They actually invariably sue you for distributing the files back INTO the network, arguing not that you infringed on their work by downloading a copy, but rather that you infringed on their work by distributing it.
P2P "Leeches" are actually relatively safe from prosecution at this point in time. The RIAA is generally focussed on people re-distributing. (If they can kill distribution the leeches die off... if only leeches are left there is no content to leech.)
Thus its a more effective strategy.
Plus it dodges the issue of people who might actually already have the CD. Downloading a song you own on CD is *probably* legal -- but distributing a song *isn't* regardless of whether or not you bought the CD or not.
Are you suggesting that my new mail program called "Hey Boss I Fucked Your Wife" should be renamed? It's a perfectly good name I think.
Lousy acronym though... HBIFYW. How the fuck is that alphabet vomit recited? How about "Boss I Screwed Your Bitch" which reduces neatly to "BisyB" pronounced of course, "busybee".
Not only does it roll off the tongue, but the term 'busybee' can mean both someone who 'works hard' (a suitable and innocuous name for an office oriented productivity application like your mail program). Or it could mean one who 'gets around' [promiscuously] which is a perfect fit given the actual expanded title.
Hmmm. Maybe still not enough geek cred though. I don't see any recursion.
How about "IMBisyB" - "IMBisyB Means Boss I Screwed Your Bitch", pronounced of course "I'm Busybee"
In my case for example I drive a 911, which is neither remotely fuel efficient nor inexpensive to maintain -- but it has a lot of the same disadvantages as a smart car so bear with me. It's lousy for transporting even moderately sized items, you can't haul a boat, or fill it with relatives, or bricks, etc... While I knew I'd love the car I thought I'd *really* miss having a larger vehicle. Turned out its not the big deal I thought it was.
Sure I *could* own a 2nd vehicle, but it turns out I only actually really need one half a dozen times per year. (I think not having one makes you learn to "need" it even less.) But on those occassions I really do want one I just rent one. I also use the various delivery services available when buying furniture, etc. And occasionally use couriers to ship mid-size items that don't fit in the car. I spend around $800-1000 at most per year on rentals and these delivery services, which seems like a lot at first blush... but its nearly half the cost of insuring a second vehicle, and I don't have any maintenance expense, no lease expense, no capital tied up in a depreciating vehicle, and I don't have to worry about having a place to park it either.
Even if ICBC halved or thirded insurance on '2ndary vehicles' I still wouldn't have bothered getting one.
I recognize that this won't work for everybody, but I'm surprised at how painless it turned out for me.
Another option is Temporary Operation Permits, which are also a bit of a pain in the ass as you have to buy them for each date you want to drive, but they provide a decent option for someone who wants to own a vehicle and only drive it a couple times per month. (And maybe keep a storage policy on it if its worth anything.)
All that said, I too wish ICBC let you have multiple vehicles under a single policy, paying the price for the most expensive vehicle to be covered, so you could drive the one you want when you want without hassle or paying multiple times. One can only be driving one car at a time after all. I guess it would have to be a little higher for each additional car to cover storage/comprehensive on each of them.
Yet for all the complaints about ICBC and the 'public insurance company' we've got it pretty good. People always say... "ooo look at how much cheaper insurance is in AB, we should privatize!" Vancouver driving is more like Toronto than Edmonton -- and if you think BC is overpriced you've never tried insuring in ontario. I lived a year there while in university - I had an MR2 (a $5k car at the time) - the best price I could get for remotely decent coverage was $5500 per year. I didn't drive that year.
Unless the company has a policy preventing you from attaching anything to the computer, bring in your own screen and hook it up. They're dirt cheap after all. The company can't take it away because its not theirs, and they *probably* won't make a fuss about it being there because really its not costing them anything.
If you are allowed to use your own PDA, your own USB flash drives, or your own laptop, your own monitor should be a nobrainer.
On some level I agree the company should provide you the tools you want if they genuinely will make you more productive, but there are a lot of reasons they don't. Ranging from they aren't convinced they really pay for themselves, to shortsightedness, to budget issues, to office politics (if they give you TWO, then they have to give EVERYONE two...)
If you can't convince them and its important to you just bring your own. They'd basically have to be dicks to tell you you can't do that -- of course, there are plenty of dicks out there so I wouldn't rule that out.
As you may know Argentina also has an average living wage $550 (pesos)/month ($177 USD).
Plus, running a PS3 folding@home 24x7 uses ~158kWh per month (assuming 220W), so you will trivially exceed the 50kWh threshold, even if its the only thing you have plugged in. It'll run you ~$295 persos/year. (Well over half what the average argentinian makes in a month.)
Of course, the Argentinian who has a PS3 is probably not remotely poverty stricken either...
Maybe the crew liked having the freedom of not having their every move recorded. IE the computer only tracked someone down when it was asked to (by command staff even maybe?), rather than maintaining continual tabs on everybody all the time.
Not saying that's the rationale for TNG... but I wouldn't mind a future where it was.
IF you have a spare processor and your buddy doesn't, is it efficient for him to borrow your CPU time?
Only if he plans on PAYING for it. That CPU time isn't free.
The PS3 is reported to run 220W when running folding@home.
In New York, the average residential cost of power in 2006 was 16.86 cents: (http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/electricprices. html)
So 220W or 0.22kW x.1686 $/kWh x 24h/day x 365days/year is: $324.93 per year
The price of residential electricity in California is 14.32 which is slightly less. If you happen to live in Idaho, where its cheapest at 6.21 cents you are still paying $120/year, and god help you if you live in Hawaii: $455/year. I understand electricity in Europe is on the whole more expensive than in the US.
Any moral system that condones 10 years of prison for spray-painting a picture of a person is B-R-O-K-E-N.
Probably.
Then again, the US legal system condones punishments for modifying your own hardware in defiance of the DMCA that exceed what you'd get for assault or auto theft. That same system recently had the potential to lock some guy in prison for 55 years for the crime of 'computer intrusion' -- making it a crime on par with murder.
More telling perhaps, a big chunk of the US is constantly trying to pass legislation to make burning a particular piece of cloth illegal. Is that any less absurd than a law against spray-painting a picture?
I'm not saying I think the Thai law is sensible, but you don't have to go to Thailand to see "ass-backwards".
I'm really of a mixed mind about TPM/vender signed code...
I am 100% against the DMCA, using TPM in my PCs to allow manufacturers to force only signed code (that only THEY can sign).
Yet at the same time, I myself, envision business models where I think it is both legitimate, fair, and even RIGHT, to do just that.
