What reason do they give? "We don't ship to APO/FPO" is a common 'excuse'.
Who is it and what are you trying to buy?
I forget what game specifically I was trying to buy, but the store in question was amazon.com. They ship just fine to APO/FPO addresses, they just say something along the lines of "due to customs restrictions we are unable to ship certain items to APO/FPO." Like I said, I tried adding the Xbox version to my cart, to see if it would get through the shipping phase with that, and it had no problems. (I even made sure it wasn't through an amazon.com partner, like Office Depot, as I know most of those don't do APO either...but both items were straight from amazon.com)
And then when I tried finding it on a different store, I ran into the same problems (either the store in general wouldn't do APO, or wouldn't ship software to APOs). Like I said, I think there is some kind of customs restriction on software ordered overseas.
I had it shipped to my wife instead, and had her send it...though I made sure she didn't mention it on the customs slip!:) Just sucks because it adds several days to an already lengthy shipping process.
I recently looked to buy something only available in the US but found that the company didn't ship to the UK, not because of shipping costs but because of the hassle of the form filling.
Welcome to off-topic land, but I just have to say something. I am a soldier deployed in Iraq, and have found that for some reason I cannot order software online and have it shipped here. I'm a US citizen on a US installation trying to buy something from a US store and have it delivered by the US mail system (even though the army handles part of it, they would still be a US entity), and for some reason I cannot do so. Even sillier because there is some computer software available at the post exchange here. And even sillier because I could legally have the Xbox version of the PC game I was trying to buy shipped here, no problem (from the same store, even).
Oh and while we're at it: 99c a song is acceptable, 9.99 per album is not, specifically for some crippled format, which may or may not play in three years. You cut out the middleman and a whole lot of manufacturing -, distribution and logistics in the process and I - as the consumer - want at least a part of that savings reflected on the price.
You might want to address this to somebody more appropriate, such as "Dear RIAA." Apple does not have as much control as you might think over the prices of songs on the iTMS...in fact, if I remember correctly, they've had to fight the record labels a couple times when they wanted Apple to raise their prices (especially on albums). I believe that is the reason that many albums are not even available at the 9.99 price, but instead you are forced to buy all the songs on the album individually (leading to 19 and 20 dollar DRM'd lossy-encoded albums!); the record lables refuse to license some albums for sale on their store at that price, but but instead just allow sales of the songs.
I hate DRM, and I hate the idea of paying 9.99 for an album off iTunes (which is why I never have)...but let's give credit where credit is due. Apple has gone with the least DRM and the lowest prices that the record companies will allow them, or something very close to it.
Remember, Apple does not own the music they sell. They are simply a reseller...most of your complaints are regarding the companies actually producing the product Apple sells.
As for their 128kb encoding rates...well, even Apple is stupid sometimes. Unless that was another concession to the record companies. But I think that was just their (bad) choice. I've found AAC files as low as 192kb to be rather nice, qualitywise, however....320 just seems unneccesary to me.
You could rent from Blockbuster before the DVD is officially released, but could you actually buy the DVD?
Generally street date for rental and sell-thru on DVD is the same day...in fact in the couple years I was a manager at BBV I don't remember any exceptions. Only with VHS do movies come out for rental before sale. And even with those, it isn't that they are unavailable for sale, it is just that they are not priced reasonably for sell-thru. You can buy any VHS movie on the day it is released for rental, but the ones that aren't intended for consumer purchase are going to run you upwards of a hundred and twenty bucks. When all DVDs started doing same-date releases for rental and sell-thru, customers who refused to buy DVD players would always bug me about why they couldn't buy the movie for a reasonable price on VHS. I'd just tell them it was because Hollywood hated them.
And to answer the GP, yes the street date does in general have legal "teeth" behind it, if the studios/distributors decide to pursue it. I know that every so often, especially if there is a huge release coming out, we will send somebody to all the other video stores (and some retail chains) to see if anybody put it out early. Generally it's not a problem, except for the occasional non-standard release date (movie street dates are, with few exceptions, almost always on Tuesdays...but sometimes they'll bump it back to a Friday, for instance).
As far as games go, I don't remember them ever having enforced street dates, just recommended ones, though that could have changed over the last couple years. The guidance at our store (as well as the local GameStop, when I asked those guys) was always "if it's in the store, you can sell it." Generally games never shipped early enough to hit the store much before street date, especially if you're towards the end of the supply chain (which we were...stores in my area were lucky to have games on the street date. I imagine with the release of certain games getting much larger (think Halo 2 or GTA: San Andreas), I imagine publishers are shipping games much earlier, and thus having to require stores to adhere to street dates.
Instead of taking my comment as an attack on Apple in general, maybe read it in the context of the article. But for your benefit: Apple hasn't 'won' since 1986 in any major markets, so he's not really in a position to comment. I'm sure in your Apple Club, everyone has an iPod and downloads their music from iTunes, but in real life online digital music sales make up less than 1% total sales and mp3 players have enjoyed far less market penetration than for instance, DVD players, or cell phones which can take pictures.
I don't know, but I from where I'm sitting digital music players seem to be becoming a major market quite quickly. Sony seems to think they're a major market, as they continue to try to compete with Apple in it.
