Trying really hard to figure out what paper I use at home and drawing a blank. Been filing taxes electronically for 12 years now, have all my bills sent to email and automatically paid. What few important documents I have usually have to remain "documents" and not digital files, like a house deed and legal papers. I have a small filing cabinet pretty much only filed with receipts and instruction manuals, and I could probably throw away 90% of it anyways. About the only paper I get in the mail these days is junk mail and that ends up in the recycling bin the moment I receive it. I don't subscribe to newspapers telling me "yesterdays" internet news. I mean, I am pretty much paperless already and I haven't even tried. I have a paper shredder that was last used 2 years ago and is still only half full and an all-in-one printer that has been collecting dust for years.
I find it hilarious that the people arguing for allowing resale are probably the same people that bitch about DRM.
You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM, period. If you sell someone something that can be easily obtained for free then what value are you selling back? Selling back a non-DRM protected song sounds more like a Con rather then a legitimate business practice.
But, if digital content is protected by DRM that allows only one user to access it, then I would agree users should be able to sell the license for the digital content so another person can take ownership of that license. It means the original owner can no longer access the content.
If you support the concept of reselling digital content, they you are embracing DRM. But you can't have it both ways, DRM-Free content that you can sell to other people, that is called PIRACY!
There is no freaken way in hell that the government is going to allow you to profit off of someone else's intellectual property, period. Get over it and move along.
What would be interesting is to see how much money the platform has generated aside from high console sales. While PS3 and Xbox have not sold as many consoles, I would argue that overall those platforms have been far more profitable in the long run. Xbox has their Live subscriptions, Sony has Home generating a solid amount of money through micro-transactions. There is a lot more activity in game development on PS3 and Xbox. Finally both Sony and Xbox re-invigorated their platforms with motion control at a time when people got sick and tired of the Wii.
Overall I think most people bought a small handful of titles for the Wii while people with a PS3 or Xbox360 have purchased far more software in the same amount of time, that is more important to overall success. Game developers have been pulling away from Nintendo development due to low profitability, Nintendo is going to shrink to almost a walled-garden platform where only Nintendo and a select few will want to develop for Nintendo consoles.
Look, not saying Nintendo is going bankrupt, but you can't continue to compare Nintendo to Sony or Microsoft, Nintendo has created its own market intended for kids, period. While some adults might enjoy a few kiddie titles, Nintendo has pretty much given up on adult gamers, and it looks like that is not going to change. If you are going to purposefully limit your market then you are going to limit your success, period.
Couldn't be less enthused about a new console then Wii-U. Wii turned into a huge disappointing largely because of the strict adherence to produce juvenile games and a stunning reality that Nintendo invested $0 into any innovation outside motion control. Wii is last Nintendo product I will own, period.
Console _console_name_ to have some _feature_pulled_from_ass_ that is guaranteed we won't like.
Then a barrage of arguments defending and lamenting _feature_pulled_from_ass_ without anyone doing the least amount of investigation as to whether the source is reliable or feature would ever exist.
Followed by my smart ass comment to point this out.
I think it is hilarious that people think the US can suppress the existence of aliens.
I think little green men that can master space and time and visit our little marble in the universe could cut through a little bureaucratic red tape.
I also can't believe that an alien can travel millions of light years but then crash that last few feet on reaching earth. And why would aliens only visit podunk towns in the US?
Canadians are passive and will allow this to roll through largely uncontested, just like all the tariffs that are STILL slapped on anything that can play music in spite of the fact that most devices these days have online music stores built into them meaning the tariff is largely charged against people who are legitimately using these devices to buy music.
The fact is Canadians should rise up against the CRTC which largely allows the Big 3 Canadian telco's to charge whatever the f*ck they want for their [insert sh*ty] services without any consumer protection and then these telcos make it difficult for any "competitive" re-sellers to operate. CRTC is limiting what services like Netflix can bring into Canada. CRTC is allowing such bullshit as SOPA like FUD into Canada. CRTC is ensuring price fixing and regular gouging of customers through mandatory fee increases.
If there is any organization that is less in touch with the 21st century telecommunications is an organization that was set up for radio and television transmissions. If there is any organization less committed to protecting consumer rights, its the good ol' Canadian Radio and Television Commission.
