convince you to let them audit you, instead of "forcing them to take further steps" involving lawsuits.
They can't *make* a company let them in to audit their software, but a company's refusal to allow a voluntary audit, coupled with a signed statement from an ex-employee stating he/she observed illegal software in use there is enough to get the law involved.
If you cooperate with the BSA thugs, sure - they'll offer to waive any fines or fees, and may even negotiate some sort of discounted "package deal" on licensing everything you were illegally using before. These folks are supported and funded by commercial software developers, after all. If anyone can arrange a "special discount" on your licensing, you'd think the BSA would rank up near the top of the list.
If a company wanted my advice on how to deal with a BSA threat, I'd recommend they pay their attorney to shoot back a letter stating that "To the best of our knowledge and ability, we believe ourselves to be fully compliant on all of our software licensing." and point out that they will NOT be allowing any private organizations to perform audits on their property. (Then, of course, it would be wise to make sure you are, indeed, compliant. If not, delete the software that's not supposed to be installed and perhaps replace with suitable open-source or inexpensive shareware alternatives.)
It's not (normally) that someone is too lazy to get up and walk over to the soda fountain to refill their own drink!
The reason a lot of customers come in and order a larger drink, despite "free refills" is because they want to take a decent amount of soda with them when they leave. If you only order a small drink, sure - you can refill it as much as you like while you're in the restaurant... but many people want to take the cup with them in the car and drink some of it after they get back to work or whatever.
I think the rationale behind the time-limts on eBay auctions was the idea that the longer an auction is listed, the more "eyeballs" get a chance to view it. eBay could also make the argument that auctions that run longer are more "expensive" for them to host in terms of system resources and bandwidth. Therefore, they could justify billing higher initial listing fees, relative to the time-limits imposed on them.
But yeah, "sniping" has gotten so prevelant on eBay that on any given item, you're pretty much either going to be the *only* bidder due to it being so specialized that barely anyone would want it, or you're going to have to snipe at the end to win it.
I think you're correct that moving to secret bids might make the most sense for both eBay and users. Let it work just like it does today, except give all auction listers the option to set a "reserve price" at no extra charge, and then only display the reserve or starting bid amount until the end. Indicating the number of people who placed bids would be incentive for people to bump up their high bid, if they start getting scared they've got competition - but that's probably all that needs to be shown. Not only would secret auctions eliminate the sniping issue, but it would also put a stop to shill bidding.
One of my best friends was short on money, but used some of the last cash he had in his wallet to get a pizza. As he was walking back to his apartment with it, a homeless guy on the sidewalk begged him for some money. He told the guy, "I don't have any more money, but I just bought this pizza. I'll share a piece with you." and proceeded to hand the guy a slice. The guy just flashed him a disgusted look, yelled "I didn't say I wanted no damn pizza! I asked for money!" and dumped his pizza on the sidewalk.
So yes, this sort of thing does happen.
Having once played in a local band myself (all original music that I'd guess you'd loosely categorize as "alternative rock"), I think I know a little bit about the "musicians clamoring to put their music in front of people" and finding it difficult.
I also think that as I've stepped back from actively being involved in that "scene", I've come to realize that it's a perpetual and universal complaint among musicians. I'm also not so sure there's any real "failure" of the system involved with it. Selling yourself has *never* been anything but a lengthy, uphill battle. Many musicians have an inflated ego which leads them to believe their music is something the masses would really enjoy listening to, if they only had the chance to really hear it. In reality, 99% of the time, the world could easily do without it.
When the average person speaks of wanting "better choice in music", they're not usually saying "I want my local radio stations to play a bunch of new stuff by completely unknown musicians, playing genre-busting songs I can't even categorize!" They're usually just saying "I wish my favorite station would play a few more songs off my favorite albums, instead of putting the same 1 or 2 songs in endless rotation."
Commercial radio is going under.... no argument. But that's because the conglomerates destroyed most of the individual "personality" the stations had before. That personality doesn't take a whole lot of change to create or nurture, and not a whole lot to destroy. It can be as simple as playing some favorite songs from a few local/regional bands, rather than a generic playlist of only nationally known acts, or as simple as having local DJs instead of syndicated morning shows heard in 50 markets simultaneously.