And it's not just in somebody's Apple Club that everybody has an iPod (or other digital music player). Perhaps you haven't been on a college campus lately. Or in a gym. Maybe they haven't achieved the market penetration that DVD players have...but then again, if I remember correctly, DVD players had a few years' head start.
Also, and maybe I run in strange circles, but I know a lot more people with digital music players (actually, more people specifically with iPods of some form or another) than people with cellphones that can take pictures.
Uhmmm. Wrong. I use FireFox on windows at work exclusively and it most definitely does have the middle click. I don't even remember having to change any settings to enable it. In fact I find no difference in interface between windows at work and Debian at home. Both work exactly the same way with no trouble. MPLayer's plugin even works to play WMV and ASF files with no trouble or tweaking. I may be unique or something but I do know that firefox on windows offers all the same functionality of firefox on linux.
I think he may be talking about one of the beta releases...if I remember correctly either.8 or.9 (might have been as old as.7) didn't by default have the middle-click to tab feature, though there was a tabbed browsing extension that added this option. It has been standard since either the.9 or 1.0 release.
Now one can use Firefox on Windows with no extensions whatsoever (except perhaps the java and flash plugins) and be perfectly satisfied. Except for the odd site that uses hordes of IE fudgecode.
I've got too much experience with Windows to consider it for an enterprise environment.
I wonder how long it will take Windows to shake this ugly stigma. Really, Windows 2000 and Windows XP are quite stable. Perhaps not quite *nix levels of stable, but by no means the crash-prone, BSOD regurgitating monsters that people still talk about.
Of course, that just makes them competetive, not better.:)
1) its an unnessicarily large application, taking up 80-90% of the screen. Contrast with winamp that is about 5 pixles by 50 pixles tucked into the corner of the screen (in minimal mode). so much space is waisted by itunes it reminds me of the difference between meadia player classic and media player 9. the latter sucking balls.
Um, you know that iTunes has a miniplayer mode, right? Not nearly as small as WinAmp's (I really do like WinAmp as a straight player), but by no means 80-90% of the screen...unless you're in 320x200 mode, perhaps.
As for size, I think if you have space for a 10+ gigabyte music library, the size of iTunes isn't going to be a dealbreaker. iTunes does a lot more than WinAmp does...whether or not you want those features, they really do justify the size difference. When you have a broadband connection and an 80 GB (or even 30 GB) hard drive, 600KB vs. 10MB is really no difference at all.
The rest of your complaints are valid, though I'd chalk them up more to difference of opinion than anything. WinAmp's actual player is damn good, and every now and then I still use it over iTunes. However, for a more apples to apples comparison, I've found WinAmp's "Media Library" feature to be kludgy and just downright awful compared to iTunes. So it depends what you're looking for.
Tell the teachers that "every dollar that goes to Microsoft takes away from the salaries they deserve." This should break past the FUD that Microsoft spreads.
Right, because we all know that the money they save on Office licenses will go to salary increases for teachers, right? Oh wait...no they won't. And you, me, and the teachers are all well aware of that.
Personally, I'd rather see the money go to Microsoft than to new football uniforms, big-screen TV's in the classrooms, or other equally silly expenditures. Of course, I'd rather see it burnt in a big barrel that we can all dance around than either, so maybe I'm just a jerk. In a perfect world, it would go to the teachers, but in America we seem to think they don't deserve any more than they already get paid (though we say otherwise!). So screw it, you get the matches and I'll get the lighter fluid.
Husband of a teacher, in case you were wondering. Maybe I'm just bitter.:)
I hear this "OpenOffice.org opens Office document when Office can't" story a lot.
I have no problem believe that OOo can open some Office documents when Office can't...especially when you're talking about different versions of Office.
However, I think much more common, but less commonly reported, is the "OOo royally screwed up the formatting in my Office document when I tried to load it up. This blows!" story. The reason you hear so much of the former is that it is unexpected, while the latter is no real surprise. This does not mean the former is more common than the latter.
I know we all want OOo to be perfect, so we can convice the world how much better than Office it is. But let's be honest with ourselves. Hell, you can even chalk it up to MS using proprietary formats and not releasing all the specs. I don't care. But OOo's support for Office documents is very far from perfect. And as long as that is the case, there will be serious resistance to switching in most organizations.
Is this another tactic MS uses to protect their monopoly(ies)? Of course. But that still doesn't magically make OOo's Office document support better. Just makes you want it to be.
Oh, and yes I have used OOo to open Office documents, both.doc and.xls. No, I have not had one.doc containing more advanced formatting that center or right-justify come up the same in OOo as it does in Word.
SNES games still look fantastic to day, PSX games look unplayable.. work it out from there..
That's got a little more to do with 2D games aging better than 3D games, I'd say, than Nintendo. Example of PSX game that is perfectly playable (even downright pretty) to this day: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. This is also the reason that GB games age better. Graphics weren't as much of a selling point on a lot of those old 2D games, gameplay was.
This is actually the reason that the DS makes me somewhat sad. The GBA really was the last great refuge for the 2D gamer.
Legitimately usable, reliable, and affordable wireless controllers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Nintendo the -only- one of the three that has created a wireless controller for their own system? Aren't you pretty much doomed to third party crap for the other systems. Just thought it bore mentioning.