For example, suppose I were to write a mmorpg, I'd frankly be happy to GPL the client and server apps. But I'd like to hold back a big chunk of the database CONTENT, and even some plug-in modules implementing key mechanics -- to prevent disclosure from spoiling the game.
I'd be delighted if other dev's reused that code, and improved it, and hosted their own game-universes with it.
However, I don't want modified clients interacting with my game-service - in the interest of preserving fair and consistent game play for other players. If bugs in the gpl client are uncovered, and patches contributed they might be incorporated into the 'official client'.
The GPL doesn't seem to allow this project from existing.
1) I want to mix free and private code (e.g. I might have a gpl stub function for computing damge that calls a private plug-in for the actual computation) - the upshot is that people are still free to implmenet damage calcs however they see fit, without me having to reveal the exact formula being used in the 'game-service'.
2) Nor does it seem to allow me to restrict people from connecting via unauthorized clients. For example, I might even want to release a drmed/tpmed tivoesque 'console mmrpg device' to largely eliminate cheating, and further equalize the playing field with standardized hardware, which of course would only run signed code, etc.
(Hell in this case, I'd even be happy to let people run other clients on the tivo-esque device, provided they couldn't connect to my game service while doing that. e.g. give the TPM 2 modes or something, so that when you switch it uses different keys, and will run whatever you want it to, but I can reliably deny you access to the service while your doing that.
Another use case might be electronic voting machines. Here again I am ALL for GPLing the source so that it can reviewed and verified by anybody and everybody, but I am not personally against Diebold et al from only allowing signed code to run on their devices. (Granted that won't stop corruption from within, but its a decent start to a defense against any external tampering.)
Thus I think there are definate scenarios where a developer might want to use gpl code, and contribute the source back to the community while simultaneously retaining tight control over what code runs on a set of devices or connects to a particular service.
Is there a solution?
Re:I disagree with Smart Appliances being listed
on
The Top 21 Tech Flops
·
· Score: 1
IMO Its a technology that is going to be stillborn for at least another 2 decades.
1) "Imagine pulling recipes just for the foods you currently have" - no self respecting chef/cook/homemaker would find that remotely useful. They look in the fridge and make something up on the fly. So the recipe calls for X, I've got Y. I'll just substitute them. So the recipe calls for Z, you know what, it'll work out just fine if I just leave Z out entirely... to anyone halfway competent in the kitchen recipes are just a starting point. Having your fridge 'helpfully' just show you recipes that you can make with what you've got would be ridiculously limiting, especially if it suggests 32 recipes that need 2 cups of X, and I've only actually got 1 cup's worth.
2) "Printing out a shopping list straight from your fridge" - woohoo. Who wants to eat the same thing every week? I really don't need a premium fridge to START my grocery list by telling me I'm out of Milk. That's not really much of a time saver. Plus its more important to know what I'm low on than what I'm right out of. I generally KNOW what I'm out of. So I still have to inspect everything. Plus my menu shifts with seasonal availability, the weather, all combined with continually shifting mood swings and taste.
3) What about fruit and vegtables? Are they going to be rfid tagged too? Is my fridge going to know I have an orange? Will it ever suggest a crepe suzette?
4) How will a rfid capable fridge usefully deal with left overs? Will the fridge be suggesting I thaw out a turkey when I've got half a ham left over from last night. Will it keep suggesting I buy a new ham, even after I freeze the left over half?
5) Fridges and the other major kitchen appliances have lifespans measured in decades. Computers are decrepeit after 18 months. Merging them will result in fridges with computer systems that are hopelessly obsolete before the rest of the fridge is approaching mid-life.
RFID tag aware appliances are little more than a neat-o-gimmick, and will be for a long time yet.
7) Delete all the slides that only have bullets on them. 8) Replace them with a just a blank empty black slide.
The issue with powerpoint is that its distracting. If I'm giving a presentation, and its just bullet points you don't really need a visual aid.
The projector screen just serves as a distraction. People will just sit there mindlessly looking at the screen which conveys virtually no information while you talk. Once they've absorbed the content they just zone out while they wait for the next slide. Its like having a conversation with someone while the TV is on even if its just commercials and its muted far too many people will have better than half their attention on the screen.
I recommend using powerpoint for VISUAL aids - graphs, charts, diagrams, a title screen when people are walking in, and so forth. When I'm at at a stage where there'd just be mindless bullet points I black the screen. I want the eyes on ME, making eye contact, focussed on what I'm saying.
When people use bullet point power presentations the ONLY information that most people get out of them is the content of the bullet points.
Of course some common sense has to follow. I obviously wasn't referring to people in a coma.
Obviously. Except there is no 'common sense' to apply when making a choice.
Given that real human beings cognative abilities run the entire continuum from above average to zero, any point you choose will be completely arbitrary. Some humans will be above it, and some will be below it.
I'd hate have that floating around, I can see all sorts of abuses, how long before people below it are classified as sub humans, how long before the government starts moving it around for politcal convenience...
By that 'same subhuman role' I was referring to that of 'sweatshop slave laborer'.
I'm not against elevating chimps, but I would be if it were to be for the sake of commercial exploitation. We already exploit human beings to levels that are outrageous, a chimp wouldn't stand a chance of getting anything remotely resembling fair treatment.
Then compare that with the lowest human being and work your way up through the human being scale (if the chimp is better then the lowest human beings we have) until we find a type of human (most likely suffering some form of mental retardation) that is comparable with your average chimp. Then assign chimps the same rights as that human being has.
You must not have thought that through.
We have normal human beings in stable comatose states that pretty well enjoy the full spectrum of human rights, even though they exercise few of them. We have individuals coping with every sort of debilitating syndrome, disability, deformation, or disease one can imagine that are granted the full spectrum of human rights. We have ongoing controversy surrounding rights for unborn children, trying to establish at what point they should enjoy human rights protection with opinions ranging from conception to birth, while the majority of us think both of those options are wrong and yet are unable to satisfactorily pinpoint anywhere along the continuum of human development where it should be.
My point is, a normal healthy gerbil might be higher up than the lowest functioning recognized human beings. If that's your test methodology a chimp is a shoe-in.
That doesn't make them human. Nor should it make them eligible for human rights. That said, they are due some protections. No animal should have to suffer unduly, and we already have numerous laws regarding cruelty to animals and whatnot. And perhaps the higher animals merit additional protections.
I can easily see science developing more intelligent chimps capable of working in sweatshops in china. We'd be outraged if science introduced "Brave New Worlds" methods for 'holding back' human development to create a sub-human to use as slave laborer -- I think we should be equally outraged at the prospect of elevating apes into that same subhuman role.
few really believe that it's particularly oppressive
More accurately, few really believe THEY are being oppressed.