I want to do _something_, but I do not know how to do _something_, how do I do _something_, provided I don't know how to or do not want to waste my time using Google.
Then a barrage of responses by people that don't really know how to do _something_, but surprisingly have a lot of opinion about _something_.
And then, of course, a smart *ss like myself pointing this out.
One of the first things people do with new software is go through all the menus and memorize them?
Wow, I mean, maybe in 1993, but I don't think people do this today. Most menu's follow similar metaphors that are easily transferable between applications, File, Exit, View, Help, I mean, the order and placement of these menus and are similar and easily discoverable and without even seeing the contents of those headers most people have a good idea what they contain. Also it typically takes one or two hunt and find a command before people become adept at finding content in an application, there is no need for a "long term" solution to find content in a menu. I find it incredulous that there are people out there that have not used a computer, even with limited experience. Back in 1993 I can see people forced to use a computer at work for the first time ever, and having a hard time knowing what to do, but these days most people have been exposed to them.
Look, all they did was bring Spotlight into a menuing system. Its a good idea but don't ruin it by saying something completely stupid like you did some extensive market research that brought out this "innovation".
TouchFire completely useless. First you need to buy the Apple iPad 2 cover and then every time I want to type I have to close and open the cover in a special way? Fail.
Snap keys seems a plausible way to rapidly enter text on a tablet, once you learn how to use it, I mean, if you want to spend the time to learn to use it.
And another vaporware projection PC product.
Looks like keyboard-less typing is still a fail in 2012 which solidifies that Tablets != PC's yet.
I double any Ubuntu table would ever be released without paying some royalty fees of some sort. It is ridiculous to think that the bulk of expense for an Android tablet is to pay off Microsoft. An hey, if Android is using Microsoft's IP, then the manufacturers have to pay up, them's the rules. Google could create Android without using Microsoft IP, but obviously Google and most in the Android world find that Microsoft royalties are acceptable and not complaining, only consumers that have some unwarranted hate-on for Microsoft.
But there are a slew of other royalties being paid for various software and hardware components found in any consumer electronic device, assuming a Linux derived device is entirely royalty free is foolish.
All these companies are complete idiots because its not a war between themselves, but a war against Cable companies.
The problem is that cable companies are holding on to their monopolies with a white knuckled, kung-fu death grip. Any time a disruptive technology comes along that might usurp cable in the living room, the Big Telco lobbyists fire up and make life difficult for government agencies so that those agencies impose laws that almost always rule in favor of Big Telco and limit the abilities of competitive "Smart" TV services.
Cable companies want to charge you $80+ for cable, another $15 for the box to access that cable, in addition to charging you $40+ a month for a "separate" internet service, so they get $135+ per month out of you, every month, and they want this for life. These companies also own the internet infrastructure and ensure that any disruptive services are throttled or blocked to prevent competition. I know damn well that Roger's in Canada throttles Netflix, I can download web content at max speed but I can't watch more then 5 minutes of Netflix without it pausing and buffering.
Big Telco is uninterested in merging Cable and Internet and allowing competitive IPTV services to encroach against traditional Cable TV services. Sure Netflix is already out there and Boxee and various TVs have IPTV "apps", but overall you generally cannot access high quality (visual and audio) television except through Cable services. Netflix "HD" is not the same as Cable HD, Boxee streaming web broadcasts is nowhere near Cable HD quality. The only exception is iTunes which charges you per episode a price that would greatly exceed cable subscription rates for the equivalent amount of viewed content. Apple conveniently allowed a pricing structure that would not compete with Cable services.
The first person to win in the "Smart TV" war is the one that allows me to stream HIGH QUALITY content over the internet without a separate cable services charge. The problem is that while Google and Apple and Microsoft and all the others try to win that war as individuals, the morons are not realize that they need to band together to break the stranglehold that Big Telco has in the living room.
Once the monopoly for the living room content distribution is broken, then the companies can compete to offer the best form of Smart TV possible. But until then most of these Smart TV services are stillborn because the content available on them is a small sub-set of what is available on Cable, and that is how Big Telco wants it.