The Wavebird is a thing of beauty. Actually, I like the entire GC controller, except for how insanely large the "A" button is. That was...shall we say, not the best of ideas.
I remember Penny Arcade did a strip once upon a time regarding this...I have it on my hard drive, but can't find in anymore online, so no linkage...but the dialogue was something lke this:
"I'm sick of this kid's game adult's game crap. Just because a game has colors doesn't mean it isn't cool. You want to know how cool your video games are, ask your fscking girlfriend how cool. And if you don't have a girlfriend? That's part of the test."
Yes, the GameCube was/is a toy. But it's a toy that adults can enjoy as well. And once you get past the shock value (which most 14-23-year-olds never do), Grand Theft Auto isn't anywhere near as fun as many Cube games. Hell, I got more mileage out of Pikmin.
Then again, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.
Nothing against PS2 and XBox, but I have absolutely no interest in following the adventures of "Master Chief," or Ico. I'm sure these games are good, but I won't be playing them.
You aren't enthralled by the thrilling adventures and deep emotional development of Master Chief?
Seriously, though, you should check out Ico sometime...as a die-hard Nintendo fanboy you'd probably love it...it felt like it belonged on the GameCube, in every way that is good.
I had the joy of "re-discovering" my GameCube when I came over to Iraq...I had left the Xbox as a spare DVD player for my wife, since most of the games I played on it were for Live anyway. I haven't missed it. For outstanding one-player goodness, and multiplayer (as in "in the same room" multiplayer, compared to online multiplayer) fun, the Cube was in many ways the best console of this generation. That said, I've still played the Xbox more overall, just because of Live. Take me from my broadband, though, and it has to be the Cube.
I don't know that I've ever used any kind of search to find a file on my computer...at least not successfully. Usually I keep all my stuff pretty organized, so on the few occasionas I've had to resort to search, it just ended up confirming that I had, in fact, accidentally deleted the damn file.
Hence my healthy disdain for search apps, I suppose.
I just don't understand "consoles have to be purchased and maintained for years to come". What maintenance are you talking about?
Well, one way to look at it is that consoles do need to be maintained so that they will still run for years to come, whereas I can just go buy any PC and play games from yesteryear (as long as they aren't too old...such as old DOS games). I recently had to replace the power supply in my Xbox, and since modern consoles have more moving parts (as compared to, say, an SNES or Genesis), this could be a problem.
Then again, I don't think that was what he was getting at. I don't think his message was coherent at all, really...I mean, consoles have to be purchased and maintained? As if PCs DON'T have to be purchased and maintained? And I'd like him to show me one PC purchased in 2001 that runs Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory...and no, no upgrades allowed. I guarantee it cost more than 300 dollars at the time.
Let me put forward a little statistic of my own, gathered from what I've seen over the last few years as a network admin.
Number of computers compromised as a result of IE usage: 8 this year. Number of computers compromised as a result of Firefox usage: 0 (ever)
But TFA (as well as common sense) would put forward that that could have a little bit to do with installed base. How many people do you hvae using IE, and how many using Firefox. Even having 0 compromised computers isn't impressive if the userbase is small enough. If the IE/Mozilla ration was more than 8:1, one might even expect to see 0 computers compromised. The "ever" part is especially amusing, because unless I'm mistaking Firefox has only been officially released for a year...granted, I was using it back in the beta days, as were many others...but not THAT many.
I think it will be interesting to see what happens in a year or two, if/when Mozilla gets a larger market share and the black hats have had more time to find exploits.
Though, this is still a win-win situation, because worst case you will see the jackasses of the world having to split their efforts to attack multiple browsers.
Those programmers who are talented and ambitious work in game studios. Those programmers who aren't do it for free. FOSS just happens to fall into the mix.
I'd say that those programmers that are ambitious work at game studios (or, you know, other software-related jobs)...and lack of ambition is not necessarily always a bad thing. Game studios hardly have the market on talent cornered...in fact, I'd say many game studios are severely lacking in it.
Also, while I haven't yet had a chance to play the game, judging by the feature list this is NOT simply a clone of a commercial product. They didn't just reverse-engineer Civilization. I see several interesting features added into the mix that Civilization (even Civ 3) lacked. That would, of course, be the point of a project like this: take a game you love, and give yourself the ability to tweak and customize it.
That point seems to be lost on a lot of people. Is Freeciv the answer to bringing linux to the desktop, the path to world peace, or the secret to whiter teeth? Um...no. Is it even really an impressive programming breakthrough? I'll go out on a limb and say no. Is it pretty cool, especially for longtime Civilization fans? I'm feeling a yes.
First, yes AOL should have to pay...the reason? Because the wrongdoing in question was absolutely linked to the employees actual job. If an employee of a photocopy chain runs over somebody while driving drunk, it is not the employers liability. If an employer of a pizza joint runs over somebody while driving drunk...while delivering pizza for that pizza joint...you can bet your ass the employer is liable. And once the victim is done suing the pants off the pizza joint, the pizza joint has the right to sue the pants off the driver to get back whatever they can. And I'm sure AOL will be trying to nail this guy's ass to the wall as well.
