I remember produce scales and a bar tag system in stores here in the States. I think the problem here (as with most of the other complaints in these comments) is that most Americans (and perhaps people in general) aren't observant. What would the cashier do if someone brought this fruit up to the register without a bar code? Call a manager? Wait while the customer goes back to weigh the item again? Neither of those are great solutions. The grocery stores I shop at solve this problem by pre-packaging items that are typically sold by weight (such as grapes) and selling others (such as apples or bananas) as amount per fruit/vegetable, and that suits me just fine.
I think some of the other problems mentioned in these comments break down into common sense. Do hardware stores really need self-checkout lanes? Did anyone with any training in technical design and usability look this checkout process over? Self-checkout lanes make a lot of sense (to me) in grocery stores where the customer isn't likely to buy extremely light or extremely bulky goods (though both of these exist in grocery stores, I admit), but grocery stores seem prone to placing the change dispenser/receipt printer as far away from the scanner as possible, and in the hardest-to-find places. Sometimes it seems like corporations lack common sense even more than the average person.
They're probably unhappy because we've gone and decided that the middle east also qualifies as "our house". Of course we don't want the rest of the world telling us what's good and what isn't, just the same way many children don't want to hear what's good for them from their parents. There was a time when the international community respected the US, you know.
Frankly, it galls me to think that this issue is still seen as liberal vs. conservative. Has nobody noticed that Bush administration recently agreed to let the FISA court (which was created for this specific purpose) review these cases? I don't feel less safe because our newspapers report on these programs; I feel less safe because our President and his administration believe that the terrorists can win because the media did their jobs.
Was it a threat to national security when Robert Novak leaked Valerie Plame's identity? Shouldn't an administration committed to national security have investigated this seriously? I guess it's okay because her husband didn't tow the line (whether or not you believe Joseph Wilson's story is another matter entirely).
After the post-9-11 hysteria died down and it came to light that what happened that day was the culmination of several intelligence failures, I stopped worrying about terrorism. That's not to say I believe we have a foolproof system in place here, just that it took a number of governmental failures for such a thing to happen.
Do we have to be smarter now than we were then? Absolutely we do. Islamic fundamentalism (and indeed, Christian fundamentalism as well) bent on societal destruction will be tough to defeat (if such a thing is even possible). Frankly, I would like to be secure in the knowledge that once we overcome this adversary, that we have civil rights left to enjoy. Is it dramatic of me to say something like that? Maybe so, but at least I haven't told you that opposing viewpoints are less American.
But would you think it wise for a woman to wear a low-cut blouse in a seedy part of town? It doesn't excuse the criminals in any way, but a bit of common sense might go a long ways.
Some of the comments after this article were certainly interesting. One poster said that the two papers quoted in the article (for their time statistics) were tabloids. Any Britons confirm or deny this?
Gawd, finally someone who seems to understand that the W3C can't actually enforce standards on companies who write software. The W3C isn't a government agency, they don't have law-enforcing power on the Internet, and they post guidelines for the love of god. How is it that so many computer literate people blame the W3C's CSS guidelines for the problems created by different implementations of not-quite W3C standards?
And I thought Slashdot comments were frustrating to read on a normal article...
Frankly, I tend to think of GHz as being meaningless. If your architecture is powerful enough that you don't need to push big numbers at people, why bother? Intel's high-range of GHz values makes me think of car manufacturers who advertise huge horsepower figures, when the true measure of a car's ability to accelerate is a lot more subtle than that.
AMD has been pushing processor architecture for a while, which is something that a handful of people understand. Do you really think the average computer expert is going to understand architecture improvements? Not to speak of mom and pop buying a new computer -- they're going to look at rating.
The bottom line really is that you shouldn't be paying attention to numbers at all. Benchmarks (although some can be skewed) are the true test of a processor's power. Do you think they want to tempt fate and test the hardware review community? Beyond that, do you think AMD really wants to overinflate their processor value so they can piss off the enthusiast crowd they pays attention to these things? Aside from poor business practice, it would be dumb for them to just throw big numbers around if those numbers didn't correspond to some well-understood performance value. (I realize I just said that GHz is meaningless, but it is the historical metric.)