The government is already operating under enough offensive and oppressive policy to trigger real civil unrest.
But so far they haven't applied it wide enough publicly enough for people to really feel it yet. Most of us still assume, we personally aren't being wiretapped, DHS isn't knocking on our doors or interrogating our neighbors, few of us know anyone personally who's been whisked away to secret prisons, etc etc.
If the government ramps up the scale of there abuses to the point where they start really affecting a lot of people, THAT is when there will be civil unrest.
"You already have the latest version of network-manager installed."
Or some equivalent message, is the apt-get result.
Trust me, I *did* read the ubuntu WPA HOW-TOs.;)
Network manager has no place to choose WEP vs WPA, just a drop down combo for the ssid, a box to choose ascii or hex, and the password box. Choosing ASCII or HEX made no difference.
For all I know its the wireless box, I had to go with WEP-Open, because WEP-Shared didn't work with the Ubuntu unit either. Its some 2wire dealie with telus branded firmware.
I claimed possession of the laptop in my post for simplicity, but in truth, that laptop is my mom's and this troublesome w-lan is at their place. I REALLY don't want to break what functionality the GUI component does have, which according to the How-tos is what will happen if I start futzing directly with the configuration files. My mom can cope with moving networks in the GUI but not the command line.
At home, I actually am running WPA, but then I don't have Linux on a wireless unit (yet).
Is it your fault that customers don't check into what a basic hamburger means?
It is if a basic hamburger is an empty bun with ketchup.
To anyone who says that Vista != Aero, get over yourselves. The the average person Vista = Aero. That is the ONLY difference that is truly visible, that is the only difference the average consumer understands, and since nobody EVER saw any advertising of Vista without Aero.
Car ads always show a fully equipped model zipping about, and then end with "starting from X", and in the fine print disclose that what you actually saw was quite a bit more than X.
Microsoft claims that is all they did, but with Vista the differences are more PROFOUND and more INSIDIOUS.
First the difference is profound - Imagine if you went into the show room and looked at the base model, and couldn't even recongize it. e.g. you saw an ad for the new porsche boxster, and then at the show room got shown a bare frame with some plywood panels, no seats, no dashboard, and a lawnmower engine.
You'd say, hey, this isn't what I saw on TV at all... and you'd be right, no amount of backpeddling can justify that the premium package is where you get anything actually resembling a Boxster, with actual body panels, dashboard, and seats. The point is the 'base model' should be recognizably the product as advertised. Vista Home Basic sans Aero isn't recognizably Vista.
Secondly the difference is insidious - In the above scenario, at least once you got into the showroom the truth would be clear, and you could stomp off in a huff cursing the blatantly misleading advertising or suck it up and buy the 'options'. In this case, people were sold hardware based on getting the 'vista experience'. And only after they'd had their computers for a few months, and their 'Vista' finally arrived did they discover what the base model was. To go back to a car analagy, it would be like buying a garage for your new Porsche, before the Porsche was available. When you bought the garage, you take stock in the fact that its "Porsche capable" as part of your buying decision.
Then when your base model Porsche arrives, you discover its a bare frame with plywood, and are understandably annoyed. but in this case your stuck. Not only do you have to shell out for the 'premium' or 'premium sport' to get the car you thought you bought, but now your fucked on the garage front too - while it was big enough for the porsche frame with plywood sides, its two feet too short for the actual cars shown in all the pictures as 'boxsters'.
And that is the core issue here. Not only did Microsoft release a 'base model' of Vista that isn't even recongizably Vista, the PC manufacturers stepped up and sold people "Vista capable PCs" that couldn't actually run the 'Vista' consumers thought it could.
Sure you can blame the consumer for 'failure to research'. But we have laws to protect the consumer from 'blatantly misleading or dishonest advertising' too.
And thus we have thiis lawsuit - its up for the courts to decide if this crossed the line or not. As it should be.
Do I think MS was misleading to release a version so stripped down to where it wasn't recognizable? To a point, yes. But not necessarily criminally misleading.
Do I think it was wrong to authorize a "Vista Capable" logo/certification that certified hardware that could ONLY run the stripped down version that wasn't recognizable, and which choked on anything that actually looked like the Vista that had been advertised. Yes - I think that complaint has merit.
*Especially* since the consumer is fucked. Video often is not easily upgradable, especially on entry level PCs, where onboard video is the rule, and they often completely lack the requisite expansion slots. I'd probably feel differently if the consumer only had to drop another stick of RAM in or something to get 'vista premium' running adequately.
Every time I've tried to use WPA my Linux laptop can't access the network (currently Dapper Drake). I've tried the wpasupplicant stuff a few times now, but without success, and the troubleshooting involves mucking with config files, breaking what gui support there is, etc.
The lack of good GUI support is an issue, I don't want to drop to the command line, and manually edit configuration files for wireless networking. I switch networks too often to have any desire to 'fiddle' each time. I want OS X or XPs or even Ubuntu's (when using WEP or open wifi) pick a network, enter your password (if needed) and go.
So in my case, I'll go WPA when Ubuntu's GUI support exists and works. Any word on whether 'fawn' is there yet??
There was a game, Warzone 2100, that was absolutely brilliant in this regard. Not because the AI didn't do this, but because the player COULD. Not to the same level as the AI, but enough to give one an awesome sense of power over the battles.
Key features in that game:
Ctrl-click/double-click/box selection, and assignment of keyboard shortcuts (stuff we're familiar with in all games)
The ability to set postures like do or die, retreat at half damage, retreat at 3/4 damage etc (again familiar stuff)
Repair facilities - buildings that would repair nearby units - but with a twist. Vehicles set to retreat at X damage would retreat to the nearest repair facility instead of just going back to base and sitting there.
Mobile repair vehicles that automatically sought out and repaired nearby damaged units
Build Order chaining - you could give your construction vehicles orders to build a barracks, then a missile silo, then a factory, then a wall.
Target chaining. You could give a battle group a series of targets that it would attack. Commonly in these games we want to concentrate firepower, and this makes that happen.
Battle field production - you can actually order new units be produced at any of your factories anywhere from the front lines.
Target designation units for airstrikes, and artillery bombardment, as well as 'counter target designation units'. For example, you can assign your aircraft to a designator tank unit. Then whatever that tank targets becomes the target of all the aircraft assigned to it. They'll fly in, fire off their munitions, return to base to refuel/reload, and then fly back...
Or, for example, if you have a counter designator in an area taking artillery fire, the artillery guns in your base will automatically fire back on the source of that fire, if they're in range. (and those guns have AMAZING range.)