Oh, and the reason for the general "sue the money" mentality in this case (and many others)? Because in general individuals don't have the money to cover the kind of damages they can create, but the companies that employ them do. We don't pay police officers enough to cover the kind of damages likely to be awarded in a wrongful death suit, thus the department/city gets sued. If the world didn't work this way, nobody would be able to afford to be a cop, or even a pizza driver...because the "malpractice-style" insurance would cost too damn much. Doctors can afford it because we need less of them than, say, police officers, thus they get paid a lot more. But now we're getting into more complex economic issues...bottom line is that companies should be, in fact need to be, liable for what their employees do in the line of duty.
As for companies watching their employees, you bet your ass employers should be doing this, especially in certain cases. You put a guy in chat rooms with tons of teenage girls, maybe you should be keeping an eye on him every now and then. I'd say you should have those guys on a 1:3 ratio...that way they know they are being watched at least a third of the time, which is more than enough to curb most urges (and catch those it doesn't). Maybe 1:4. Also, because it is much harder to convince another employee that your proposed relation with a teenage girl is alright, and he shouldn't report it. This would have been simple to prevent, or catch much more quickly, if AOL had had a little sense. Hence the reason AOL is suing.
Employers have the responsibility to monitor their employees, especially if said employees are in a position that lends itself to wrongdoing. The cameras above a bank teller's head aren't just for catching bank robbers, and police departments have internal affairs divisions for a reason. I'd say having an overage guy hang out in chatrooms with underage girls all day falls in the same category. Somebody should be watching these people.
As a side note, anywhere in the above that I used "teenage" to refer to girls, I was implying "underage" as well. Just too lazy to fix it.
Federal, state and local governments have censors on what can and cannot be transmitted over public air-waves (ie. radio and tv).
Usually only in _broadcast_ mediums...radio, TV, etc. WiFi is more of a point-to-point medium, such as a cellphone or cordless phone. While the transmissions could very much be monitored or intercepted by a third party, they are very much not intended to be (unlike CB, for instance, where everybody is expected to be able to hear your conversation). So yes, you can still swear on your cellphone, and you can still look at porn over WiFi. Transmission vs. broadcast.
As long as pornography is not covered under the 1st Amendment, then why shouldn't a community have the right to ensure that little Billy doesn't stumble on to some kinky German fetish site while he's playing around on his laptop while his parents are using the bathrooms at a rest stop?
Something I (and strangely enough, my conservative wife) feel strongly about is parents responsibility to protect their children from such things, and the governments lack of responsibliy to do it for them. You are perfectly free to protect little Billy as zealously as you want to: in your home. If little Billy just needs to use the WiFi at the truck stop (just sounds like a bad idea, no?), you STILL have options. You could install software on little Billy's computer itself to do some filtering. Or you could...you know, be a parent and monitor what the hell your child does. The world is not a sandbox, and not everything in the world is appropriate for children. You want to protect him from it, pay attention.
Hell, in the world we live in nowadays, why the hell is any child young enough to be called "little Billy" being left alone at a truck stop anyway, especially with an expensive piece of electronics equipment? Which are you shooting for: your child getting kidnapped and raped, or just robbed?
I remember at time when parents were expected to do parenting, not the community.
All that said, constitutionally the state probably has the right to do this, but I definitely have the right to bitch about it. And as much as you might say this is just a reason not to move to Texas, it's getting harder and harder to find a place in this country outside the conservatives' reach...
Ico had an emotional pull like few other games I've played.
Ico, however, struck me as more genre defying than genre defining. I mean, it was part platformer, part puzzle, but never truly felt like either to me. Absolutely excellent, though. This game alone would justify the purchase of a PS2, even today, if I didn't already have one.
That said, for RPGs I'm gonna have to go with the Ultima VII collection, though. Those were damn good games, and sometimes I still find myself comparing games to them.
With regards to security fixes, there is an additional stipulation: large numbers of security fixes are the mark of healthy and vibrant software if and only if they come out before hordes of machines running your software are converted into zombie boxes spewing spam, DOS attacks, etc. across the internet.
The dial-up vs. broadband argument seems to depend whether you see net access as a form of entertainment or a tool. If all you need net access for is email and banking, dial-up is fine. But if you're using the net for finding new music, webcam chatting (talking about with family, not porn), multiplayer gaming, etc, it won't really work. And "surfing the web" (a term that has always annoyed me, personally) is much more enjoyable with broadband as well.
I think the reason people in the US haven't gravitated more to broadband is twofold: one, it is still too expensive here. Most areas have you paying anywhere from 30-40 a month (if not more), and that's assuming you get another service from the same company (local phone or cable). The lock-in effect there makes switching providers and comparison shopping a pain as well. Second, most Americans still prefer their entertainment to be pretty much one-directional. Sit in front of TV. Change channels until TV overlords put something on you want to watch. Vegetate. Repeat until bedtime.
Strangely, I think given more access to high-speed internet, most Americans would snap out of their TV induced daze long enough to realize what the hell is going on in the world around them. But that's an argument for a whole 'nother day.
Slashdot Mirror
What reason do they give? "We don't ship to APO/FPO" is a common 'excuse'.
:) Just sucks because it adds several days to an already lengthy shipping process.
Who is it and what are you trying to buy?
