The windmills only push the hot air to less developed countries. It depends where you measure your temperatures. The USA will be the first to introduce outdoor air conditioning, heck half the stores in California keep their front doors open to draw people into their cooler interiors.
I mean, the earth has had several major "irreversible" climate changes, but it seemed to correct itself.
I am not worried about "earth", it will be around and thriving long after mankind is gone.
Most people on \. are dinosaurs from the pre-GUI command line loving era of software so anything new and bright hurts their eyes and they automatically hate it. Most \.ers think they know better then everyone else and so when some company invests millions and years in R&D and comes up with new GUI, they automatically assume their $0.02 worth is better advice.
My litmus test for new GUI is that if you can't go back to a previous generation of OS or software because it is missing the efficiency and features of the new GUI, then it is a successful GUI. For instance, few people I know like using XP anymore after they have used Windows 7 for a few months, so, Win 7 GUI is successful. I am sure that once Windows 8 is released, people will find it hard to go back to Windows 7. Try and go back to Windows 95 or OS 9 and you will realize how far along Microsoft and Apple have come in GUI design.
If you try a new GUI and find that you want to go back (give it a few weeks at least), then it is a failure. New GUI is about efficiency in workflow and use. While sometimes the workflow changes (and again most \.ers are adverse to learning anything new, muscle memory, LMAO, it take about week for your muscles to remember something new), if the new workflow requires more effort with little gain in efficiency, then it is a failure.
GUI is not about color or chrome, it is about usability. Hating an OS because of color is an obtuse view of software design. If you complain about color or chrome or whatever and insist that battleship grey is the only color that should adorn a dialog window, then go back into your cave or maybe find a nice tar pit to snuggle up in.
But this is one of the fundamental problems, people don't understand what an operating system actually is.
There have been many debates between geeks about what an operating system actually is, and obviously people writing about these "Internet" operating systems, and the ones creating them, don't have a clue as to what they truly are.
An operating system isn't just a file manager, its a layer of software that allows you to interface with hardware, manage data, and control devices. By its very definition, and "Internet" based OS cannot exist, as it requires SOME form of operating system in order to run. You NEED an OS first in order to access the Internet and manage the network protocols and access network hardware. You NEED an OS first in order to run the web browser to access the Internet. you need an OS first in order to access the application data stored on disk and loaded in memory before you can even launch an "Internet" OS.
Instead, what these people are actually creating is just an online file manager, A SHELL.
Sorry, I just can't tolerate a blatant misrepresentation of terminology in this case. When people start talking about a Google OS as an online service, it is just irritating that there is so much ignorance, especially coming from a supposedly technologically literate community.
I am not saying the concept of an online SHELL isn't valid. Having the ability to create and store and share files online, without worrying about losing data locally if your local hardware fails is a sound idea and I welcome it. Just don't confuse a glorified AJAX P2P front end as being an operating system.
Even in the case if we move to a purely online services based market where you use a thin client to access the internet, you still need an OS before you can access the internet.
Call it what it is, and Online File Manager. An AJAX based P2P front end. An online portal. Just stop calling it an operating system, its not and never CAN be.
It is also a brilliantly f*cking stupid idea to have an embedded web browser within a web environment? I mean, I need a browser to access this service, duh? What makes an AJAX based web browser better then one running natively on your system?
Sorry, but spelling it dikshunary just means your a dumb uneducated hick.
I agree that the English language has lots of words with complicated spellings, and often whole strings of consonants, which are irrational or unexplainable. Worcestershire sauce is pronounced wuster. My philosophy has been to pronounce it the way it is spelt, so I say wor-chester-shire sauce, which irritates my British and snobby English major friends.
The problem is that this will lead to a lack of formalization of the written word. If suddenly there is more then one correct spelling for a word, then people will just start to write the way things sound in general, without caring about the proper spelling(s) of the word. I mean, people are starting to use "teh" as the, and wikipedia seems to consider it an acceptable form of the word. I just think its a obviously lazy construct because people don't learn how to type properly, or review their messages.
What I am suggesting however is that all these spelling and grammar Nazis that jump down your throat over a misspelled word or improper grammar need to get a life. If you can understand what someone is writing or saying, then they have made their point. If you can write it with 100% proper spelling and grammar, then good for you, you passed remedial English.
There is a difference between formal letter/document writting, and the kind of "typing" slang that casual web user employs. Its only been in the last decade that people have used a computer and text messaging as a major form of communication. Instead of spoken slang, people are adopting typed word slang. The keyboard is a confounding method of text entry, and not everyone can type properly. However, if I was writing a thesis, and I used the word dikshunary in it, I wouldn't be surprised if I never got my doctorate degree.
I don't think we need to formally dumb down the English language in order to ensure the spelling Nazis have nothing to complain about. Just give people a break that either they are too lazy to be formal when writing quick messages to friends, family, or blogs, or that maybe they are not people where English is their first language, and are able to get their point across without proper spelling and grammar.
Lastly, I am writing this using Google's Spell Check tool bar, and thank God, because spelling is one of my worst skills. There is a prevalence of spell checking in most applications (hell, even Visual Studio checks your spelling, or at least keeps your variable names consistent). Put the alternate misspelled forms of words in the dictionary and have it auto-translate to the proper one and only spelling.
It is funny that this article is mentioned at a time when George W Bush, a person that bastardizes the English language every chance he gets, is president. Its almost as if the president is imposing that we change the spelling of words to make him appeaer educated and smart. Would this article be mentioned if the US had a smarter and more eloquent president?
I still don't understand the need for an open document format, except to make OSS happy.
For decades, every application that has had some competitive version has been able to support each other's file types relatively painlessly. The only point of contention is when one version has features the other does not support. This is where document support becomes spotty.
But, with OSS pretty much duplicating whatever they like from retail software, granted with a few novel innovations, its pretty much becomes a case of we all have the same features, lets make a document format that works for everything.
Again, I don't see how or why this needs to be. Microsoft is offering an "open" document format, that is, a format that any 3rd party competitor can read, interpret, and view within their application. OSS has created their own open document format, which Microsoft and other 3rd parties can read, interpret, and view. The key is now you don't need to reverse engineer or hack support for a file, whether it's Microsoft or OSS software, both are offering a document format you can use or support at will.
I really don't see a need that every application needs to support ONE document format. I don't think it is possible, because eventually, some company will come out with a feature that won't be supported by someone else's product, and it just become kludge to try and say that this document format will support FUTURE features without getting into the mess of having every vendor discuss and talk about changing its version.
An open document format will stifle innovation because every vendor will be reluctant to add new features. Whenever something is designed by committee, the design flounders and fails.
So, as long as your a company that has embraced the "open" in open document, and create a document version and tell everyone how to access its data, that is all the industry needs.
OPEN is not synonymous with ONE, it does not mean there needs to be only ONE document format. It just means that your playing fair with competitors and offering a document format, and the necessary SDK or documentation to read and interpret that document format.
At the end of all this, you will still end up having to support DOC, DOCX, PDF, ODF, XML, etc, etc, etc. There is no point to this argument, it is moot.
Its just another Microsoft vs OSS garbage inflammatory troll bait article that we waste far too much time discussing and worrying about. In the end, it won't matter one hill of beans whether or not Microsoft or the OSS format wins, there WILL BE TWO FORMATS anyways. If your software vendor, start supporting both in your software now.
It will be cool and fast because Intel's CPU's are cooler and faster then the PowerPC crap Apple was using.
When you can boast that your current generation of Macintels are 5x - 10x faster then your previous generation, then you can claim your next OS will be faster.
OSX 10.5 will be the first Mac OS that will truly support Intel architecture, so I am sure that this will give it a performance edge that 10.4 doesn't have, which was kludged to support Intel architecture. While Apple did a brilliant job in making the transition to Intel seamless, I have no doubt that there are major performance and quality problems with running Tiger on an Intel platform. Also, you can't make me believe the whole Rosetta technology runs native PowerPC applications on Intel without a performance hit.