General units - this is the ultimate innovation. These units form the focal point of your armies.
Generals are hard very tough to kill units with a long range targeting laser. They have dedicated gui features to select and cycle between them. Units assigned to the general go where the general goes. Whatever they paint the units assigned to them attack. So...
Naturally you can link units to your generals.
You can move a diverse battle group without having to setup keyboard shortcuts, box selection, etc. This comes in handy, because it frees your keyboard shortcuts for other tasks. And units don't get left behind.
You can order that diverse battle group to attack a target, or series of targets.
You can link factory production directly to generals. (And built units automatically join the battle group.)
If the battlegroup is set to retreat at half damage, damaged units automatically return to the repair facility, and upon being repaired, rejoin the battle group.
The power this gives you is sublime, you can actually effectively fight on 2 fronts while holding down base defenses or doing mop-up. In most RTSes as the battle progresses you'll start to wear your battlegroup out, production will languish, units will be left behind, and evenually you have to call off the attack, order/pickup new units, and re-organize for another push.
With Warzone 2100, you can order up replacements for your losses as they occur without leaving the front line, you group will self repair, and repaired units will automatically return to the battlegroup. That combined with target chaining, and other features allows you to leave a battle for a few seconds to focus on something else (e.g. switch between multiple fronts or handle some base construction) secure that your armie can take care of itself for a minute on its, and worst case will be forced to retreat.
The only real concerns is if you are completely outclassed and can't even survive retreating, or if your supply/resupply pathing gets intercepted (or the AI chooses to send your damaged units into the enemy to get to the nearest repair center).
It's gonna take a lot more than just saving some money to make people consider switching.
OO's word processer and spreadsheet are pretty much on par with Microsoft. If those are the only components of office you regularly use, you probably shouldn't be shelling out for MS Office, period.
I can't speak to OO's powerpoint equivalent - I hear its decent on its own, but not as compatible with MS as it should be. So if you need to create and present powerpoint its fine, but if you need to share power point with others its not as good. (Although OO is free so there is nothing stopping the people who you need to share with from getting their own copy - this may or may not be practical depending on who you have to share with. Conversely if you only need to view other peoples powerpoint stuff then you can use MS's free powerpoint viewer.
The real OO killer in business is Outlook. Businesses essentially buy outlook and get the rest of office for free. And outlook is tough to unseat, there aren't a lot of great alternatives, especially once you start looking for groupware features, calendering, and PDA sync support.
But for home users, where most of them are on webmail/gmail/msnlive/whatever, outlook express, or are just using outlook as POP3 client, OO is a great alternative.
That said, even in business Office isn't unkillable -- Exchange web access is rapidly reaching the point of unseating outlook, PDA sync is becoming wireless direct with the server, and if outlook takes a fall then evaulating Office v OO becomes a much more level playing field.
Meanwhile, in the home market, Microsofts increasingly aggressive anti-piracy moves are finally starting to shift people away. It used to be that everyone had a pirated version of Office at home, but as these become more of nuisance to use, users are starting to open up to alternatives instead of shelling out for office or fighting with Genuine (dis)Advantage.
But I think the biggest thing OO needs is some advertising to build some brand awareness and credibility. Couple that with a pre-installation deal with the likes of Dell or HP and they could make some serious inroads.
Their launch date was relatively inflexible, they NEEDED to be out of the gate before christmas, both to get the christmas hype, and to be in the running with the PS3 launch.
Next consider that Sony's PS3 launch shortages were largely aggravated by production problems leading to shortages. If they'd had the number of units they wanted to have, and told everyone they would have the PS3 launch would not have been 'un-findable' for weeks. And for quite a while now the PS3 has been readily available. Sony's assessment of initial demand was actually pretty good (excepting the EU launch) but they got screwed by production issues.
Nintendo, by contrast, promised DOUBLE the number of units that Sony did, and they DELIVERED them, and it STILL wasn't nearly enough, and even today 5 months later you STILL can't buy one. Now Nintendo clearly underestimated demand, but even if they'd guessed right they'd have had to have placed there initial orders in early 2006 in order to change anything, because they really couldn't move the launch date much more than a week. Nintendo got taken by surprise by the demand, and then there was little they could do.
Then a lot of people guessed it was just the christmas factor as the Wii became one of the holiday seasons 'hot items' in which case demand would have died off after christmas. Parent's who couldn't get a wii would get something else, and that would be the end of it. But it didn't, and pent up demand still devoured every unit they put on shelves as fast as they can make them.
So Nintendo started making plans to ramp up production because it was clear finally that it wasn't just a christmas hype thing, or the initial launch excitement, but genuine real demand. But ramping up takes time, and now we're approaching april... it will be interesting to see if they can finally get ahead of demand with 6 million+ units shipped, and now increasing the number of units made weekly. Its a problem ANYONE would love to have.
But suggesting Nintendo should have prepared better by having made 6 million? Or 10 million? units is absurd. (Hell we really don't know how many they'd need because they still haven't satisfied the pre-christmas demand - ie most of the people buying them now, have wanted them since before christmas -- we haven't even begun to really hit the group of people that might impulse buy one if they happened to see them in stores because they are almost never on shelves for more than hour out of an entire a week.)
After all, if they'd made 10 million of the things and then sold only 5, they'd be sitting on LOT of expensive inventory. And you have to remember that in early 2006 when they would have had to gauge the demand for their initial orders the jury was still out on whether the wii was a doomed virtual-boy gimmick. A lot of the game sites were disinterested and down on the whole concept. Several developers hadn't really committed to the platform because they weren't sure if it was going to have any legs. And the forums were filled with sony/xbox fanbois shitting on the lack of hd and the specs in general.
Nintendo knew they were trying to appeal to a broader audience than pixel-shader-snobs (the so-called "hardcore gamer"), but it would have been difficult to really gauge what the uptake of that audience would be like. After all non-gamers and ex-gamers, even if you could interest them in a console, aren't likely to be frothing at the mouth like a ps3 fanboy to get one the day it launches.
Slashdot Mirror
They actually invariably sue you for distributing the files back INTO the network, arguing not that you infringed on their work by downloading a copy, but rather that you infringed on their work by distributing it.
P2P "Leeches" are actually relatively safe from prosecution at this point in time. The RIAA is generally focussed on people re-distributing. (If they can kill distribution the leeches die off... if only leeches are left there is no content to leech.)
Thus its a more effective strategy.
Plus it dodges the issue of people who might actually already have the CD. Downloading a song you own on CD is *probably* legal -- but distributing a song *isn't* regardless of whether or not you bought the CD or not.