I forget what game specifically I was trying to buy, but the store in question was amazon.com. They ship just fine to APO/FPO addresses, they just say something along the lines of "due to customs restrictions we are unable to ship certain items to APO/FPO." Like I said, I tried adding the Xbox version to my cart, to see if it would get through the shipping phase with that, and it had no problems. (I even made sure it wasn't through an amazon.com partner, like Office Depot, as I know most of those don't do APO either...but both items were straight from amazon.com)
And then when I tried finding it on a different store, I ran into the same problems (either the store in general wouldn't do APO, or wouldn't ship software to APOs). Like I said, I think there is some kind of customs restriction on software ordered overseas.
I had it shipped to my wife instead, and had her send it...though I made sure she didn't mention it on the customs slip!
I recently looked to buy something only available in the US but found that the company didn't ship to the UK, not because of shipping costs but because of the hassle of the form filling.
Welcome to off-topic land, but I just have to say something. I am a soldier deployed in Iraq, and have found that for some reason I cannot order software online and have it shipped here. I'm a US citizen on a US installation trying to buy something from a US store and have it delivered by the US mail system (even though the army handles part of it, they would still be a US entity), and for some reason I cannot do so. Even sillier because there is some computer software available at the post exchange here. And even sillier because I could legally have the Xbox version of the PC game I was trying to buy shipped here, no problem (from the same store, even).
So go figure.
Oh and while we're at it: 99c a song is acceptable, 9.99 per album is not, specifically for some crippled format, which may or may not play in three years. You cut out the middleman and a whole lot of manufacturing -, distribution and logistics in the process and I - as the consumer - want at least a part of that savings reflected on the price.
You might want to address this to somebody more appropriate, such as "Dear RIAA." Apple does not have as much control as you might think over the prices of songs on the iTMS...in fact, if I remember correctly, they've had to fight the record labels a couple times when they wanted Apple to raise their prices (especially on albums). I believe that is the reason that many albums are not even available at the 9.99 price, but instead you are forced to buy all the songs on the album individually (leading to 19 and 20 dollar DRM'd lossy-encoded albums!); the record lables refuse to license some albums for sale on their store at that price, but but instead just allow sales of the songs.
I hate DRM, and I hate the idea of paying 9.99 for an album off iTunes (which is why I never have)...but let's give credit where credit is due. Apple has gone with the least DRM and the lowest prices that the record companies will allow them, or something very close to it.
Remember, Apple does not own the music they sell. They are simply a reseller...most of your complaints are regarding the companies actually producing the product Apple sells.
As for their 128kb encoding rates...well, even Apple is stupid sometimes. Unless that was another concession to the record companies. But I think that was just their (bad) choice. I've found AAC files as low as 192kb to be rather nice, qualitywise, however....320 just seems unneccesary to me.
You could rent from Blockbuster before the DVD is officially released, but could you actually buy the DVD?
Generally street date for rental and sell-thru on DVD is the same day...in fact in the couple years I was a manager at BBV I don't remember any exceptions. Only with VHS do movies come out for rental before sale. And even with those, it isn't that they are unavailable for sale, it is just that they are not priced reasonably for sell-thru. You can buy any VHS movie on the day it is released for rental, but the ones that aren't intended for consumer purchase are going to run you upwards of a hundred and twenty bucks. When all DVDs started doing same-date releases for rental and sell-thru, customers who refused to buy DVD players would always bug me about why they couldn't buy the movie for a reasonable price on VHS. I'd just tell them it was because Hollywood hated them.
And to answer the GP, yes the street date does in general have legal "teeth" behind it, if the studios/distributors decide to pursue it. I know that every so often, especially if there is a huge release coming out, we will send somebody to all the other video stores (and some retail chains) to see if anybody put it out early. Generally it's not a problem, except for the occasional non-standard release date (movie street dates are, with few exceptions, almost always on Tuesdays...but sometimes they'll bump it back to a Friday, for instance).
As far as games go, I don't remember them ever having enforced street dates, just recommended ones, though that could have changed over the last couple years. The guidance at our store (as well as the local GameStop, when I asked those guys) was always "if it's in the store, you can sell it." Generally games never shipped early enough to hit the store much before street date, especially if you're towards the end of the supply chain (which we were...stores in my area were lucky to have games on the street date. I imagine with the release of certain games getting much larger (think Halo 2 or GTA: San Andreas), I imagine publishers are shipping games much earlier, and thus having to require stores to adhere to street dates.
Agreed. It apparently okay to copy if you are going to release the product for free.
It's like saying it is okay to cheat as long as you also share your answers with everyone else.
No, I think a better analogy would be that it's okay to cheat as long as the test isn't for credit. In this case "credit" would represent "money."
Instead of taking my comment as an attack on Apple in general, maybe read it in the context of the article. But for your benefit: Apple hasn't 'won' since 1986 in any major markets, so he's not really in a position to comment. I'm sure in your Apple Club, everyone has an iPod and downloads their music from iTunes, but in real life online digital music sales make up less than 1% total sales and mp3 players have enjoyed far less market penetration than for instance, DVD players, or cell phones which can take pictures.
I don't know, but I from where I'm sitting digital music players seem to be becoming a major market quite quickly. Sony seems to think they're a major market, as they continue to try to compete with Apple in it.