In any regard, I also think the whole "Microsoft should worry" statement in the article is inflammatory and unfounded. I have been running Vista Beta 2 for several weeks on my test platform, and it runs well, stable and except for occasional performance hiccups, relatively fast. Its beta software of course, so I will reserve judgment on it being slow and a resource hog until its release.
Also, most people are so upset about Vista requiring a GPU to run, and claim its a resource hog. When you stop and think about it, using the GPU to render UI frees up your CPU to do other things, the UI is no longer consuming CPU horse power to render. Windows is using a GPU when its remain an untapped resource in your box when your just running OS apps and utilities. I think people still hold on to old past experiences with Windows and don't allow themselves to understand the truth of Vista's new architecture. In fact, its the same thing OSX is doing to render their UI in OpenGL to take advantage of 3D rendering, although something tells me that Microsoft is the first to make it an exclusive operation of the GPU while OSX still relies on software OpenGL rendering consuming CPU power.
In any regards. Unless Apple introduces FLAWLESS Windows vitalization within OSX, complete with a ZERO performance hit, the I doubt Apple will make any impact on the PC market with Leopard. Tiger was supposed to be Apple's sledgehammer against Windows, as too was Jaguar and Panther, and the Ocelot, they haven't proven to be anything more then another entry in Apple's history books, an OS that has maintained 5% market share.
The bottom line is, why run OSX at all? I mean, except for iLife applications, there is nothing I can't do on my PC that I can do any better on my Mac. In fact, iLife is the ONLY reason many people are getting Mac's and OSX. But, I get better entertainment value from a PC because it supports better quality sound output (true surround support), HD support, true PVR/Media Center capabilities, and of course, Games which is a Billion Dollar industry Apple has soundly ignored. And there are handful of independent applications that give me good multimedia organization and video editting, just not as slick as iLife.
I love hearing these grandstand statements that Microsoft should worry about Apple. Why? Apple has existed for 30 years without being a real competitor to Microsoft. In the last 6 years, Apple has had a superior OS to Windows, and still can't take over the market. Now, even with Apple making PC clones that can run Windows, this might increase Apple's hardware share of the PC market, but people want to buy Mac's now to run Windows. Microsoft is more worried about Google and Apple is just a mosquito buzzing in their ears. The day that Apple takes over 90% marketshare will be the day I eat my shorts.
People have to understand that in the Apple Microsoft war, Microsoft has won, period, and did so like 10 years ago.
Apple will continue making good quality products for a niche market, they might gain a few percentage points in marketshare, but I think that Apple will eventually realize that putting time and money into OSX will never result in the returns they have been hoping for.
But saying that Mac's are more secure then PC's is incorrect, period!
These kinds of headlines have to start saying that OSX is more secure then Windows. Its the software running on Mac's which is the important factor, not the hardware itself.
There is a culture of people now that are only buying Mac's (hardware) because they can run Windows (software). I am sure there will be those brain dead people that will assume that the Mac (hardware platform) is more secure for running Windows (software platform), and they will be misguided by these statements.
Regardless of whether you believe OSX is more secure the Windows, the fact is that Mac's are not more stable then PC's, especially when Mac's these days are PC clones and people only want them so they can run Windows on them. Running Windows on a Mac, without proper precautions opens you up to the same security problems as a PC running Windows.
Mac = Hardware PC = Hardware OSX = Software Windows = Software Mac = PC
Therefore, its the software which matters. Do the math.
In North America, 500 people will show up when Cabbage Patch dolls are released, and WANT to pay $60 a pop for them, and will kill each other over them to boot. You couldn't get 500 people in North America to agree on what color the sky is, let alone coordinate enough to get a discount on something they will pay double to get anyways.
Lets put it this day, how many people show up at a gas station and happily pay way too much money for gas.
We make too much money in North America, which is why while individually we may gripe about the cost of something, we will never coordinate to get a discount because we are too bitter, proud and stupid to want our neighbours to get a discount on it too.
Yeah, because craigslist is bleeding edge
on
The Man Behind MySpace
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Unconcerned with technological bells and whistles and geeky one-upmanship"
It doesn't take much to out do craigslist. I mean, even a CSS style sheet with a few lines could improve that website greatly. Good to see nobody is striving to outdo craigslist, we wouldn't want creativity and innovation running rampant on the web now, would we.
- - Yeah, I know, mod me down. My Karma is good today.
I will be the first to complain that Linux isn't ready for primetime as a desktop replacement OS, but as an embedded environment, it is absolutely brilliant.
Consider that anything with a microprocessor has been hacked to run Linux, its the obvious choice for embedded applications. I know someone that is working on a CNC controller that is using Linux and can actually run a visual environment on the controller for more advanced managment and control of CNC jobs. All you would get with Dos is a c:\ prompt because when it comes to embedded applications, DOS has fallen way behind in the times compared to Linux embedded apps.
DOS IS DEAD, get over it. Those holding on to it are using legacy hardware that is sorefully in need of an upgrade. Linux is just cheaper and easier to implement for embedded applications and is a much more rich and robust environment for dedicated equipement.
Besides, most retail stores I purchase stuff at has full blown touch screen color displays running Windows and most likely uses Linux or Windows servers to manage online and warehouse stock accessed through Windows workstations. It has been a long time since I have seen a black and white or blue and white text screen environment in a retail store, or bank, or airport, or warehousing system, etc. And I have actually worked in factory automation to know that DOS workstations seldom exist at any level.
I have to state you can either have a completely automated system, or a completely human driven system, the two will not mix. And even then, this technology is too expensive to implement.
I don't understand why car companies are wasting time and money in developing self driven cars. While there might be useful purposes for the technology, such as "off-world" exploration, or for use in the military, there will never come a time when we turn over control of our cars to a computer and sit back and enjoy the ride.
There are too many variables involved in a self-driven cars, things that a computer cannot take into consideration, such as the often random and stupid nature of how people drive. In a mixed environment, where human and computer driven cars are allowed, it will be a huge disaster waiting to happen. The first time some idiot swerves across 4 lanes of busy traffic because they don't want to miss their exit (because they were not paying attention in the first place) and causes a massive car pileup because all the computer driven cars could not react fast enough to the sudden chaotic input will essentially pull the plug on the whole idea. Companies like VW and Honda working on automated cars will be named in a massive class action lawsuit that will effectively bankrupt these companies (good riddance, both companies are overly hyped about anyways).
Even in an environment of purely computer driven vehicles, where you have a safe enough (and powerful enough) computers controlling all the cars, robust and secure wireless networks, along with radar and all the sensors needed so that every car knows about the existence of every other car on the road in a 10 km radius, there is still a level of uncertainty and chaos that computers will not be able to handle. A sudden rainstorm or white out, while may not affect the navigation of the vehicle, may cause the computer to react poorly in a sudden stop situation when it hasn't gauged the slipperiness of the road. Driving down a dark highway at night, human eyes may pick up the deer standing still on the side of the road, and slow down accordingly assuming the deer might dart across the road suddenly, but a computer will not register the fact that there is wildlife near the road, and will not react quick enough when the deer darts pass, regardless of how good the avoidance detection and mechanics are. There is no computerized counterpart for human intuition and experience.
In the end, you will have to build a roadway underground, where you can almost guarantee no inadvertent input of chaos into the computer controlled environment. If you take weather and wildlife out of the equation, and can guarantee a pretty much predictable environment, then I would agree that computer driven cars makes sense. But it would cost trillions of dollars to upgrade the highway and transit systems to implement this kind of system for computerized car control, and I would move that it would be criminal to allow a human driver in this environment, enough for jail time and a life long suspension of your license. Movies like iRobot where Will Smith takes manual command of his car while driving down an automated tunnel is pure fiction, and it will remain that way.
In the end, this is a pipe dream and I am afraid that every dollar wasted on this technology could be put into making cars more fuel efficient, ecologically friendly, or research in alternate fuels or power technologies. They can also be made safer, or at least, implement computer assistance that could effectively prevent the car from spinning out of control if the human driver isn't skilled enough to handle the situation.