Are you suggesting that my new mail program called "Hey Boss I Fucked Your Wife" should be renamed? It's a perfectly good name I think.
Lousy acronym though... HBIFYW. How the fuck is that alphabet vomit recited?
How about "Boss I Screwed Your Bitch" which reduces neatly to "BisyB" pronounced of course, "busybee".
Not only does it roll off the tongue, but the term 'busybee' can mean both someone who 'works hard' (a suitable and innocuous name for an office oriented productivity application like your mail program). Or it could mean one who 'gets around' [promiscuously] which is a perfect fit given the actual expanded title.
Hmmm. Maybe still not enough geek cred though. I don't see any recursion.
How about "IMBisyB" - "IMBisyB Means Boss I Screwed Your Bitch", pronounced of course "I'm Busybee"
I agree completely, almost.
In my case for example I drive a 911, which is neither remotely fuel efficient nor inexpensive to maintain -- but it has a lot of the same disadvantages as a smart car so bear with me. It's lousy for transporting even moderately sized items, you can't haul a boat, or fill it with relatives, or bricks, etc... While I knew I'd love the car I thought I'd *really* miss having a larger vehicle. Turned out its not the big deal I thought it was.
Sure I *could* own a 2nd vehicle, but it turns out I only actually really need one half a dozen times per year. (I think not having one makes you learn to "need" it even less.) But on those occassions I really do want one I just rent one. I also use the various delivery services available when buying furniture, etc. And occasionally use couriers to ship mid-size items that don't fit in the car. I spend around $800-1000 at most per year on rentals and these delivery services, which seems like a lot at first blush... but its nearly half the cost of insuring a second vehicle, and I don't have any maintenance expense, no lease expense, no capital tied up in a depreciating vehicle, and I don't have to worry about having a place to park it either.
Even if ICBC halved or thirded insurance on '2ndary vehicles' I still wouldn't have bothered getting one.
I recognize that this won't work for everybody, but I'm surprised at how painless it turned out for me.
Another option is Temporary Operation Permits, which are also a bit of a pain in the ass as you have to buy them for each date you want to drive, but they provide a decent option for someone who wants to own a vehicle and only drive it a couple times per month. (And maybe keep a storage policy on it if its worth anything.)
All that said, I too wish ICBC let you have multiple vehicles under a single policy, paying the price for the most expensive vehicle to be covered, so you could drive the one you want when you want without hassle or paying multiple times. One can only be driving one car at a time after all. I guess it would have to be a little higher for each additional car to cover storage/comprehensive on each of them.
Yet for all the complaints about ICBC and the 'public insurance company' we've got it pretty good. People always say... "ooo look at how much cheaper insurance is in AB, we should privatize!" Vancouver driving is more like Toronto than Edmonton -- and if you think BC is overpriced you've never tried insuring in ontario. I lived a year there while in university - I had an MR2 (a $5k car at the time) - the best price I could get for remotely decent coverage was $5500 per year. I didn't drive that year.
Unless the company has a policy preventing you from attaching anything to the computer, bring in your own screen and hook it up. They're dirt cheap after all. The company can't take it away because its not theirs, and they *probably* won't make a fuss about it being there because really its not costing them anything.
If you are allowed to use your own PDA, your own USB flash drives, or your own laptop, your own monitor should be a nobrainer.
On some level I agree the company should provide you the tools you want if they genuinely will make you more productive, but there are a lot of reasons they don't. Ranging from they aren't convinced they really pay for themselves, to shortsightedness, to budget issues, to office politics (if they give you TWO, then they have to give EVERYONE two...)
If you can't convince them and its important to you just bring your own. They'd basically have to be dicks to tell you you can't do that -- of course, there are plenty of dicks out there so I wouldn't rule that out.
As you may know Argentina also has an average living wage $550 (pesos)/month ($177 USD).
Plus, running a PS3 folding@home 24x7 uses ~158kWh per month (assuming 220W), so you will trivially exceed the 50kWh threshold, even if its the only thing you have plugged in. It'll run you ~$295 persos/year. (Well over half what the average argentinian makes in a month.)
Of course, the Argentinian who has a PS3 is probably not remotely poverty stricken either...
If enterprise isn't a warship, why does it have torpedoes, ray-guns, and a contingent of marines?
To fend off pirates! AARRR!
Would you say Columbus' expedition consisted of warships? He had cannons.
Hell, even modern day cruise ships have light weapons and a security team on board to deal with the unexpected.
Maybe the crew liked having the freedom of not having their every move recorded. IE the computer only tracked someone down when it was asked to (by command staff even maybe?), rather than maintaining continual tabs on everybody all the time.
Not saying that's the rationale for TNG... but I wouldn't mind a future where it was.
IF you have a spare processor and your buddy doesn't, is it efficient for him to borrow your CPU time?
. html)
.1686 $/kWh x 24h/day x 365days/year is: $324.93 per year
Only if he plans on PAYING for it. That CPU time isn't free.
The PS3 is reported to run 220W when running folding@home.
In New York, the average residential cost of power in 2006 was 16.86 cents: (http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/electricprices
So 220W or 0.22kW x
The price of residential electricity in California is 14.32 which is slightly less. If you happen to live in Idaho, where its cheapest at 6.21 cents you are still paying $120/year, and god help you if you live in Hawaii: $455/year. I understand electricity in Europe is on the whole more expensive than in the US.
Thanks but no thanks, I'll turn mine off.
Any moral system that condones 10 years of prison for spray-painting a picture of a person is B-R-O-K-E-N.
Probably.
Then again, the US legal system condones punishments for modifying your own hardware in defiance of the DMCA that exceed what you'd get for assault or auto theft. That same system recently had the potential to lock some guy in prison for 55 years for the crime of 'computer intrusion' -- making it a crime on par with murder.
More telling perhaps, a big chunk of the US is constantly trying to pass legislation to make burning a particular piece of cloth illegal. Is that any less absurd than a law against spray-painting a picture?
I'm not saying I think the Thai law is sensible, but you don't have to go to Thailand to see "ass-backwards".
I'm really of a mixed mind about TPM/vender signed code ...
I am 100% against the DMCA, using TPM in my PCs to allow manufacturers to force only signed code (that only THEY can sign).
Yet at the same time, I myself, envision business models where I think it is both legitimate, fair, and even RIGHT, to do just that.
For example, suppose I were to write a mmorpg, I'd frankly be happy to GPL the client and server apps. But I'd like to hold back a big chunk of the database CONTENT, and even some plug-in modules implementing key mechanics -- to prevent disclosure from spoiling the game.