And it's not just in somebody's Apple Club that everybody has an iPod (or other digital music player). Perhaps you haven't been on a college campus lately. Or in a gym. Maybe they haven't achieved the market penetration that DVD players have...but then again, if I remember correctly, DVD players had a few years' head start.
Also, and maybe I run in strange circles, but I know a lot more people with digital music players (actually, more people specifically with iPods of some form or another) than people with cellphones that can take pictures.
Uhmmm. Wrong. I use FireFox on windows at work exclusively and it most definitely does have the middle click. I don't even remember having to change any settings to enable it. In fact I find no difference in interface between windows at work and Debian at home. Both work exactly the same way with no trouble. MPLayer's plugin even works to play WMV and ASF files with no trouble or tweaking. I may be unique or something but I do know that firefox on windows offers all the same functionality of firefox on linux.
.8 or .9 (might have been as old as .7) didn't by default have the middle-click to tab feature, though there was a tabbed browsing extension that added this option. It has been standard since either the .9 or 1.0 release.
I think he may be talking about one of the beta releases...if I remember correctly either
Now one can use Firefox on Windows with no extensions whatsoever (except perhaps the java and flash plugins) and be perfectly satisfied. Except for the odd site that uses hordes of IE fudgecode.
...or if you prefer, it just crashes.
:)
I've got too much experience with Windows to consider it for an enterprise environment.
I wonder how long it will take Windows to shake this ugly stigma. Really, Windows 2000 and Windows XP are quite stable. Perhaps not quite *nix levels of stable, but by no means the crash-prone, BSOD regurgitating monsters that people still talk about.
Of course, that just makes them competetive, not better.
1) its an unnessicarily large application, taking up 80-90% of the screen. Contrast with winamp that is about 5 pixles by 50 pixles tucked into the corner of the screen (in minimal mode). so much space is waisted by itunes it reminds me of the difference between meadia player classic and media player 9. the latter sucking balls.
Um, you know that iTunes has a miniplayer mode, right? Not nearly as small as WinAmp's (I really do like WinAmp as a straight player), but by no means 80-90% of the screen...unless you're in 320x200 mode, perhaps.
As for size, I think if you have space for a 10+ gigabyte music library, the size of iTunes isn't going to be a dealbreaker. iTunes does a lot more than WinAmp does...whether or not you want those features, they really do justify the size difference. When you have a broadband connection and an 80 GB (or even 30 GB) hard drive, 600KB vs. 10MB is really no difference at all.
The rest of your complaints are valid, though I'd chalk them up more to difference of opinion than anything. WinAmp's actual player is damn good, and every now and then I still use it over iTunes. However, for a more apples to apples comparison, I've found WinAmp's "Media Library" feature to be kludgy and just downright awful compared to iTunes. So it depends what you're looking for.
Tell the teachers that "every dollar that goes to Microsoft takes away from the salaries they deserve." This should break past the FUD that Microsoft spreads.
:)
Right, because we all know that the money they save on Office licenses will go to salary increases for teachers, right? Oh wait...no they won't. And you, me, and the teachers are all well aware of that.
Personally, I'd rather see the money go to Microsoft than to new football uniforms, big-screen TV's in the classrooms, or other equally silly expenditures. Of course, I'd rather see it burnt in a big barrel that we can all dance around than either, so maybe I'm just a jerk. In a perfect world, it would go to the teachers, but in America we seem to think they don't deserve any more than they already get paid (though we say otherwise!). So screw it, you get the matches and I'll get the lighter fluid.
Husband of a teacher, in case you were wondering. Maybe I'm just bitter.
I hear this "OpenOffice.org opens Office document when Office can't" story a lot.
.doc and .xls. No, I have not had one .doc containing more advanced formatting that center or right-justify come up the same in OOo as it does in Word.
I have no problem believe that OOo can open some Office documents when Office can't...especially when you're talking about different versions of Office.
However, I think much more common, but less commonly reported, is the "OOo royally screwed up the formatting in my Office document when I tried to load it up. This blows!" story. The reason you hear so much of the former is that it is unexpected, while the latter is no real surprise. This does not mean the former is more common than the latter.
I know we all want OOo to be perfect, so we can convice the world how much better than Office it is. But let's be honest with ourselves. Hell, you can even chalk it up to MS using proprietary formats and not releasing all the specs. I don't care. But OOo's support for Office documents is very far from perfect. And as long as that is the case, there will be serious resistance to switching in most organizations.
Is this another tactic MS uses to protect their monopoly(ies)? Of course. But that still doesn't magically make OOo's Office document support better. Just makes you want it to be.
Oh, and yes I have used OOo to open Office documents, both
SNES games still look fantastic to day, PSX games look unplayable.. work it out from there..
That's got a little more to do with 2D games aging better than 3D games, I'd say, than Nintendo. Example of PSX game that is perfectly playable (even downright pretty) to this day: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. This is also the reason that GB games age better. Graphics weren't as much of a selling point on a lot of those old 2D games, gameplay was.
This is actually the reason that the DS makes me somewhat sad. The GBA really was the last great refuge for the 2D gamer.