Aside from home brew and "alternative" uses for Kinect on a PC, I think motion control gaming on the PC platform is pretty useless.
Trying to play Kinect games off a laptop or even worse, a desktop, in some vain attempt for Microsoft to dominate all forms of game platforms is probably not going to be very popular. I really can't see drawing a bunch of friends into my office to play games, I don't have the room to accommodate a large number of people in my office, opposed to my Living Room which traditionally is where people congregate in the home. Also while the idea of matching Kinect with a laptop sounds appealing at first, "Hey, lets go camping and bring the Kinect!", the idea of trying to play motion control games on a 13" - 15" sun glared screen is ludicrous.
Also those that bring the PC into the living room for gaming, do you really need a $2000+ PC gaming system when you are playing casual games that can run on the iPad? Most people own a game console because they are $200. Hell, I know people that impulse bought a game console before a party to get Rockstar or Kinect because they are so cheap.
I am sure Microsoft's major motivation is to open up Kinect development for alternative uses other then gaming on the PC platform, but if their goal was to open up motion gaming on the PC platform I think their motivations are short sighted. Kinect is about being social, desktop gaming where you sit alone jerking your arms to reach some ultimate goal is kind of pathetic.
Just because other people can think of an invention does not mean the patent should not be filed. A patent is largely about someone creating something novel nobody has thought of, or more likely got their patent filed first in the case where the invention is easily repeatable.
What should rule out a patent is previous art. If someone else implemented this feature prior to IBM filing for the patent, or it can be proven that someone else implemented this feature before an IBM product implemented the feature, then the patent is not valid. Maybe the patent office may not be doing due diligence on awarding patents in this case as I have seen examples of this in other products.
I agree there is a problem with the current patent system, but every time someone complains about patents they usually don't have the right information. There is nothing about filing a patent which states the invention cannot be obvious. If nobody bothers to create a product using the idea, or nobody bothers to file an patent for it, then the its only obvious to the people that were to lazy make the idea a reality.
How did Apple TV fail? While the original Apple TV failed (overly priced and lacking features), Apple TV 2 has had strong sales. As a component to stream iTunes content to your TV and access web services, its excellent. Recently Apple enabled iTunes Match content on Apple TV, meaning I can stream music directly from "the cloud" instead of from my iTunes server. More content services are being offered, and I think Apple is secretly going to enable gaming on Apple TV in the not to distant future consider it has the same guts as an iPod Touch and original iPad. The price of Apple TV 2 is also right where I have seen it as low as $99, which is comparable (for a change) to competitive products.
Google TV, on the other hand, was still born.
The key difference is that Apple is still very much active with Apple TV making it more feature rich while Google dropped Google TV quickly.
I think the biggest glaring issue here is assuming that an app is an eBook.
If you want an eBook, invest in a Kindle or other "eBook" app/appliance which issues books formatted by the publisher. There the developer creates an app that displays eBooks, but is not involved in the formatting of the book. Of course the app could screw up the eBook format, but then that is fixed with a patch.
If you download a $.99+ app that features a book, you get what you get. A large portion of apps from app stores are horribly written programs rapidly fired off by unskilled developers. "Publishers" taking advantage of selling a book as an app are only interested in profit and care little for the quality of the material they are publishing. They are uninterested in selling the book through a bookstore as they are trying to skip the middleman and take home more profit.
Seriously. There are such significant bigger issues to worry about in the world other then some geek feeling slighted because they can't buy their avatar a weapon. Is this not the definition of vapid?
When CCD's first came out Kodak thought they were just a fad and that people will never abandon film, that was when the death spiral started. A lack of understanding the last couple of years of why photos are being taken is not why Kodak failed.
You have to ask slashdot for what camera to buy? There are about a hundred thousand better websites geared towards photography you can google instead of listening to a bunch of.\ blowhards grouping themselves into fanboys for one side or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Trying really hard to figure out what paper I use at home and drawing a blank. Been filing taxes electronically for 12 years now, have all my bills sent to email and automatically paid. What few important documents I have usually have to remain "documents" and not digital files, like a house deed and legal papers. I have a small filing cabinet pretty much only filed with receipts and instruction manuals, and I could probably throw away 90% of it anyways. About the only paper I get in the mail these days is junk mail and that ends up in the recycling bin the moment I receive it. I don't subscribe to newspapers telling me "yesterdays" internet news. I mean, I am pretty much paperless already and I haven't even tried. I have a paper shredder that was last used 2 years ago and is still only half full and an all-in-one printer that has been collecting dust for years.