I'd be delighted if other dev's reused that code, and improved it, and hosted their own game-universes with it.
However, I don't want modified clients interacting with my game-service - in the interest of preserving fair and consistent game play for other players. If bugs in the gpl client are uncovered, and patches contributed they might be incorporated into the 'official client'.
The GPL doesn't seem to allow this project from existing.
1) I want to mix free and private code (e.g. I might have a gpl stub function for computing damge that calls a private plug-in for the actual computation) - the upshot is that people are still free to implmenet damage calcs however they see fit, without me having to reveal the exact formula being used in the 'game-service'.
2) Nor does it seem to allow me to restrict people from connecting via unauthorized clients. For example, I might even want to release a drmed/tpmed tivoesque 'console mmrpg device' to largely eliminate cheating, and further equalize the playing field with standardized hardware, which of course would only run signed code, etc.
(Hell in this case, I'd even be happy to let people run other clients on the tivo-esque device, provided they couldn't connect to my game service while doing that. e.g. give the TPM 2 modes or something, so that when you switch it uses different keys, and will run whatever you want it to, but I can reliably deny you access to the service while your doing that.
Another use case might be electronic voting machines. Here again I am ALL for GPLing the source so that it can reviewed and verified by anybody and everybody, but I am not personally against Diebold et al from only allowing signed code to run on their devices. (Granted that won't stop corruption from within, but its a decent start to a defense against any external tampering.)
Thus I think there are definate scenarios where a developer might want to use gpl code, and contribute the source back to the community while simultaneously retaining tight control over what code runs on a set of devices or connects to a particular service.
Is there a solution?
IMO Its a technology that is going to be stillborn for at least another 2 decades.
1) "Imagine pulling recipes just for the foods you currently have" - no self respecting chef/cook/homemaker would find that remotely useful. They look in the fridge and make something up on the fly. So the recipe calls for X, I've got Y. I'll just substitute them. So the recipe calls for Z, you know what, it'll work out just fine if I just leave Z out entirely... to anyone halfway competent in the kitchen recipes are just a starting point. Having your fridge 'helpfully' just show you recipes that you can make with what you've got would be ridiculously limiting, especially if it suggests 32 recipes that need 2 cups of X, and I've only actually got 1 cup's worth.
2) "Printing out a shopping list straight from your fridge" - woohoo. Who wants to eat the same thing every week? I really don't need a premium fridge to START my grocery list by telling me I'm out of Milk. That's not really much of a time saver. Plus its more important to know what I'm low on than what I'm right out of. I generally KNOW what I'm out of. So I still have to inspect everything. Plus my menu shifts with seasonal availability, the weather, all combined with continually shifting mood swings and taste.
3) What about fruit and vegtables? Are they going to be rfid tagged too? Is my fridge going to know I have an orange? Will it ever suggest a crepe suzette?
4) How will a rfid capable fridge usefully deal with left overs? Will the fridge be suggesting I thaw out a turkey when I've got half a ham left over from last night. Will it keep suggesting I buy a new ham, even after I freeze the left over half?
5) Fridges and the other major kitchen appliances have lifespans measured in decades. Computers are decrepeit after 18 months. Merging them will result in fridges with computer systems that are hopelessly obsolete before the rest of the fridge is approaching mid-life.
RFID tag aware appliances are little more than a neat-o-gimmick, and will be for a long time yet.
7) Delete all the slides that only have bullets on them.
8) Replace them with a just a blank empty black slide.
The issue with powerpoint is that its distracting. If I'm giving a presentation, and its just bullet points you don't really need a visual aid.
The projector screen just serves as a distraction. People will just sit there mindlessly looking at the screen which conveys virtually no information while you talk. Once they've absorbed the content they just zone out while they wait for the next slide. Its like having a conversation with someone while the TV is on even if its just commercials and its muted far too many people will have better than half their attention on the screen.
I recommend using powerpoint for VISUAL aids - graphs, charts, diagrams, a title screen when people are walking in, and so forth. When I'm at at a stage where there'd just be mindless bullet points I black the screen. I want the eyes on ME, making eye contact, focussed on what I'm saying.
When people use bullet point power presentations the ONLY information that most people get out of them is the content of the bullet points.
Of course some common sense has to follow. I obviously wasn't referring to people in a coma.
Obviously. Except there is no 'common sense' to apply when making a choice.
Given that real human beings cognative abilities run the entire continuum from above average to zero, any point you choose will be completely arbitrary. Some humans will be above it, and some will be below it.
I'd hate have that floating around, I can see all sorts of abuses, how long before people below it are classified as sub humans, how long before the government starts moving it around for politcal convenience...
By that 'same subhuman role' I was referring to that of 'sweatshop slave laborer'.
I'm not against elevating chimps, but I would be if it were to be for the sake of commercial exploitation. We already exploit human beings to levels that are outrageous, a chimp wouldn't stand a chance of getting anything remotely resembling fair treatment.
Then compare that with the lowest human being and work your way up through the human being scale (if the chimp is better then the lowest human beings we have) until we find a type of human (most likely suffering some form of mental retardation) that is comparable with your average chimp. Then assign chimps the same rights as that human being has.
You must not have thought that through.
We have normal human beings in stable comatose states that pretty well enjoy the full spectrum of human rights, even though they exercise few of them. We have individuals coping with every sort of debilitating syndrome, disability, deformation, or disease one can imagine that are granted the full spectrum of human rights. We have ongoing controversy surrounding rights for unborn children, trying to establish at what point they should enjoy human rights protection with opinions ranging from conception to birth, while the majority of us think both of those options are wrong and yet are unable to satisfactorily pinpoint anywhere along the continuum of human development where it should be.
My point is, a normal healthy gerbil might be higher up than the lowest functioning recognized human beings. If that's your test methodology a chimp is a shoe-in.
That doesn't make them human. Nor should it make them eligible for human rights. That said, they are due some protections. No animal should have to suffer unduly, and we already have numerous laws regarding cruelty to animals and whatnot. And perhaps the higher animals merit additional protections.
I can easily see science developing more intelligent chimps capable of working in sweatshops in china. We'd be outraged if science introduced "Brave New Worlds" methods for 'holding back' human development to create a sub-human to use as slave laborer -- I think we should be equally outraged at the prospect of elevating apes into that same subhuman role.
few really believe that it's particularly oppressive
More accurately, few really believe THEY are being oppressed.
The government is already operating under enough offensive and oppressive policy to trigger real civil unrest.