Legitimately usable, reliable, and affordable wireless controllers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Nintendo the -only- one of the three that has created a wireless controller for their own system? Aren't you pretty much doomed to third party crap for the other systems. Just thought it bore mentioning.
The Wavebird is a thing of beauty. Actually, I like the entire GC controller, except for how insanely large the "A" button is. That was...shall we say, not the best of ideas.
I remember Penny Arcade did a strip once upon a time regarding this...I have it on my hard drive, but can't find in anymore online, so no linkage...but the dialogue was something lke this:
"I'm sick of this kid's game adult's game crap. Just because a game has colors doesn't mean it isn't cool. You want to know how cool your video games are, ask your fscking girlfriend how cool. And if you don't have a girlfriend? That's part of the test."
Yes, the GameCube was/is a toy. But it's a toy that adults can enjoy as well. And once you get past the shock value (which most 14-23-year-olds never do), Grand Theft Auto isn't anywhere near as fun as many Cube games. Hell, I got more mileage out of Pikmin.
Then again, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.
Nothing against PS2 and XBox, but I have absolutely no interest in following the adventures of "Master Chief," or Ico. I'm sure these games are good, but I won't be playing them.
You aren't enthralled by the thrilling adventures and deep emotional development of Master Chief?
Seriously, though, you should check out Ico sometime...as a die-hard Nintendo fanboy you'd probably love it...it felt like it belonged on the GameCube, in every way that is good.
I had the joy of "re-discovering" my GameCube when I came over to Iraq...I had left the Xbox as a spare DVD player for my wife, since most of the games I played on it were for Live anyway. I haven't missed it. For outstanding one-player goodness, and multiplayer (as in "in the same room" multiplayer, compared to online multiplayer) fun, the Cube was in many ways the best console of this generation. That said, I've still played the Xbox more overall, just because of Live. Take me from my broadband, though, and it has to be the Cube.
I don't know that I've ever used any kind of search to find a file on my computer...at least not successfully. Usually I keep all my stuff pretty organized, so on the few occasionas I've had to resort to search, it just ended up confirming that I had, in fact, accidentally deleted the damn file.
Hence my healthy disdain for search apps, I suppose.
I just don't understand "consoles have to be purchased and maintained for years to come". What maintenance are you talking about?
Well, one way to look at it is that consoles do need to be maintained so that they will still run for years to come, whereas I can just go buy any PC and play games from yesteryear (as long as they aren't too old...such as old DOS games). I recently had to replace the power supply in my Xbox, and since modern consoles have more moving parts (as compared to, say, an SNES or Genesis), this could be a problem.
Then again, I don't think that was what he was getting at. I don't think his message was coherent at all, really...I mean, consoles have to be purchased and maintained? As if PCs DON'T have to be purchased and maintained? And I'd like him to show me one PC purchased in 2001 that runs Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory...and no, no upgrades allowed. I guarantee it cost more than 300 dollars at the time.
Let me put forward a little statistic of my own, gathered from what I've seen over the last few years as a network admin.
Number of computers compromised as a result of IE usage: 8 this year. Number of computers compromised as a result of Firefox usage: 0 (ever)
But TFA (as well as common sense) would put forward that that could have a little bit to do with installed base. How many people do you hvae using IE, and how many using Firefox. Even having 0 compromised computers isn't impressive if the userbase is small enough. If the IE/Mozilla ration was more than 8:1, one might even expect to see 0 computers compromised. The "ever" part is especially amusing, because unless I'm mistaking Firefox has only been officially released for a year...granted, I was using it back in the beta days, as were many others...but not THAT many.
I think it will be interesting to see what happens in a year or two, if/when Mozilla gets a larger market share and the black hats have had more time to find exploits.
Though, this is still a win-win situation, because worst case you will see the jackasses of the world having to split their efforts to attack multiple browsers.
So what I'm getting from all that is that Wikipedia basically helps balance out Fox News. Sound about right?
Those programmers who are talented and ambitious work in game studios. Those programmers who aren't do it for free. FOSS just happens to fall into the mix.
I'd say that those programmers that are ambitious work at game studios (or, you know, other software-related jobs)...and lack of ambition is not necessarily always a bad thing. Game studios hardly have the market on talent cornered...in fact, I'd say many game studios are severely lacking in it.
Also, while I haven't yet had a chance to play the game, judging by the feature list this is NOT simply a clone of a commercial product. They didn't just reverse-engineer Civilization. I see several interesting features added into the mix that Civilization (even Civ 3) lacked. That would, of course, be the point of a project like this: take a game you love, and give yourself the ability to tweak and customize it.
That point seems to be lost on a lot of people. Is Freeciv the answer to bringing linux to the desktop, the path to world peace, or the secret to whiter teeth? Um...no. Is it even really an impressive programming breakthrough? I'll go out on a limb and say no. Is it pretty cool, especially for longtime Civilization fans? I'm feeling a yes.
First, yes AOL should have to pay...the reason? Because the wrongdoing in question was absolutely linked to the employees actual job. If an employee of a photocopy chain runs over somebody while driving drunk, it is not the employers liability. If an employer of a pizza joint runs over somebody while driving drunk...while delivering pizza for that pizza joint...you can bet your ass the employer is liable. And once the victim is done suing the pants off the pizza joint, the pizza joint has the right to sue the pants off the driver to get back whatever they can. And I'm sure AOL will be trying to nail this guy's ass to the wall as well.