They will probably attribute the increase in Higg's signal strength due to global warming.
I find it hilarious that the people arguing for allowing resale are probably the same people that bitch about DRM.
You can't resell something that cannot be adequately protected through DRM, period. If you sell someone something that can be easily obtained for free then what value are you selling back? Selling back a non-DRM protected song sounds more like a Con rather then a legitimate business practice.
But, if digital content is protected by DRM that allows only one user to access it, then I would agree users should be able to sell the license for the digital content so another person can take ownership of that license. It means the original owner can no longer access the content.
If you support the concept of reselling digital content, they you are embracing DRM. But you can't have it both ways, DRM-Free content that you can sell to other people, that is called PIRACY!
There is no freaken way in hell that the government is going to allow you to profit off of someone else's intellectual property, period. Get over it and move along.
Its more like crashing and burning
What would be interesting is to see how much money the platform has generated aside from high console sales. While PS3 and Xbox have not sold as many consoles, I would argue that overall those platforms have been far more profitable in the long run. Xbox has their Live subscriptions, Sony has Home generating a solid amount of money through micro-transactions. There is a lot more activity in game development on PS3 and Xbox. Finally both Sony and Xbox re-invigorated their platforms with motion control at a time when people got sick and tired of the Wii.
Overall I think most people bought a small handful of titles for the Wii while people with a PS3 or Xbox360 have purchased far more software in the same amount of time, that is more important to overall success. Game developers have been pulling away from Nintendo development due to low profitability, Nintendo is going to shrink to almost a walled-garden platform where only Nintendo and a select few will want to develop for Nintendo consoles.
Look, not saying Nintendo is going bankrupt, but you can't continue to compare Nintendo to Sony or Microsoft, Nintendo has created its own market intended for kids, period. While some adults might enjoy a few kiddie titles, Nintendo has pretty much given up on adult gamers, and it looks like that is not going to change. If you are going to purposefully limit your market then you are going to limit your success, period.
Couldn't be less enthused about a new console then Wii-U. Wii turned into a huge disappointing largely because of the strict adherence to produce juvenile games and a stunning reality that Nintendo invested $0 into any innovation outside motion control. Wii is last Nintendo product I will own, period.
Standard Template:
Console _console_name_ to have some _feature_pulled_from_ass_ that is guaranteed we won't like.
Then a barrage of arguments defending and lamenting _feature_pulled_from_ass_ without anyone doing the least amount of investigation as to whether the source is reliable or feature would ever exist.
Followed by my smart ass comment to point this out.
From punching chits into a piece of paper to Cloud based voting in only 10 years, amazing.
I think it is hilarious that people think the US can suppress the existence of aliens.
I think little green men that can master space and time and visit our little marble in the universe could cut through a little bureaucratic red tape.
I also can't believe that an alien can travel millions of light years but then crash that last few feet on reaching earth. And why would aliens only visit podunk towns in the US?
Canadians are passive and will allow this to roll through largely uncontested, just like all the tariffs that are STILL slapped on anything that can play music in spite of the fact that most devices these days have online music stores built into them meaning the tariff is largely charged against people who are legitimately using these devices to buy music.
The fact is Canadians should rise up against the CRTC which largely allows the Big 3 Canadian telco's to charge whatever the f*ck they want for their [insert sh*ty] services without any consumer protection and then these telcos make it difficult for any "competitive" re-sellers to operate. CRTC is limiting what services like Netflix can bring into Canada. CRTC is allowing such bullshit as SOPA like FUD into Canada. CRTC is ensuring price fixing and regular gouging of customers through mandatory fee increases.
If there is any organization that is less in touch with the 21st century telecommunications is an organization that was set up for radio and television transmissions. If there is any organization less committed to protecting consumer rights, its the good ol' Canadian Radio and Television Commission.