I don't think I am alone in assuming that this technology will never see the light of day in a real world application. The real world is too unpredictable and chaotic to turn over to a computer to drive around in. If they invent anti-grav engines and force fields, then maybe I would turn over my vehicle to a computer, but they don't even let the computer drive a spaceship 40
Please tell me why anybody would want an Apple DVD player, I mean, honestly, how much sexier do you need to make a DVD player?
But I agree that Apple should focus on creating more consumer electronics based products, like a set-top all-in-wonder box that can browse the Internet, record television, and play DVD's as well as be powerful enough to run decent gaming and act as a multimedia server/client for other PC's/Macs in the house hold.
I think they are gearing up towards it, but they still seem too focused on trying to compete against Wintel, which I think has been their greatest failure to date. Now they gone and made a Macintel, a Mac that most people want desperately so they can run Windows on it. I mean, some may call this a huge success, but I think this has been their greatest mistake, to cave in and create a PC clone that simply runs Windows.
The iPod is basically subsidizing their Mac line up. They no longer feel the pressure to develop a must-have Mac because its not their bread and butter anymore. When the iPod came out, it allowed Apple to develop things like a $600 Mac Mini because there was nothing riding on the venture. But if they could just realize that if they put a decent video capture card into their Mac Mini, along with HD and digital surround sound support, and possibly a decent video card, they could make an HTPC that people would want in their living rooms.
Its about leveraging their experience in hardware/software design, but realizing where their market it. Apple WILL NEVER SUCCEED in replacing Windows/PC's as the dominant computer platform. Its been 30 years and they are further then ever of ever being a Wintel PC replacement. Once the current hype around Mac's running Windows is over, people will fall back to PC's because of selection and price which Apple has never tried to compete with.
So, instead of trying to make a desktop computer, make a set-top computer. Integrate into the home theater which is desperately looking for more robust and powerful application like advanced channel surfing (i.e. Spotlight for Television), better PVR, along the beauty and grace of OS X as an interface. Tie in Internet connectivity and video gaming, and I swear Apple will rule the earth.
Until I see that happen, I think Apple (re Steve Jobs) is largely misguided in their efforts. The only buzz about Apple these days is about iPods and Intel, and if Apple didn't switch to Intel, I think that Mac lineup would have been doomed ( mean, it seems like everyone including Apple has forgotten about the PowerMac G5 computers). But the Intel buzz will be over with, and if Apple doesn't make a killer piece of hardware out of it before that happens, Apple should end their computer division and focus solely on consumer electronics.
Have to agree, their customer service is arrogant and for the most part, mostly automated.
My website was accused of generating clicks, when I tried to plead my case, they refused to listen. When asked to review the matter, like 4 months later they told me that there was still enough evidence to suggest I was artificially clicking on ads to generate revenue.
The amount of revenue I had generated was about $3.50 worth and was aquired when I was developing the website and was testing it with friends and family. I should have turned off the Google ads during development, as I realize that because the ad views and clicks were originating from largely the same few IP's that they might consider this fraud, but I mean, come on, I ripped off Google $3.50. I couldn't even buy 1/10 of a stock from Google for that amount.
Since then, I have been blacklisted from Google's ad program and it took about a year for my website to finally be listed on Google despite multiple links from external pages and using services to register on various search engines including Google.
Google thinks they are self riteous mostly because they probably don't have enough staff to properly handle customer service, instead, they rely on bots to determine seemingly fraudulant activities and then generate automated emails telling you why you suck.
When I look back, I had 2 emails as well, one to accuse me, one telling me they will ignore me. Google doesn't believe the customer is always right, which is why I doubt them as a real customer service company will fail.
Hey, I at least deserve the right to be told I suck from a live person. At least then I can tell them to f*ck off!
I mean, I don't understand all this necessity of creating an "open document" standard. Especially when it comes down to politicians deciding which should be a ubiquitous document format.
To my knowledge, its never been a problem for a software company A to read and support documents from software company B, and vice versa. In fact, when it comes to word processing documents, which are largely text based (in a binary format), the problem is moot. Sure, you may not get some advanced formatting features specific to an individual package, but at least you can get the meat and potatoes of the document.
Unless you go to extraordinary lengths to encrypt a document so that only your application and read and write to it, I don't understand what all the hubbub is about.
Lets put it this way. If Microsoft comes out with an "open standard" and the OSS community comes out with an "open standard", whats the big deal? This means that Microsoft products will be able to natively support OSS document standards, and the OSS community will support Microsoft standards. Its not like either community needs to reverse-engineer the document format, both communities are making their standards open and thus, easily supported by 3rd parties.
What I find laughable is the idea that a government has to support ONE standard. I mean, does it really make a hill of beans difference for politicians? Whether your a politician that support the OSS community, or swears by retail software companies (depends where most of your campaign monies came from or didn't come from), the applications your going to use will be able to support either or standards.
Making a software product support one and only one standard is Stupid, period, with a capital S, especially when you have such disparaging differences between the OSS and retail software communities.
So, get over it. I mean, this doesn't need to have have taxpayers money wasted on such an endeavour to try and promote one person's open document standards over another. This is one of those non-news items that people seem to get all fired up over.
As long as I can go into application X, and open application's Y documents, who freakin cares what document format is being used!
If you really need a common standard, saving everything to PDF for goodness sakes!
While simulators are good to give people experience and help develop skills such as reflexes and hand-eye coordination and such, they are not replacements for the real thing.
I could argue that a person taking on a cellphone while driving a simulator will not consider the driving part as important as if they were in real life. That is, their mind will lose focus more quickly because there isn't any perceived threat for loosing focus. Its like other studies I have read about concerning losing concentration and focus while on a cell phone. One study had people talking on a cellphone while watching something on TV, then they were asked to remember details of the TV show. When the result showed a staggering failure to remember details, the it was stated that driving while talking on a cellphone was dangerous because it seriously impacts your ability to remember and pay attention to details, yeah, except that watching TV and driving are two completely different task, one that imposes the necessity of concentration for safety.
I am not defending driving while impaired for any reason, just that I tire of these kinds of grandstanding statements about the impairment of one particular devices while driving in a car, especially when the results are inconclusive because they are from a flawed study.
Why not put the people in a real car on a test track and repeat the study. Even then, the fact that people are aware on a test track will impact on how their brains will not perceive a real thread to their safety because of being in a closed environment.
Rather then trying to find the proof that cellphones are dangerous, I propose that the laws simply give the police power for pulling over people and fining them if they suspect that they are driving erratically, FOR WHATEVER REASON. If you weaving in traffic and a cop sees your on a cellphone, fine you for that reason, but if your weaving because your putting on makeup, or folding a map, or reading a newspaper, or any other countless stupid things people do in their car instead of paying attention to the road, fine them for those reasons! If these people cause an accident for obviously not paying attention, then fine them double or triple, or suspend their licence.
We don't need to vilify cellphones in cars, we need to vilify the people that opt not to use common sense while driving, for any reason. Stop wasting time and money tring to prove that cellphones in cars are dangerous. Cellphones are the tip of the iceberg for in-car distractions that cause ignorant people to lose focus of what they should be concentrating on while driving, and that is the act of driving.
I mean, if Seti was costing American taxpayers billions a year on R&D and technology to process those signals, then I would agree that Seti is a waste of time and money.
So, what Seti did was brilliant in devising a program that would let anybody that believes in little green men, or at least the search for them, to donate some CPU cycles to the endeavour. It has allowed Seti to work on a shoestring budget and get processing that is equivalent to the world's super computers.
I think it is a little ridiculous for someone to complain that Seti@home is robbing more meaningful scientific endeavours of much needed processing time. Look at it this way, how many millions and billions are invested in cancer research?