I remember hearing about the fury of information coming in to Wikipedia after the bombings. The reason I mentioned an editor or moderator for an evolving current event is just that some people, like myself, would rather not see so much conflicting information. I'm not trying to say that editors or moderators should act like traditional newspaper editors; perhaps merely keeping out the ludicrous or poorly-formed edits would suffice (though I'm not entirely sure how many edits this would comprise as a current event unfolds). Of course the Wikipedia article is good now that the picture is clear and edits can be checked against the current pool of knowledge or investigated if nobody knows for certain.
I've always said that the criticisms against Wikipedia for being open and online are inane because anyone doing serious research checks their sources (regardless of the medium in which the information has been published), and no piece of information is worthwhile unless confirmed by other experts. However, I didn't think it worth mentioning given the lack of expert information while a current event unfolds -- even big media stories change during current events.
I've got to agree here. Reuters misidentified the person who gave them the cause of death. It wasn't as if the source originally said "died from alien anal probe" and then later recanted. I love Wikipedia and all, but this guy is doing them a disservice by pretending to understand actual journalism. Wikipedia would be better served by a critical article that shed light on both sides of the issue and offered some solutions or alternatives to the current method, not some tow-the-line, open-for-everyone-is-always-good mentality.
Frankly, I imagine that Wikipedia would be best served by pre-comment acception editors or moderators of some sort during major current event times. Of course it would be difficult (especially given the fact that Wikipedia users aren't tied to some predetermined schedule), but slowing down the flow of information -- even at the expense of correct but uncorroborated fact addition -- would surely be worthwhile during the early hours/days of a current event.
I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I would rather spend the first few hours after a story broke not seeing the whole picture instead of seeing completely conflicting and potentially oddball explanations. Not to say that Wikipedia is always like this during a current event, but the potential certainly exists as things stand right now.
Based on sheer statistics, it would be impossible for everyone to seed to 100% on everything they download. WB can't ban people based on this -- they'd lose customers with every new movie released.
It does seem kind of ridiculous to expect people to seed content they paid for in the first place. Maybe WB will be smart and offer some sort of rewards system for seeding (free movie downloads or movie tickets would be the obvious choice)? Honestly, I wouldn't expect a whole lot, but just a little something would probably encourage at least some people who wouldn't otherwise seed.
I'd agree that it's not a particularly big deal, but I do find it rather strange nonetheless. According the Ars Technica article, Kent State could be concerned about atheletes posting pictures of themselves participating in some unsavory act during a party. That's a pretty legitemate reason, but it's also pretty easy to believe that anyone else on campus attending the same party could take similar pictures and post them on...oh just for grins let's say Facebook.
This thread has already addressed the issues of student atheletes vs. students being in legal agreements, so I'm not headed down that road. I do think, however, that this is a pretty short-sighted move on the part of the University. Again, the Ars Technica article makes a good point: Kent State is an educational institution. Why aren't they educating their students on this instead of outright banning the site and creating an opportunity for students with friends on athletic teams to make a nice, fat mistake in the name of ignorance?
Now I'll grant you that it's impossible for them to prevent all student-related bad moves, but wouldn't it make more sense for them to have an athletic department meeting with the students, explain what the University wants and why that's best for all parties involved? Similarly, wouldn't it be fairly easy to add a little five minute segment to the Freshman orientation presentation explaining Facebook, MySpace, and similar sites, and explain why posting pictures of this sort of thing can be embarassing for students, parents, and the University? Hell, this message applies to non-athletic groups as well -- think of how many College-related organizations there are, and how many students belong to the organizations. It's pretty easy to explain to someone that when you belong to a College-related organization, your actions frequently reflect (to a greater degree, even) upon the college, you, and your family.
The notion that you sell me the rights to repeatedly experience your cultural creation in the privacy of my home, but only under your terms and conditions is fairly absurd as well. The free market doesn't solve everything.