Standard Template:
I want to do _something_, but I do not know how to do _something_, how do I do _something_, provided I don't know how to or do not want to waste my time using Google.
Then a barrage of responses by people that don't really know how to do _something_, but surprisingly have a lot of opinion about _something_.
And then, of course, a smart *ss like myself pointing this out.
One of the first things people do with new software is go through all the menus and memorize them?
Wow, I mean, maybe in 1993, but I don't think people do this today. Most menu's follow similar metaphors that are easily transferable between applications, File, Exit, View, Help, I mean, the order and placement of these menus and are similar and easily discoverable and without even seeing the contents of those headers most people have a good idea what they contain. Also it typically takes one or two hunt and find a command before people become adept at finding content in an application, there is no need for a "long term" solution to find content in a menu. I find it incredulous that there are people out there that have not used a computer, even with limited experience. Back in 1993 I can see people forced to use a computer at work for the first time ever, and having a hard time knowing what to do, but these days most people have been exposed to them.
Look, all they did was bring Spotlight into a menuing system. Its a good idea but don't ruin it by saying something completely stupid like you did some extensive market research that brought out this "innovation".
Forcing devs to document code will accomplish this:
Summary: A method to add to numbers together
param a = a number
param b = a number
returns a number
bool AddNumbers( double a, int b )
{
return a - b;
}
Sorry, but when management focuses on process and places more emphasis on documentation rather then coding, be happy with the results you get.
TouchFire completely useless. First you need to buy the Apple iPad 2 cover and then every time I want to type I have to close and open the cover in a special way? Fail.
Snap keys seems a plausible way to rapidly enter text on a tablet, once you learn how to use it, I mean, if you want to spend the time to learn to use it.
And another vaporware projection PC product.
Looks like keyboard-less typing is still a fail in 2012 which solidifies that Tablets != PC's yet.
I double any Ubuntu table would ever be released without paying some royalty fees of some sort. It is ridiculous to think that the bulk of expense for an Android tablet is to pay off Microsoft. An hey, if Android is using Microsoft's IP, then the manufacturers have to pay up, them's the rules. Google could create Android without using Microsoft IP, but obviously Google and most in the Android world find that Microsoft royalties are acceptable and not complaining, only consumers that have some unwarranted hate-on for Microsoft.
But there are a slew of other royalties being paid for various software and hardware components found in any consumer electronic device, assuming a Linux derived device is entirely royalty free is foolish.
All these companies are complete idiots because its not a war between themselves, but a war against Cable companies.
The problem is that cable companies are holding on to their monopolies with a white knuckled, kung-fu death grip. Any time a disruptive technology comes along that might usurp cable in the living room, the Big Telco lobbyists fire up and make life difficult for government agencies so that those agencies impose laws that almost always rule in favor of Big Telco and limit the abilities of competitive "Smart" TV services.
Cable companies want to charge you $80+ for cable, another $15 for the box to access that cable, in addition to charging you $40+ a month for a "separate" internet service, so they get $135+ per month out of you, every month, and they want this for life. These companies also own the internet infrastructure and ensure that any disruptive services are throttled or blocked to prevent competition. I know damn well that Roger's in Canada throttles Netflix, I can download web content at max speed but I can't watch more then 5 minutes of Netflix without it pausing and buffering.
Big Telco is uninterested in merging Cable and Internet and allowing competitive IPTV services to encroach against traditional Cable TV services. Sure Netflix is already out there and Boxee and various TVs have IPTV "apps", but overall you generally cannot access high quality (visual and audio) television except through Cable services. Netflix "HD" is not the same as Cable HD, Boxee streaming web broadcasts is nowhere near Cable HD quality. The only exception is iTunes which charges you per episode a price that would greatly exceed cable subscription rates for the equivalent amount of viewed content. Apple conveniently allowed a pricing structure that would not compete with Cable services.
The first person to win in the "Smart TV" war is the one that allows me to stream HIGH QUALITY content over the internet without a separate cable services charge. The problem is that while Google and Apple and Microsoft and all the others try to win that war as individuals, the morons are not realize that they need to band together to break the stranglehold that Big Telco has in the living room.