The problem with cancer research, unlike Seti@home, is that it isn't a singular focus. Thousands of research centers are are set up and working largely independently of each other. Part of the problem is that lots of independent medial research companies want to say they found a cure for cancer, and patent it, and make a mint of of saving peoples lives. The only directly common problem is the whole protein folding or other DNA/medical projects that use distributed processing to get the much needed data processing accomplished. If all those independent research centers got together and combined THEIR collective accumulation of processing power, then I am sure they would get a lot more results then expecting the general public to do it for them.
But the simple point of this kind of public domain computing is that it gives even the seemingly meaningless projects a chance to exist. While I am sure that Seti@home is more well known then other more "meaningful" projects, anyone that knows and has contributed to Seti@home probably is also just as aware and contributes to other distributed computing projects.
And you can't deny that it was Seti@home was the first to really pioneer this kind of public computing project. It was the first time I ever heard that my computer can be used for scientific processing. Folding@home, and the slew of other public computing projects all owe their existence to how Seti@home and Berkeley developed the concept. In fact, it was because of Seti@home that the application BOINC was introduced, that gave other public computing projects more exposure, allowing those involved with Seti@home to also recognize and contribute to more then one project.
So, give em a break. It's one of those things where half the population wants to believe we are not alone in the universe, and the other half is too frightened to accept that as a possibility. Those that are too frightened to accept that possibility expect the other half to stop what they are doing and put our heads in the sand.
Relax, there are lots of computers out there, and enough CPU power for everybody. But most "meaningul" projects already have a lot of money invested in them and really shouldn't have to rely on public domain processing in order to find the solutions they are being paid to find. Its the attitude that people don't want to give Seti@home any money that prompted them to use this solution in the first place.
What would happen as a buyer? Oops, we charged all your linked credit cards $10,000, sorry for the inconvenience. But who cares, Google got 2% of the transaction.
I think any system involving money should be flawless, or as near it as possible. I realize this is just about registering as a seller, but I will wait until the "beta" status has left the building before I go and attach any financial details to my Google account.
Actually just came across an old installation of this today, what a coincidence.
Wasn't overly impressed with it, iTunes and its simplicity has left me pretty jaded. Songbird is almost a direct rip off of iTunes. I prefer originals to copy cats.
My biggest question is, why does every music player have to have online music store tie ins? I mean, whatever happend to a simple music player that played music. Now I must be affliated with some music store which robs me of system and network resources in the background. Whether I fire up WMP with Urge, iTunes with the iTMS, or WinAmp and AOL, its going off in the background and updating its music store tie ins and making sure to make me aware of music advertising.
You would think that an open source application would avoid this kind of overhead and bloat.
I guess that its a matter of money, and online music stores off big bucks to have some media player tie in.
The bottom line is, no media player out there is that great. They really don't organize music well. Showing me lists and lists of music files isn't the best way to organize music, and ALL application lack personality in favour. In fact, I actually prefer the new Windows Media Player 11 interface as its the first media player to organize music that looks like collections of CD's.
Anyways, I will give Songbird another shot as I don't have any arrogant preference to which music player I use, I am still struggling to find one that works well without the bloat of multimedia and blatant RIAA DRM and music store fronts.
Microsoft should pull their products off the shelves of EU countries if the EU intends to fine them any money.
I think Microsoft has been more then reasonable in dealing with the EU up to this point, they have made their source code available to those people that want to pay enough to see it (there is no reason why Microsoft should have to open their source code, period). They have given reams and reams of documentation and manuals to the EU to ensure that any competitive software would have all the information available to make their products work well on the Windows platform. Microsoft has split their product into umpteen different versions to appease the EU by selling plain versions of Windows along with more feature rich versions. Windows Vista and its 6 flavours IS DIRECTLY BECAUSE of the EU bitching and complaining.
And instead, the EU just wants more and more and more.
The EU wants Microsoft to hand over all their innovation and code just so that the EU can setup a European alternative to Windows without spending any time or money on research and development. They expect Microsoft to simply CREATE a competitor so that the EU can feel comforted that a European company is installed on European computers, not a US company.
What the EU should wake up to is if they just looked at the open source community, they have everything they need to create a competitive product against Windows. If the EU put their money into investing into Linux and Open Office, rather then litigating against Microsoft, then they could create their own Euro-trash flavour to sell alongside a baguette and espresso.
If Microsoft had any balls, they would simply pull thier products of the shelves of EU companies. The EU seems to think that their population cannot compete or have a fair opportunity for choice with Microsoft products. The think they are acting in the best interests of their population. If their population couldn't buy Microsoft products, how quickly do you think it would take for the populace to overthrow the EU and force them to be nice to Microsoft so they can buy their products again. Microsoft does not have to sell their products to the EU, and Microsoft is big enough to make that statement without it affecting their bottom line for a long time.
I am not saying that Microsoft is completely guilt free in all this, their business practices in the past have been horrible, but I think the EU doesn't know when to get off their bandwagon and stop thumping the drum. I don't believe for an instant that Microsoft has to make it nicer for their competitors to compete by opening up source code and providing support above and beyond any other customer, and for the EU to expect Microsoft to bend over and take it is just ridiculous. Its time to make the EU take their heads out of their asses and realize they are going to get everything they are going to get. If they want to make the EU marketplace hostile to Microsoft, enough to force Microsoft to pull their products, then just back the giant deeper into that corner!
Within 1 year, someone like Apex or some other Asian consumer electronics company will come out with a hybrid drive that will play both HD and BR DVD's as well as DVD and CD. Within one year, expect a recorder that will record everything.
Within 1 year, you will be able to buy a hybrid player that doesn't care if your using HD or BD disks, or DVD's, or DVD-Audio, or CD, or VCD, or Divx, or WMV, or whatever.
Its the old, if you can't beat em, join em mentality. Eventually, both the HD and BR camps will realize that neither is a commanding format, and by allowing dual-licensing devices, it will ensure that the REAL meat and potatoes of the movie industry, SELLING THE DVD's, is where the money is and is what is most important. A player with no movies is a waste of money.
For anyone considering which of these two devices to blow their money on, wait. In 1 year, you will buy a multi-format player or even recorder that will cost 1/5 th of what you paid for your original 1 format player.
These formats won't fail, but neither will become singularly victorious. Like DVD-R and DVD+R, they will be merged into a ubiquitous drive which will mean that every player sold generates revenue for the individual license and content holders.
The war, truthfully, is over, because there was NO WAR to begin with!
Once a format is out there, it is hard to let it go, and if consumers don't buy HD-DVD or BR-DVD, then stopping selling DVD's means stopping your sales. DVD was the fastest growth media format ever, faster then Tape, CD, VHS. With DVD Players costing as little as $39, they are about to saturate EVERY home that has a television set or two. Stopping DVD sales won't prompt someone to replace their $39 DVD player with one for $999 that plays only half of the movie releases out there, especially when most of the "new" releases are poorly dubbed older movies nobody cares about.
Its not really that the companies involved don't matter, but the individuals. Steve Ballmer is being blaimed for the Vista disaster, and Microsoft's loss of momentum.
When you ask yourself the original question, do these people matter, but add the NOW modifier, you realize that while they people may have mattered in the past, I agree that most are struggling in an industry filled with new innovators and their companies or innovations are largely self directing now. What is Linus doing for Linux? Not making it a Windows replacement, that is for sure. Are we to wait for another decade of Linux "innovation" before we can claim it a contender?
You have to realize that Slashdot it news for Nerds, so if your not a nerd, then it doesn't matter. Slashdot doesn't matter by design.
Vonage, there are hundreds of competitors doing a better job, same with Netflix.
And Sun, Sun hasn't mattered for decades.
True though, I think this list was mostly sensational. By putting both Ballmer and Torvalds on the same list, it pretty much meant it would irk people sitting on both sides of the fence. I am surprised Steve Jobs wasn't put up there as well, might as well get the last 5% of computer users irritated as well.
I was surprised that nobody from SCO was on the list, but lets not give them ANY more press then they deserve.