Humans are social animals. What do you call living if you don't interact with other people who share interests similar to your own? Of course media isn't as important as the bare necessities needed for survival, but life isn't only about surviving. Beating a drum loudly and making a blanket statement that everyone can live without a segment of culture, whether or not it happens to be part of their culture, is unfair. Maybe you and I can agree that it's ridiculous to feel like you need DRM music to be a part of a culture, but who are we to say that everyone else can make the same statement?
I, for one, oppose DRM because I see it as corporate America buying off our freedoms. Let's liken this to flag burning. I hate flag burning mainly because it's (generally) overused by people who are trying to make a trite political point in an extremist way. However, I'm vehemently opposed to a flag burning amendment because I see it as an easy slippery slope. How much farther would we have to go until we reach a statement like "Flag burning is unpatriotic and it's unconstitutional, so is (action/belief/idea)! Ban (action/belief/idea) too!"?
DRM isn't slowly killing me, but giving corporate America the idea that they can push the average person around sure as hell will someday. How did we get to a point where fast food is barely food and government barely governs? We stopped paying attention. Maybe DRM isn't the worst thing to ever happen in this country, but it may lead to something that will be -- in its current form, it sure doesn't sit well with me.
Your post misses the greater issue of free speech being controlled by corporate America. If I have time to call today, it will be because I'm protesting the abuse of our rights, not because I want to buy music from non-Indie labels. I haven't liked big-name music in years, but that doesn't mean the principle of the issue should be ignored.
I absolutely agree, but only included those with English degrees and minors because they are more authoritative sources. If an English professor said that grammar, spelling, and usage were unimportant, that would have greater repurcussions than the average lay English speaker believing such things (especially given the "i dont tink speling shud effekt ur opinion of other ppl" crowd).
It's usually USians who get these things wrong, of course. Those I've talked to really don't seem to care much and explain it away as "evolution of the language".
Yep, we definitely have a monopoly on stupidity here in the states. Who explained it away as "evolution of the language"? A 14 year-old? Come over here and ask anyone with an English degree or an English minor and they'll tell you how much they despise things like this. Just because you have a prejudice against us doesn't mean that everyone over here is uneducated and dull.
Most of us who say "British English" call it that because saying "English" over here doesn't mean to us what it does to you. Do Australians always refer to the English they Australian English? Get over yourself.
Just another example of 'Embrace and extend' - part of the US culture (is that an oxymoron?). The USA is the 'Microsoft' of the English language - copy it, then change it so that it doesn't work properly with the original version.
Excuse us while we treat companies as plural nouns, inferring that every employee in the business had something to do with the current topic of conversation. Now I'm going to go complain about how Yanks drive on the right-hand side of the road, and insinuate that this makes them want to marry their sisters.
For any sane, rational Brits with common sense, this isn't directed at you. Just the ridiculous people who us as driving down the road in our Confederate-flag-sticker, gun-rack-with-hunting-rifle, open-beer-drinking, NASCAR-playing-on-a-four-inch-battery-powered-TV-w atching laden cars. I have plenty of respect for Britain and enjoy the BBC shows I do watch, but I don't want to put up with this stupidity any more than you do.
USB extension cable. USB hub, keyboard; or keyboard with usb hub; USB mouse. All of these platforms have USB, everything from the PS2 on, basically.
I've used keyboard and mouse on a couch, an optical actually works pretty well on most couches.:)
I've used USB devices with a PS2 also, but that wasn't my point. Can you really see a gamer thinking "Gee, I'll forego my PC and setup this keen USB stuff in my living room where I have no desk and can easily trip over the wires!"? Even if it's usable, it's hardly practical. Wireless would be much better, but to be comfortable over any extended length of time, you'd need at least a waist or chest-high table, and I just don't think that makes sense to a lot of people when their computers are already setup at the right height and in the right way.
That's just silly today. I mean look at the Xbox, it's literally nothing more than a legacy-free PC.
I was a little vague here. I meant that I don't see them as performing the same functions in society, nor approaching a point where they perform the same functions. I see a PC as a general purpose machine, and a console as something consumers use purely for entertainment purposes. I can't fathom ever checking my e-mail on a console, nor wanting to do so.