Once the monopoly for the living room content distribution is broken, then the companies can compete to offer the best form of Smart TV possible. But until then most of these Smart TV services are stillborn because the content available on them is a small sub-set of what is available on Cable, and that is how Big Telco wants it.
People need to hit a gym once in a while if a tablet is going to take them out.
Aside from home brew and "alternative" uses for Kinect on a PC, I think motion control gaming on the PC platform is pretty useless.
Trying to play Kinect games off a laptop or even worse, a desktop, in some vain attempt for Microsoft to dominate all forms of game platforms is probably not going to be very popular. I really can't see drawing a bunch of friends into my office to play games, I don't have the room to accommodate a large number of people in my office, opposed to my Living Room which traditionally is where people congregate in the home. Also while the idea of matching Kinect with a laptop sounds appealing at first, "Hey, lets go camping and bring the Kinect!", the idea of trying to play motion control games on a 13" - 15" sun glared screen is ludicrous.
Also those that bring the PC into the living room for gaming, do you really need a $2000+ PC gaming system when you are playing casual games that can run on the iPad? Most people own a game console because they are $200. Hell, I know people that impulse bought a game console before a party to get Rockstar or Kinect because they are so cheap.
I am sure Microsoft's major motivation is to open up Kinect development for alternative uses other then gaming on the PC platform, but if their goal was to open up motion gaming on the PC platform I think their motivations are short sighted. Kinect is about being social, desktop gaming where you sit alone jerking your arms to reach some ultimate goal is kind of pathetic.
For telling people to turn their computers off and then on again.
Just because other people can think of an invention does not mean the patent should not be filed. A patent is largely about someone creating something novel nobody has thought of, or more likely got their patent filed first in the case where the invention is easily repeatable.
What should rule out a patent is previous art. If someone else implemented this feature prior to IBM filing for the patent, or it can be proven that someone else implemented this feature before an IBM product implemented the feature, then the patent is not valid. Maybe the patent office may not be doing due diligence on awarding patents in this case as I have seen examples of this in other products.
I agree there is a problem with the current patent system, but every time someone complains about patents they usually don't have the right information. There is nothing about filing a patent which states the invention cannot be obvious. If nobody bothers to create a product using the idea, or nobody bothers to file an patent for it, then the its only obvious to the people that were to lazy make the idea a reality.
How did Apple TV fail? While the original Apple TV failed (overly priced and lacking features), Apple TV 2 has had strong sales. As a component to stream iTunes content to your TV and access web services, its excellent. Recently Apple enabled iTunes Match content on Apple TV, meaning I can stream music directly from "the cloud" instead of from my iTunes server. More content services are being offered, and I think Apple is secretly going to enable gaming on Apple TV in the not to distant future consider it has the same guts as an iPod Touch and original iPad. The price of Apple TV 2 is also right where I have seen it as low as $99, which is comparable (for a change) to competitive products.
Google TV, on the other hand, was still born.
The key difference is that Apple is still very much active with Apple TV making it more feature rich while Google dropped Google TV quickly.
I think the biggest glaring issue here is assuming that an app is an eBook.
If you want an eBook, invest in a Kindle or other "eBook" app/appliance which issues books formatted by the publisher. There the developer creates an app that displays eBooks, but is not involved in the formatting of the book. Of course the app could screw up the eBook format, but then that is fixed with a patch.
If you download a $.99+ app that features a book, you get what you get. A large portion of apps from app stores are horribly written programs rapidly fired off by unskilled developers. "Publishers" taking advantage of selling a book as an app are only interested in profit and care little for the quality of the material they are publishing. They are uninterested in selling the book through a bookstore as they are trying to skip the middleman and take home more profit.
Seriously. There are such significant bigger issues to worry about in the world other then some geek feeling slighted because they can't buy their avatar a weapon. Is this not the definition of vapid?
When CCD's first came out Kodak thought they were just a fad and that people will never abandon film, that was when the death spiral started. A lack of understanding the last couple of years of why photos are being taken is not why Kodak failed.
For what?
You have to ask slashdot for what camera to buy? There are about a hundred thousand better websites geared towards photography you can google instead of listening to a bunch of .\ blowhards grouping themselves into fanboys for one side or the other.