But so far they haven't applied it wide enough publicly enough for people to really feel it yet. Most of us still assume, we personally aren't being wiretapped, DHS isn't knocking on our doors or interrogating our neighbors, few of us know anyone personally who's been whisked away to secret prisons, etc etc.
If the government ramps up the scale of there abuses to the point where they start really affecting a lot of people, THAT is when there will be civil unrest.
Thanks, but...
;)
"You already have the latest version of network-manager installed."
Or some equivalent message, is the apt-get result.
Trust me, I *did* read the ubuntu WPA HOW-TOs.
Network manager has no place to choose WEP vs WPA, just a drop down combo for the ssid, a box to choose ascii or hex, and the password box. Choosing ASCII or HEX made no difference.
For all I know its the wireless box, I had to go with WEP-Open, because WEP-Shared didn't work with the Ubuntu unit either. Its some 2wire dealie with telus branded firmware.
I claimed possession of the laptop in my post for simplicity, but in truth, that laptop is my mom's and this troublesome w-lan is at their place. I REALLY don't want to break what functionality the GUI component does have, which according to the How-tos is what will happen if I start futzing directly with the configuration files. My mom can cope with moving networks in the GUI but not the command line.
At home, I actually am running WPA, but then I don't have Linux on a wireless unit (yet).
cheers
Is it your fault that customers don't check into what a basic hamburger means?
It is if a basic hamburger is an empty bun with ketchup.
To anyone who says that Vista != Aero, get over yourselves. The the average person Vista = Aero. That is the ONLY difference that is truly visible, that is the only difference the average consumer understands, and since nobody EVER saw any advertising of Vista without Aero.
Car ads always show a fully equipped model zipping about, and then end with "starting from X", and in the fine print disclose that what you actually saw was quite a bit more than X.
Microsoft claims that is all they did, but with Vista the differences are more PROFOUND and more INSIDIOUS.
First the difference is profound - Imagine if you went into the show room and looked at the base model, and couldn't even recongize it. e.g. you saw an ad for the new porsche boxster, and then at the show room got shown a bare frame with some plywood panels, no seats, no dashboard, and a lawnmower engine.
You'd say, hey, this isn't what I saw on TV at all... and you'd be right, no amount of backpeddling can justify that the premium package is where you get anything actually resembling a Boxster, with actual body panels, dashboard, and seats. The point is the 'base model' should be recognizably the product as advertised. Vista Home Basic sans Aero isn't recognizably Vista.
Secondly the difference is insidious - In the above scenario, at least once you got into the showroom the truth would be clear, and you could stomp off in a huff cursing the blatantly misleading advertising or suck it up and buy the 'options'. In this case, people were sold hardware based on getting the 'vista experience'. And only after they'd had their computers for a few months, and their 'Vista' finally arrived did they discover what the base model was. To go back to a car analagy, it would be like buying a garage for your new Porsche, before the Porsche was available. When you bought the garage, you take stock in the fact that its "Porsche capable" as part of your buying decision.
Then when your base model Porsche arrives, you discover its a bare frame with plywood, and are understandably annoyed. but in this case your stuck. Not only do you have to shell out for the 'premium' or 'premium sport' to get the car you thought you bought, but now your fucked on the garage front too - while it was big enough for the porsche frame with plywood sides, its two feet too short for the actual cars shown in all the pictures as 'boxsters'.
And that is the core issue here. Not only did Microsoft release a 'base model' of Vista that isn't even recongizably Vista, the PC manufacturers stepped up and sold people "Vista capable PCs" that couldn't actually run the 'Vista' consumers thought it could.
Sure you can blame the consumer for 'failure to research'. But we have laws to protect the consumer from 'blatantly misleading or dishonest advertising' too.
And thus we have thiis lawsuit - its up for the courts to decide if this crossed the line or not. As it should be.
Do I think MS was misleading to release a version so stripped down to where it wasn't recognizable? To a point, yes. But not necessarily criminally misleading.
Do I think it was wrong to authorize a "Vista Capable" logo/certification that certified hardware that could ONLY run the stripped down version that wasn't recognizable, and which choked on anything that actually looked like the Vista that had been advertised. Yes - I think that complaint has merit.
*Especially* since the consumer is fucked. Video often is not easily upgradable, especially on entry level PCs, where onboard video is the rule, and they often completely lack the requisite expansion slots. I'd probably feel differently if the consumer only had to drop another stick of RAM in or something to get 'vista premium' running adequately.
Not me! What's holding me back?
Linux.
Every time I've tried to use WPA my Linux laptop can't access the network (currently Dapper Drake). I've tried the wpasupplicant stuff a few times now, but without success, and the troubleshooting involves mucking with config files, breaking what gui support there is, etc.
The lack of good GUI support is an issue, I don't want to drop to the command line, and manually edit configuration files for wireless networking. I switch networks too often to have any desire to 'fiddle' each time. I want OS X or XPs or even Ubuntu's (when using WEP or open wifi) pick a network, enter your password (if needed) and go.
So in my case, I'll go WPA when Ubuntu's GUI support exists and works. Any word on whether 'fawn' is there yet??
And I have been in a few Lord of the Rings whole-day-viewing marathons myself.
multiple LoTR marathons?
Yeah, that makes you representative of the average person?
I said most people would never watch a 600+ minute movie. You are obviously not most people.
There is a reason LotR or Star Was was split into trilogies, after all. Only people like you would have watched if they released it as one epic movie.
but the film was without the same depth
That's what happens when you only have ~120 minutes (movie) instead of ~650 minutes (series)
Few people will sit through a 600+ minute movie, no matter how deep it is.
There was a game, Warzone 2100, that was absolutely brilliant in this regard. Not because the AI didn't do this, but because the player COULD. Not to the same level as the AI, but enough to give one an awesome sense of power over the battles.
Key features in that game:
Ctrl-click/double-click/box selection, and assignment of keyboard shortcuts (stuff we're familiar with in all games)
The ability to set postures like do or die, retreat at half damage, retreat at 3/4 damage etc (again familiar stuff)
Repair facilities - buildings that would repair nearby units - but with a twist. Vehicles set to retreat at X damage would retreat to the nearest repair facility instead of just going back to base and sitting there.
Mobile repair vehicles that automatically sought out and repaired nearby damaged units
Build Order chaining - you could give your construction vehicles orders to build a barracks, then a missile silo, then a factory, then a wall.
Target chaining. You could give a battle group a series of targets that it would attack. Commonly in these games we want to concentrate firepower, and this makes that happen.
Battle field production - you can actually order new units be produced at any of your factories anywhere from the front lines.