Oh, and the reason for the general "sue the money" mentality in this case (and many others)? Because in general individuals don't have the money to cover the kind of damages they can create, but the companies that employ them do. We don't pay police officers enough to cover the kind of damages likely to be awarded in a wrongful death suit, thus the department/city gets sued. If the world didn't work this way, nobody would be able to afford to be a cop, or even a pizza driver...because the "malpractice-style" insurance would cost too damn much. Doctors can afford it because we need less of them than, say, police officers, thus they get paid a lot more. But now we're getting into more complex economic issues...bottom line is that companies should be, in fact need to be, liable for what their employees do in the line of duty.
As for companies watching their employees, you bet your ass employers should be doing this, especially in certain cases. You put a guy in chat rooms with tons of teenage girls, maybe you should be keeping an eye on him every now and then. I'd say you should have those guys on a 1:3 ratio...that way they know they are being watched at least a third of the time, which is more than enough to curb most urges (and catch those it doesn't). Maybe 1:4. Also, because it is much harder to convince another employee that your proposed relation with a teenage girl is alright, and he shouldn't report it. This would have been simple to prevent, or catch much more quickly, if AOL had had a little sense. Hence the reason AOL is suing.
Employers have the responsibility to monitor their employees, especially if said employees are in a position that lends itself to wrongdoing. The cameras above a bank teller's head aren't just for catching bank robbers, and police departments have internal affairs divisions for a reason. I'd say having an overage guy hang out in chatrooms with underage girls all day falls in the same category. Somebody should be watching these people.
As a side note, anywhere in the above that I used "teenage" to refer to girls, I was implying "underage" as well. Just too lazy to fix it.
Federal, state and local governments have censors on what can and cannot be transmitted over public air-waves (ie. radio and tv).
Usually only in _broadcast_ mediums...radio, TV, etc. WiFi is more of a point-to-point medium, such as a cellphone or cordless phone. While the transmissions could very much be monitored or intercepted by a third party, they are very much not intended to be (unlike CB, for instance, where everybody is expected to be able to hear your conversation). So yes, you can still swear on your cellphone, and you can still look at porn over WiFi. Transmission vs. broadcast.
As long as pornography is not covered under the 1st Amendment, then why shouldn't a community have the right to ensure that little Billy doesn't stumble on to some kinky German fetish site while he's playing around on his laptop while his parents are using the bathrooms at a rest stop?
Something I (and strangely enough, my conservative wife) feel strongly about is parents responsibility to protect their children from such things, and the governments lack of responsibliy to do it for them. You are perfectly free to protect little Billy as zealously as you want to: in your home. If little Billy just needs to use the WiFi at the truck stop (just sounds like a bad idea, no?), you STILL have options. You could install software on little Billy's computer itself to do some filtering. Or you could...you know, be a parent and monitor what the hell your child does. The world is not a sandbox, and not everything in the world is appropriate for children. You want to protect him from it, pay attention.
Hell, in the world we live in nowadays, why the hell is any child young enough to be called "little Billy" being left alone at a truck stop anyway, especially with an expensive piece of electronics equipment? Which are you shooting for: your child getting kidnapped and raped, or just robbed?
I remember at time when parents were expected to do parenting, not the community.
All that said, constitutionally the state probably has the right to do this, but I definitely have the right to bitch about it. And as much as you might say this is just a reason not to move to Texas, it's getting harder and harder to find a place in this country outside the conservatives' reach...
Ico had an emotional pull like few other games I've played.
Ico, however, struck me as more genre defying than genre defining. I mean, it was part platformer, part puzzle, but never truly felt like either to me. Absolutely excellent, though. This game alone would justify the purchase of a PS2, even today, if I didn't already have one.
That said, for RPGs I'm gonna have to go with the Ultima VII collection, though. Those were damn good games, and sometimes I still find myself comparing games to them.
With regards to security fixes, there is an additional stipulation: large numbers of security fixes are the mark of healthy and vibrant software if and only if they come out before hordes of machines running your software are converted into zombie boxes spewing spam, DOS attacks, etc. across the internet.
:)
So Microsoft still loses.
The dial-up vs. broadband argument seems to depend whether you see net access as a form of entertainment or a tool. If all you need net access for is email and banking, dial-up is fine. But if you're using the net for finding new music, webcam chatting (talking about with family, not porn), multiplayer gaming, etc, it won't really work. And "surfing the web" (a term that has always annoyed me, personally) is much more enjoyable with broadband as well.
I think the reason people in the US haven't gravitated more to broadband is twofold: one, it is still too expensive here. Most areas have you paying anywhere from 30-40 a month (if not more), and that's assuming you get another service from the same company (local phone or cable). The lock-in effect there makes switching providers and comparison shopping a pain as well. Second, most Americans still prefer their entertainment to be pretty much one-directional. Sit in front of TV. Change channels until TV overlords put something on you want to watch. Vegetate. Repeat until bedtime.
Strangely, I think given more access to high-speed internet, most Americans would snap out of their TV induced daze long enough to realize what the hell is going on in the world around them. But that's an argument for a whole 'nother day.