Slashdot Mirror
The windmills only push the hot air to less developed countries. It depends where you measure your temperatures. The USA will be the first to introduce outdoor air conditioning, heck half the stores in California keep their front doors open to draw people into their cooler interiors.
I mean, the earth has had several major "irreversible" climate changes, but it seemed to correct itself. I am not worried about "earth", it will be around and thriving long after mankind is gone.
Most people on \. are dinosaurs from the pre-GUI command line loving era of software so anything new and bright hurts their eyes and they automatically hate it. Most \.ers think they know better then everyone else and so when some company invests millions and years in R&D and comes up with new GUI, they automatically assume their $0.02 worth is better advice. My litmus test for new GUI is that if you can't go back to a previous generation of OS or software because it is missing the efficiency and features of the new GUI, then it is a successful GUI. For instance, few people I know like using XP anymore after they have used Windows 7 for a few months, so, Win 7 GUI is successful. I am sure that once Windows 8 is released, people will find it hard to go back to Windows 7. Try and go back to Windows 95 or OS 9 and you will realize how far along Microsoft and Apple have come in GUI design. If you try a new GUI and find that you want to go back (give it a few weeks at least), then it is a failure. New GUI is about efficiency in workflow and use. While sometimes the workflow changes (and again most \.ers are adverse to learning anything new, muscle memory, LMAO, it take about week for your muscles to remember something new), if the new workflow requires more effort with little gain in efficiency, then it is a failure. GUI is not about color or chrome, it is about usability. Hating an OS because of color is an obtuse view of software design. If you complain about color or chrome or whatever and insist that battleship grey is the only color that should adorn a dialog window, then go back into your cave or maybe find a nice tar pit to snuggle up in.
Thought this was cool until I saw the picture, obviously they are using the same industrial designers as back in the 60's.
Linux is killing native app development.
But this is one of the fundamental problems, people don't understand what an operating system actually is.
There have been many debates between geeks about what an operating system actually is, and obviously people writing about these "Internet" operating systems, and the ones creating them, don't have a clue as to what they truly are.
An operating system isn't just a file manager, its a layer of software that allows you to interface with hardware, manage data, and control devices. By its very definition, and "Internet" based OS cannot exist, as it requires SOME form of operating system in order to run. You NEED an OS first in order to access the Internet and manage the network protocols and access network hardware. You NEED an OS first in order to run the web browser to access the Internet. you need an OS first in order to access the application data stored on disk and loaded in memory before you can even launch an "Internet" OS.
Instead, what these people are actually creating is just an online file manager, A SHELL.
Sorry, I just can't tolerate a blatant misrepresentation of terminology in this case. When people start talking about a Google OS as an online service, it is just irritating that there is so much ignorance, especially coming from a supposedly technologically literate community.
I am not saying the concept of an online SHELL isn't valid. Having the ability to create and store and share files online, without worrying about losing data locally if your local hardware fails is a sound idea and I welcome it. Just don't confuse a glorified AJAX P2P front end as being an operating system.
Even in the case if we move to a purely online services based market where you use a thin client to access the internet, you still need an OS before you can access the internet.
Call it what it is, and Online File Manager. An AJAX based P2P front end. An online portal. Just stop calling it an operating system, its not and never CAN be.
It is also a brilliantly f*cking stupid idea to have an embedded web browser within a web environment? I mean, I need a browser to access this service, duh? What makes an AJAX based web browser better then one running natively on your system?
Sorry, but spelling it dikshunary just means your a dumb uneducated hick.
I agree that the English language has lots of words with complicated spellings, and often whole strings of consonants, which are irrational or unexplainable. Worcestershire sauce is pronounced wuster. My philosophy has been to pronounce it the way it is spelt, so I say wor-chester-shire sauce, which irritates my British and snobby English major friends.
The problem is that this will lead to a lack of formalization of the written word. If suddenly there is more then one correct spelling for a word, then people will just start to write the way things sound in general, without caring about the proper spelling(s) of the word. I mean, people are starting to use "teh" as the, and wikipedia seems to consider it an acceptable form of the word. I just think its a obviously lazy construct because people don't learn how to type properly, or review their messages.
What I am suggesting however is that all these spelling and grammar Nazis that jump down your throat over a misspelled word or improper grammar need to get a life. If you can understand what someone is writing or saying, then they have made their point. If you can write it with 100% proper spelling and grammar, then good for you, you passed remedial English.
There is a difference between formal letter/document writting, and the kind of "typing" slang that casual web user employs. Its only been in the last decade that people have used a computer and text messaging as a major form of communication. Instead of spoken slang, people are adopting typed word slang. The keyboard is a confounding method of text entry, and not everyone can type properly. However, if I was writing a thesis, and I used the word dikshunary in it, I wouldn't be surprised if I never got my doctorate degree.
I don't think we need to formally dumb down the English language in order to ensure the spelling Nazis have nothing to complain about. Just give people a break that either they are too lazy to be formal when writing quick messages to friends, family, or blogs, or that maybe they are not people where English is their first language, and are able to get their point across without proper spelling and grammar.
Lastly, I am writing this using Google's Spell Check tool bar, and thank God, because spelling is one of my worst skills. There is a prevalence of spell checking in most applications (hell, even Visual Studio checks your spelling, or at least keeps your variable names consistent). Put the alternate misspelled forms of words in the dictionary and have it auto-translate to the proper one and only spelling.
It is funny that this article is mentioned at a time when George W Bush, a person that bastardizes the English language every chance he gets, is president. Its almost as if the president is imposing that we change the spelling of words to make him appeaer educated and smart. Would this article be mentioned if the US had a smarter and more eloquent president?
I still don't understand the need for an open document format, except to make OSS happy.
For decades, every application that has had some competitive version has been able to support each other's file types relatively painlessly. The only point of contention is when one version has features the other does not support. This is where document support becomes spotty.
But, with OSS pretty much duplicating whatever they like from retail software, granted with a few novel innovations, its pretty much becomes a case of we all have the same features, lets make a document format that works for everything.
Again, I don't see how or why this needs to be. Microsoft is offering an "open" document format, that is, a format that any 3rd party competitor can read, interpret, and view within their application. OSS has created their own open document format, which Microsoft and other 3rd parties can read, interpret, and view. The key is now you don't need to reverse engineer or hack support for a file, whether it's Microsoft or OSS software, both are offering a document format you can use or support at will.
I really don't see a need that every application needs to support ONE document format. I don't think it is possible, because eventually, some company will come out with a feature that won't be supported by someone else's product, and it just become kludge to try and say that this document format will support FUTURE features without getting into the mess of having every vendor discuss and talk about changing its version.
An open document format will stifle innovation because every vendor will be reluctant to add new features. Whenever something is designed by committee, the design flounders and fails.
So, as long as your a company that has embraced the "open" in open document, and create a document version and tell everyone how to access its data, that is all the industry needs.
OPEN is not synonymous with ONE, it does not mean there needs to be only ONE document format. It just means that your playing fair with competitors and offering a document format, and the necessary SDK or documentation to read and interpret that document format.
At the end of all this, you will still end up having to support DOC, DOCX, PDF, ODF, XML, etc, etc, etc. There is no point to this argument, it is moot.
Its just another Microsoft vs OSS garbage inflammatory troll bait article that we waste far too much time discussing and worrying about. In the end, it won't matter one hill of beans whether or not Microsoft or the OSS format wins, there WILL BE TWO FORMATS anyways. If your software vendor, start supporting both in your software now.
It will be cool and fast because Intel's CPU's are cooler and faster then the PowerPC crap Apple was using.
When you can boast that your current generation of Macintels are 5x - 10x faster then your previous generation, then you can claim your next OS will be faster.
OSX 10.5 will be the first Mac OS that will truly support Intel architecture, so I am sure that this will give it a performance edge that 10.4 doesn't have, which was kludged to support Intel architecture. While Apple did a brilliant job in making the transition to Intel seamless, I have no doubt that there are major performance and quality problems with running Tiger on an Intel platform. Also, you can't make me believe the whole Rosetta technology runs native PowerPC applications on Intel without a performance hit.