Target designation units for airstrikes, and artillery bombardment, as well as 'counter target designation units'. For example, you can assign your aircraft to a designator tank unit. Then whatever that tank targets becomes the target of all the aircraft assigned to it. They'll fly in, fire off their munitions, return to base to refuel/reload, and then fly back...
Or, for example, if you have a counter designator in an area taking artillery fire, the artillery guns in your base will automatically fire back on the source of that fire, if they're in range. (and those guns have AMAZING range.)
General units - this is the ultimate innovation. These units form the focal point of your armies.
Generals are hard very tough to kill units with a long range targeting laser. They have dedicated gui features to select and cycle between them. Units assigned to the general go where the general goes. Whatever they paint the units assigned to them attack. So...
Naturally you can link units to your generals.
You can move a diverse battle group without having to setup keyboard shortcuts, box selection, etc. This comes in handy, because it frees your keyboard shortcuts for other tasks. And units don't get left behind.
You can order that diverse battle group to attack a target, or series of targets.
You can link factory production directly to generals. (And built units automatically join the battle group.)
If the battlegroup is set to retreat at half damage, damaged units automatically return to the repair facility, and upon being repaired, rejoin the battle group.
The power this gives you is sublime, you can actually effectively fight on 2 fronts while holding down base defenses or doing mop-up. In most RTSes as the battle progresses you'll start to wear your battlegroup out, production will languish, units will be left behind, and evenually you have to call off the attack, order/pickup new units, and re-organize for another push.
With Warzone 2100, you can order up replacements for your losses as they occur without leaving the front line, you group will self repair, and repaired units will automatically return to the battlegroup. That combined with target chaining, and other features allows you to leave a battle for a few seconds to focus on something else (e.g. switch between multiple fronts or handle some base construction) secure that your armie can take care of itself for a minute on its, and worst case will be forced to retreat.
The only real concerns is if you are completely outclassed and can't even survive retreating, or if your supply/resupply pathing gets intercepted (or the AI chooses to send your damaged units into the enemy to get to the nearest repair center).
/shrug
I find the graphing feature in both of them too annoying to use except for basic data visualization, in which case either are perfectly adequate.
Its true Excel's extra options get one closer to 'presentation quality results' but not close enough.
It's gonna take a lot more than just saving some money to make people consider switching.
OO's word processer and spreadsheet are pretty much on par with Microsoft. If those are the only components of office you regularly use, you probably shouldn't be shelling out for MS Office, period.
I can't speak to OO's powerpoint equivalent - I hear its decent on its own, but not as compatible with MS as it should be. So if you need to create and present powerpoint its fine, but if you need to share power point with others its not as good. (Although OO is free so there is nothing stopping the people who you need to share with from getting their own copy - this may or may not be practical depending on who you have to share with. Conversely if you only need to view other peoples powerpoint stuff then you can use MS's free powerpoint viewer.
The real OO killer in business is Outlook. Businesses essentially buy outlook and get the rest of office for free. And outlook is tough to unseat, there aren't a lot of great alternatives, especially once you start looking for groupware features, calendering, and PDA sync support.
But for home users, where most of them are on webmail/gmail/msnlive/whatever, outlook express, or are just using outlook as POP3 client, OO is a great alternative.
That said, even in business Office isn't unkillable -- Exchange web access is rapidly reaching the point of unseating outlook, PDA sync is becoming wireless direct with the server, and if outlook takes a fall then evaulating Office v OO becomes a much more level playing field.
Meanwhile, in the home market, Microsofts increasingly aggressive anti-piracy moves are finally starting to shift people away. It used to be that everyone had a pirated version of Office at home, but as these become more of nuisance to use, users are starting to open up to alternatives instead of shelling out for office or fighting with Genuine (dis)Advantage.
But I think the biggest thing OO needs is some advertising to build some brand awareness and credibility. Couple that with a pre-installation deal with the likes of Dell or HP and they could make some serious inroads.
No.
Nintendo did a bang up job.
Their launch date was relatively inflexible, they NEEDED to be out of the gate before christmas, both to get the christmas hype, and to be in the running with the PS3 launch.
Next consider that Sony's PS3 launch shortages were largely aggravated by production problems leading to shortages. If they'd had the number of units they wanted to have, and told everyone they would have the PS3 launch would not have been 'un-findable' for weeks. And for quite a while now the PS3 has been readily available. Sony's assessment of initial demand was actually pretty good (excepting the EU launch) but they got screwed by production issues.
Nintendo, by contrast, promised DOUBLE the number of units that Sony did, and they DELIVERED them, and it STILL wasn't nearly enough, and even today 5 months later you STILL can't buy one. Now Nintendo clearly underestimated demand, but even if they'd guessed right they'd have had to have placed there initial orders in early 2006 in order to change anything, because they really couldn't move the launch date much more than a week. Nintendo got taken by surprise by the demand, and then there was little they could do.
Then a lot of people guessed it was just the christmas factor as the Wii became one of the holiday seasons 'hot items' in which case demand would have died off after christmas. Parent's who couldn't get a wii would get something else, and that would be the end of it. But it didn't, and pent up demand still devoured every unit they put on shelves as fast as they can make them.
So Nintendo started making plans to ramp up production because it was clear finally that it wasn't just a christmas hype thing, or the initial launch excitement, but genuine real demand. But ramping up takes time, and now we're approaching april... it will be interesting to see if they can finally get ahead of demand with 6 million+ units shipped, and now increasing the number of units made weekly. Its a problem ANYONE would love to have.
But suggesting Nintendo should have prepared better by having made 6 million? Or 10 million? units is absurd. (Hell we really don't know how many they'd need because they still haven't satisfied the pre-christmas demand - ie most of the people buying them now, have wanted them since before christmas -- we haven't even begun to really hit the group of people that might impulse buy one if they happened to see them in stores because they are almost never on shelves for more than hour out of an entire a week.)
After all, if they'd made 10 million of the things and then sold only 5, they'd be sitting on LOT of expensive inventory. And you have to remember that in early 2006 when they would have had to gauge the demand for their initial orders the jury was still out on whether the wii was a doomed virtual-boy gimmick. A lot of the game sites were disinterested and down on the whole concept. Several developers hadn't really committed to the platform because they weren't sure if it was going to have any legs. And the forums were filled with sony/xbox fanbois shitting on the lack of hd and the specs in general.
Nintendo knew they were trying to appeal to a broader audience than pixel-shader-snobs (the so-called "hardcore gamer"), but it would have been difficult to really gauge what the uptake of that audience would be like. After all non-gamers and ex-gamers, even if you could interest them in a console, aren't likely to be frothing at the mouth like a ps3 fanboy to get one the day it launches.