In any regard, I also think the whole "Microsoft should worry" statement in the article is inflammatory and unfounded. I have been running Vista Beta 2 for several weeks on my test platform, and it runs well, stable and except for occasional performance hiccups, relatively fast. Its beta software of course, so I will reserve judgment on it being slow and a resource hog until its release.
Also, most people are so upset about Vista requiring a GPU to run, and claim its a resource hog. When you stop and think about it, using the GPU to render UI frees up your CPU to do other things, the UI is no longer consuming CPU horse power to render. Windows is using a GPU when its remain an untapped resource in your box when your just running OS apps and utilities. I think people still hold on to old past experiences with Windows and don't allow themselves to understand the truth of Vista's new architecture. In fact, its the same thing OSX is doing to render their UI in OpenGL to take advantage of 3D rendering, although something tells me that Microsoft is the first to make it an exclusive operation of the GPU while OSX still relies on software OpenGL rendering consuming CPU power.
In any regards. Unless Apple introduces FLAWLESS Windows vitalization within OSX, complete with a ZERO performance hit, the I doubt Apple will make any impact on the PC market with Leopard. Tiger was supposed to be Apple's sledgehammer against Windows, as too was Jaguar and Panther, and the Ocelot, they haven't proven to be anything more then another entry in Apple's history books, an OS that has maintained 5% market share.
The bottom line is, why run OSX at all? I mean, except for iLife applications, there is nothing I can't do on my PC that I can do any better on my Mac. In fact, iLife is the ONLY reason many people are getting Mac's and OSX. But, I get better entertainment value from a PC because it supports better quality sound output (true surround support), HD support, true PVR/Media Center capabilities, and of course, Games which is a Billion Dollar industry Apple has soundly ignored. And there are handful of independent applications that give me good multimedia organization and video editting, just not as slick as iLife.
I love hearing these grandstand statements that Microsoft should worry about Apple. Why? Apple has existed for 30 years without being a real competitor to Microsoft. In the last 6 years, Apple has had a superior OS to Windows, and still can't take over the market. Now, even with Apple making PC clones that can run Windows, this might increase Apple's hardware share of the PC market, but people want to buy Mac's now to run Windows. Microsoft is more worried about Google and Apple is just a mosquito buzzing in their ears. The day that Apple takes over 90% marketshare will be the day I eat my shorts.
People have to understand that in the Apple Microsoft war, Microsoft has won, period, and did so like 10 years ago.
Apple will continue making good quality products for a niche market, they might gain a few percentage points in marketshare, but I think that Apple will eventually realize that putting time and money into OSX will never result in the returns they have been hoping for.
But saying that Mac's are more secure then PC's is incorrect, period!
These kinds of headlines have to start saying that OSX is more secure then Windows. Its the software running on Mac's which is the important factor, not the hardware itself.
There is a culture of people now that are only buying Mac's (hardware) because they can run Windows (software). I am sure there will be those brain dead people that will assume that the Mac (hardware platform) is more secure for running Windows (software platform), and they will be misguided by these statements.
Regardless of whether you believe OSX is more secure the Windows, the fact is that Mac's are not more stable then PC's, especially when Mac's these days are PC clones and people only want them so they can run Windows on them. Running Windows on a Mac, without proper precautions opens you up to the same security problems as a PC running Windows.
Mac = Hardware
PC = Hardware
OSX = Software
Windows = Software
Mac = PC
Therefore, its the software which matters. Do the math.
In North America, 500 people will show up when Cabbage Patch dolls are released, and WANT to pay $60 a pop for them, and will kill each other over them to boot. You couldn't get 500 people in North America to agree on what color the sky is, let alone coordinate enough to get a discount on something they will pay double to get anyways.
Lets put it this day, how many people show up at a gas station and happily pay way too much money for gas.
We make too much money in North America, which is why while individually we may gripe about the cost of something, we will never coordinate to get a discount because we are too bitter, proud and stupid to want our neighbours to get a discount on it too.
"Unconcerned with technological bells and whistles and geeky one-upmanship"
It doesn't take much to out do craigslist. I mean, even a CSS style sheet with a few lines could improve that website greatly. Good to see nobody is striving to outdo craigslist, we wouldn't want creativity and innovation running rampant on the web now, would we.
-
-
Yeah, I know, mod me down. My Karma is good today.
Also, heard of Linux?
I will be the first to complain that Linux isn't ready for primetime as a desktop replacement OS, but as an embedded environment, it is absolutely brilliant.
Consider that anything with a microprocessor has been hacked to run Linux, its the obvious choice for embedded applications. I know someone that is working on a CNC controller that is using Linux and can actually run a visual environment on the controller for more advanced managment and control of CNC jobs. All you would get with Dos is a c:\ prompt because when it comes to embedded applications, DOS has fallen way behind in the times compared to Linux embedded apps.
DOS IS DEAD, get over it. Those holding on to it are using legacy hardware that is sorefully in need of an upgrade. Linux is just cheaper and easier to implement for embedded applications and is a much more rich and robust environment for dedicated equipement.
Besides, most retail stores I purchase stuff at has full blown touch screen color displays running Windows and most likely uses Linux or Windows servers to manage online and warehouse stock accessed through Windows workstations. It has been a long time since I have seen a black and white or blue and white text screen environment in a retail store, or bank, or airport, or warehousing system, etc. And I have actually worked in factory automation to know that DOS workstations seldom exist at any level.
I have to state you can either have a completely automated system, or a completely human driven system, the two will not mix. And even then, this technology is too expensive to implement.
I don't understand why car companies are wasting time and money in developing self driven cars. While there might be useful purposes for the technology, such as "off-world" exploration, or for use in the military, there will never come a time when we turn over control of our cars to a computer and sit back and enjoy the ride.
There are too many variables involved in a self-driven cars, things that a computer cannot take into consideration, such as the often random and stupid nature of how people drive. In a mixed environment, where human and computer driven cars are allowed, it will be a huge disaster waiting to happen. The first time some idiot swerves across 4 lanes of busy traffic because they don't want to miss their exit (because they were not paying attention in the first place) and causes a massive car pileup because all the computer driven cars could not react fast enough to the sudden chaotic input will essentially pull the plug on the whole idea. Companies like VW and Honda working on automated cars will be named in a massive class action lawsuit that will effectively bankrupt these companies (good riddance, both companies are overly hyped about anyways).
Even in an environment of purely computer driven vehicles, where you have a safe enough (and powerful enough) computers controlling all the cars, robust and secure wireless networks, along with radar and all the sensors needed so that every car knows about the existence of every other car on the road in a 10 km radius, there is still a level of uncertainty and chaos that computers will not be able to handle. A sudden rainstorm or white out, while may not affect the navigation of the vehicle, may cause the computer to react poorly in a sudden stop situation when it hasn't gauged the slipperiness of the road. Driving down a dark highway at night, human eyes may pick up the deer standing still on the side of the road, and slow down accordingly assuming the deer might dart across the road suddenly, but a computer will not register the fact that there is wildlife near the road, and will not react quick enough when the deer darts pass, regardless of how good the avoidance detection and mechanics are. There is no computerized counterpart for human intuition and experience.
In the end, you will have to build a roadway underground, where you can almost guarantee no inadvertent input of chaos into the computer controlled environment. If you take weather and wildlife out of the equation, and can guarantee a pretty much predictable environment, then I would agree that computer driven cars makes sense. But it would cost trillions of dollars to upgrade the highway and transit systems to implement this kind of system for computerized car control, and I would move that it would be criminal to allow a human driver in this environment, enough for jail time and a life long suspension of your license. Movies like iRobot where Will Smith takes manual command of his car while driving down an automated tunnel is pure fiction, and it will remain that way.
In the end, this is a pipe dream and I am afraid that every dollar wasted on this technology could be put into making cars more fuel efficient, ecologically friendly, or research in alternate fuels or power technologies. They can also be made safer, or at least, implement computer assistance that could effectively prevent the car from spinning out of control if the human driver isn't skilled enough to handle the situation.
I don't think I am alone in assuming that this technology will never see the light of day in a real world application. The real world is too unpredictable and chaotic to turn over to a computer to drive around in. If they invent anti-grav engines and force fields, then maybe I would turn over my vehicle to a computer, but they don't even let the computer drive a spaceship 40
Please tell me why anybody would want an Apple DVD player, I mean, honestly, how much sexier do you need to make a DVD player? But I agree that Apple should focus on creating more consumer electronics based products, like a set-top all-in-wonder box that can browse the Internet, record television, and play DVD's as well as be powerful enough to run decent gaming and act as a multimedia server/client for other PC's/Macs in the house hold. I think they are gearing up towards it, but they still seem too focused on trying to compete against Wintel, which I think has been their greatest failure to date. Now they gone and made a Macintel, a Mac that most people want desperately so they can run Windows on it. I mean, some may call this a huge success, but I think this has been their greatest mistake, to cave in and create a PC clone that simply runs Windows. The iPod is basically subsidizing their Mac line up. They no longer feel the pressure to develop a must-have Mac because its not their bread and butter anymore. When the iPod came out, it allowed Apple to develop things like a $600 Mac Mini because there was nothing riding on the venture. But if they could just realize that if they put a decent video capture card into their Mac Mini, along with HD and digital surround sound support, and possibly a decent video card, they could make an HTPC that people would want in their living rooms. Its about leveraging their experience in hardware/software design, but realizing where their market it. Apple WILL NEVER SUCCEED in replacing Windows/PC's as the dominant computer platform. Its been 30 years and they are further then ever of ever being a Wintel PC replacement. Once the current hype around Mac's running Windows is over, people will fall back to PC's because of selection and price which Apple has never tried to compete with. So, instead of trying to make a desktop computer, make a set-top computer. Integrate into the home theater which is desperately looking for more robust and powerful application like advanced channel surfing (i.e. Spotlight for Television), better PVR, along the beauty and grace of OS X as an interface. Tie in Internet connectivity and video gaming, and I swear Apple will rule the earth. Until I see that happen, I think Apple (re Steve Jobs) is largely misguided in their efforts. The only buzz about Apple these days is about iPods and Intel, and if Apple didn't switch to Intel, I think that Mac lineup would have been doomed ( mean, it seems like everyone including Apple has forgotten about the PowerMac G5 computers). But the Intel buzz will be over with, and if Apple doesn't make a killer piece of hardware out of it before that happens, Apple should end their computer division and focus solely on consumer electronics.
Have to agree, their customer service is arrogant and for the most part, mostly automated.
My website was accused of generating clicks, when I tried to plead my case, they refused to listen. When asked to review the matter, like 4 months later they told me that there was still enough evidence to suggest I was artificially clicking on ads to generate revenue.
The amount of revenue I had generated was about $3.50 worth and was aquired when I was developing the website and was testing it with friends and family. I should have turned off the Google ads during development, as I realize that because the ad views and clicks were originating from largely the same few IP's that they might consider this fraud, but I mean, come on, I ripped off Google $3.50. I couldn't even buy 1/10 of a stock from Google for that amount.
Since then, I have been blacklisted from Google's ad program and it took about a year for my website to finally be listed on Google despite multiple links from external pages and using services to register on various search engines including Google.
Google thinks they are self riteous mostly because they probably don't have enough staff to properly handle customer service, instead, they rely on bots to determine seemingly fraudulant activities and then generate automated emails telling you why you suck.
When I look back, I had 2 emails as well, one to accuse me, one telling me they will ignore me. Google doesn't believe the customer is always right, which is why I doubt them as a real customer service company will fail.
Hey, I at least deserve the right to be told I suck from a live person. At least then I can tell them to f*ck off!
I mean, I don't understand all this necessity of creating an "open document" standard. Especially when it comes down to politicians deciding which should be a ubiquitous document format.
To my knowledge, its never been a problem for a software company A to read and support documents from software company B, and vice versa. In fact, when it comes to word processing documents, which are largely text based (in a binary format), the problem is moot. Sure, you may not get some advanced formatting features specific to an individual package, but at least you can get the meat and potatoes of the document.
Unless you go to extraordinary lengths to encrypt a document so that only your application and read and write to it, I don't understand what all the hubbub is about.
Lets put it this way. If Microsoft comes out with an "open standard" and the OSS community comes out with an "open standard", whats the big deal? This means that Microsoft products will be able to natively support OSS document standards, and the OSS community will support Microsoft standards. Its not like either community needs to reverse-engineer the document format, both communities are making their standards open and thus, easily supported by 3rd parties.
What I find laughable is the idea that a government has to support ONE standard. I mean, does it really make a hill of beans difference for politicians? Whether your a politician that support the OSS community, or swears by retail software companies (depends where most of your campaign monies came from or didn't come from), the applications your going to use will be able to support either or standards.
Making a software product support one and only one standard is Stupid, period, with a capital S, especially when you have such disparaging differences between the OSS and retail software communities.
So, get over it. I mean, this doesn't need to have have taxpayers money wasted on such an endeavour to try and promote one person's open document standards over another. This is one of those non-news items that people seem to get all fired up over.
As long as I can go into application X, and open application's Y documents, who freakin cares what document format is being used!
If you really need a common standard, saving everything to PDF for goodness sakes!
While simulators are good to give people experience and help develop skills such as reflexes and hand-eye coordination and such, they are not replacements for the real thing.
I could argue that a person taking on a cellphone while driving a simulator will not consider the driving part as important as if they were in real life. That is, their mind will lose focus more quickly because there isn't any perceived threat for loosing focus. Its like other studies I have read about concerning losing concentration and focus while on a cell phone. One study had people talking on a cellphone while watching something on TV, then they were asked to remember details of the TV show. When the result showed a staggering failure to remember details, the it was stated that driving while talking on a cellphone was dangerous because it seriously impacts your ability to remember and pay attention to details, yeah, except that watching TV and driving are two completely different task, one that imposes the necessity of concentration for safety.
I am not defending driving while impaired for any reason, just that I tire of these kinds of grandstanding statements about the impairment of one particular devices while driving in a car, especially when the results are inconclusive because they are from a flawed study.
Why not put the people in a real car on a test track and repeat the study. Even then, the fact that people are aware on a test track will impact on how their brains will not perceive a real thread to their safety because of being in a closed environment.
Rather then trying to find the proof that cellphones are dangerous, I propose that the laws simply give the police power for pulling over people and fining them if they suspect that they are driving erratically, FOR WHATEVER REASON. If you weaving in traffic and a cop sees your on a cellphone, fine you for that reason, but if your weaving because your putting on makeup, or folding a map, or reading a newspaper, or any other countless stupid things people do in their car instead of paying attention to the road, fine them for those reasons! If these people cause an accident for obviously not paying attention, then fine them double or triple, or suspend their licence.
We don't need to vilify cellphones in cars, we need to vilify the people that opt not to use common sense while driving, for any reason. Stop wasting time and money tring to prove that cellphones in cars are dangerous. Cellphones are the tip of the iceberg for in-car distractions that cause ignorant people to lose focus of what they should be concentrating on while driving, and that is the act of driving.
I mean, if Seti was costing American taxpayers billions a year on R&D and technology to process those signals, then I would agree that Seti is a waste of time and money.
So, what Seti did was brilliant in devising a program that would let anybody that believes in little green men, or at least the search for them, to donate some CPU cycles to the endeavour. It has allowed Seti to work on a shoestring budget and get processing that is equivalent to the world's super computers.
I think it is a little ridiculous for someone to complain that Seti@home is robbing more meaningful scientific endeavours of much needed processing time. Look at it this way, how many millions and billions are invested in cancer research?
The problem with cancer research, unlike Seti@home, is that it isn't a singular focus. Thousands of research centers are are set up and working largely independently of each other. Part of the problem is that lots of independent medial research companies want to say they found a cure for cancer, and patent it, and make a mint of of saving peoples lives. The only directly common problem is the whole protein folding or other DNA/medical projects that use distributed processing to get the much needed data processing accomplished. If all those independent research centers got together and combined THEIR collective accumulation of processing power, then I am sure they would get a lot more results then expecting the general public to do it for them.
But the simple point of this kind of public domain computing is that it gives even the seemingly meaningless projects a chance to exist. While I am sure that Seti@home is more well known then other more "meaningful" projects, anyone that knows and has contributed to Seti@home probably is also just as aware and contributes to other distributed computing projects.
And you can't deny that it was Seti@home was the first to really pioneer this kind of public computing project. It was the first time I ever heard that my computer can be used for scientific processing. Folding@home, and the slew of other public computing projects all owe their existence to how Seti@home and Berkeley developed the concept. In fact, it was because of Seti@home that the application BOINC was introduced, that gave other public computing projects more exposure, allowing those involved with Seti@home to also recognize and contribute to more then one project.
So, give em a break. It's one of those things where half the population wants to believe we are not alone in the universe, and the other half is too frightened to accept that as a possibility. Those that are too frightened to accept that possibility expect the other half to stop what they are doing and put our heads in the sand.
Relax, there are lots of computers out there, and enough CPU power for everybody. But most "meaningul" projects already have a lot of money invested in them and really shouldn't have to rely on public domain processing in order to find the solutions they are being paid to find. Its the attitude that people don't want to give Seti@home any money that prompted them to use this solution in the first place.
What would happen as a buyer? Oops, we charged all your linked credit cards $10,000, sorry for the inconvenience. But who cares, Google got 2% of the transaction.
I think any system involving money should be flawless, or as near it as possible. I realize this is just about registering as a seller, but I will wait until the "beta" status has left the building before I go and attach any financial details to my Google account.
Actually just came across an old installation of this today, what a coincidence.
Wasn't overly impressed with it, iTunes and its simplicity has left me pretty jaded. Songbird is almost a direct rip off of iTunes. I prefer originals to copy cats.
My biggest question is, why does every music player have to have online music store tie ins? I mean, whatever happend to a simple music player that played music. Now I must be affliated with some music store which robs me of system and network resources in the background. Whether I fire up WMP with Urge, iTunes with the iTMS, or WinAmp and AOL, its going off in the background and updating its music store tie ins and making sure to make me aware of music advertising.
You would think that an open source application would avoid this kind of overhead and bloat.
I guess that its a matter of money, and online music stores off big bucks to have some media player tie in.
The bottom line is, no media player out there is that great. They really don't organize music well. Showing me lists and lists of music files isn't the best way to organize music, and ALL application lack personality in favour. In fact, I actually prefer the new Windows Media Player 11 interface as its the first media player to organize music that looks like collections of CD's.
Anyways, I will give Songbird another shot as I don't have any arrogant preference to which music player I use, I am still struggling to find one that works well without the bloat of multimedia and blatant RIAA DRM and music store fronts.
Microsoft should pull their products off the shelves of EU countries if the EU intends to fine them any money.
I think Microsoft has been more then reasonable in dealing with the EU up to this point, they have made their source code available to those people that want to pay enough to see it (there is no reason why Microsoft should have to open their source code, period). They have given reams and reams of documentation and manuals to the EU to ensure that any competitive software would have all the information available to make their products work well on the Windows platform. Microsoft has split their product into umpteen different versions to appease the EU by selling plain versions of Windows along with more feature rich versions. Windows Vista and its 6 flavours IS DIRECTLY BECAUSE of the EU bitching and complaining.
And instead, the EU just wants more and more and more.
The EU wants Microsoft to hand over all their innovation and code just so that the EU can setup a European alternative to Windows without spending any time or money on research and development. They expect Microsoft to simply CREATE a competitor so that the EU can feel comforted that a European company is installed on European computers, not a US company.
What the EU should wake up to is if they just looked at the open source community, they have everything they need to create a competitive product against Windows. If the EU put their money into investing into Linux and Open Office, rather then litigating against Microsoft, then they could create their own Euro-trash flavour to sell alongside a baguette and espresso.
If Microsoft had any balls, they would simply pull thier products of the shelves of EU companies. The EU seems to think that their population cannot compete or have a fair opportunity for choice with Microsoft products. The think they are acting in the best interests of their population. If their population couldn't buy Microsoft products, how quickly do you think it would take for the populace to overthrow the EU and force them to be nice to Microsoft so they can buy their products again. Microsoft does not have to sell their products to the EU, and Microsoft is big enough to make that statement without it affecting their bottom line for a long time.
I am not saying that Microsoft is completely guilt free in all this, their business practices in the past have been horrible, but I think the EU doesn't know when to get off their bandwagon and stop thumping the drum. I don't believe for an instant that Microsoft has to make it nicer for their competitors to compete by opening up source code and providing support above and beyond any other customer, and for the EU to expect Microsoft to bend over and take it is just ridiculous. Its time to make the EU take their heads out of their asses and realize they are going to get everything they are going to get. If they want to make the EU marketplace hostile to Microsoft, enough to force Microsoft to pull their products, then just back the giant deeper into that corner!
Within 1 year, someone like Apex or some other Asian consumer electronics company will come out with a hybrid drive that will play both HD and BR DVD's as well as DVD and CD. Within one year, expect a recorder that will record everything.
Within 1 year, you will be able to buy a hybrid player that doesn't care if your using HD or BD disks, or DVD's, or DVD-Audio, or CD, or VCD, or Divx, or WMV, or whatever.
Its the old, if you can't beat em, join em mentality. Eventually, both the HD and BR camps will realize that neither is a commanding format, and by allowing dual-licensing devices, it will ensure that the REAL meat and potatoes of the movie industry, SELLING THE DVD's, is where the money is and is what is most important. A player with no movies is a waste of money.
For anyone considering which of these two devices to blow their money on, wait. In 1 year, you will buy a multi-format player or even recorder that will cost 1/5 th of what you paid for your original 1 format player.
These formats won't fail, but neither will become singularly victorious. Like DVD-R and DVD+R, they will be merged into a ubiquitous drive which will mean that every player sold generates revenue for the individual license and content holders.
The war, truthfully, is over, because there was NO WAR to begin with!
Have they stopped selling VHS?
Once a format is out there, it is hard to let it go, and if consumers don't buy HD-DVD or BR-DVD, then stopping selling DVD's means stopping your sales. DVD was the fastest growth media format ever, faster then Tape, CD, VHS. With DVD Players costing as little as $39, they are about to saturate EVERY home that has a television set or two. Stopping DVD sales won't prompt someone to replace their $39 DVD player with one for $999 that plays only half of the movie releases out there, especially when most of the "new" releases are poorly dubbed older movies nobody cares about.
Its not really that the companies involved don't matter, but the individuals. Steve Ballmer is being blaimed for the Vista disaster, and Microsoft's loss of momentum.
When you ask yourself the original question, do these people matter, but add the NOW modifier, you realize that while they people may have mattered in the past, I agree that most are struggling in an industry filled with new innovators and their companies or innovations are largely self directing now. What is Linus doing for Linux? Not making it a Windows replacement, that is for sure. Are we to wait for another decade of Linux "innovation" before we can claim it a contender?
You have to realize that Slashdot it news for Nerds, so if your not a nerd, then it doesn't matter. Slashdot doesn't matter by design.
Vonage, there are hundreds of competitors doing a better job, same with Netflix.
And Sun, Sun hasn't mattered for decades.
True though, I think this list was mostly sensational. By putting both Ballmer and Torvalds on the same list, it pretty much meant it would irk people sitting on both sides of the fence. I am surprised Steve Jobs wasn't put up there as well, might as well get the last 5% of computer users irritated as well.
I was surprised that nobody from SCO was on the list, but lets not give them ANY more press then they deserve.