Even a general purpose computer is like this though. Some things are hard to do without specialized hardware. Nonetheless, the PowerPC core in the PS3 isn't exactly going to be a dog. We're talking about an over 4 GHz 64 bit PPC - and then the 8 cell SPEs. They're only spectacularly good at certain things but they are going to be nice for, say, covering your floating point needs.
Specialized hardware like what? I always recommend to my friends that they buy their parents a motherboard with good integrated hardware, and I don't know of anything you really need beyond that for the vast majority of applications.
Just bill it as a set-top box. The time for set-top boxes has come, since most everyone (Statistically) now has a TV that is at least capable of taking a S-Video input and now text is actually readable - and even more because (as weak as adoption is so far) digital HD is becoming more prevalent and full HD is genuinely useful for computing tasks.
Also, it will make a super bitchin' media player, or equipped with a larger hard drive or writing to NAS it could be an excellent PVR as well if you added a nice USB2 capture device. The cell ought to be quite useful for video encoding.
It won't be the hottest PC around but it will be more than functional. Assuming, again, that we get a decent Linux, with decent graphics hardware support.
Here's where I just don't know that marketing is going to convince anyone. Like I said before, I just don't know that the average consumer is savvy enough to do media players like this, and I'm not sure that the average savvy computer user either wants a set-top media player (as opposed to just using his/her computer) or is convinced by its capabilities. Time will tell, though.
In my area of the country, we have Charter "High Speed" "Internet" and Verizon as a choice. Yeah, the free market is sure going to be great for my little neck of the woods.
This is terrible because the average person isn't informed enough to make the so-called free market work here. Companies being able to limit your access (even if it is only a slightly longer time to access) to the last vestige of true free speech is not a good thing, and cannot -- in my mind -- lead to good things.
Even if a PS3 is a better buy (raw performance for price vs. raw performance for price) than a top of the line computer, why are they going there?
Do you want to play a PC FPS on a console using a keyboard and mouse? How cumbersome would that be for anyone who doesn't have their PS3 in their rooms or near a desk that happens to be at arm's length? Will the games even support keyboard and mouse input (or, will the console have a built-in key binder)? Is the game going to look anywhere near as good on a $500 PS3 as it would on an absolute top of the line computer with everything turned on?
I see PCs as entirely separated from consoles. Consoles are essentially plug and play devices, whereas PCs aren't simple, focused pieces of electronics. I've never understood this console versus PC comparison. There is no comparison between playing a game using a controller and playing the same game using keyboard and mouse (so long as it was intended for keyboard and mouse). There's not really a comparison (for me) between seeing a graphical titan on a console and a graphical titan on the PC. Maybe it would be different if I owned a fantastic HDTV, but if I bought an HDTV so my (hypothetically purchased) PS3 would look as good and be in as high a resolution as a PC game, the price comparison ($500 to a top of the line PC's cost, that is) makes no sense.
Then again, maybe I missed their definition of a computer. I don't think of my PC as performing a few functions well and the rest poorly -- I don't do one or two things, and I have an expectation of being able to do pretty much anything that can be done on a computer and do it well. I just can't see how Sony is going to convince the average PC gamer or knowledgeable PC user this is a worthwhile venture, nor can I see how they're going to convince the average PC user that this will be an easy and worthwhile thing to do.
FM/AM radio isn't nearly the same audio quality you'd get from a CD or tape. Recording songs off air radio means you're also probably getting parts at the beginning and ending cut out. Also, copying from analog source to analog source introduces further noise into the recording. As we all well know, digital copies can be made a (for all intents and purposes) infinite number of times with no quality loss.
I haven't read the article, so I can't comment there, but I wouldn't be shocked to find that the RIAA is just trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.
I understood what you were saying ages ago, but perhaps I have not spelled out my meaning enough. Complaining does not make change. Reaction to complaints makes change. Hence why I said that it was important but did not by itself produce results. Saying "We're out of milk," does not immediately buy milk, while the typical reaction to hearing such a statement does indeed result in the purchase of milk. Obviously politics and societal issues are hairier than milk (hopefully), but I hope you get the gist of what I've been trying to say.
My point was that commentary without action or call to action is useless. Plenty of people in America know that something's wrong, but there is an overwhelming wealth of action that needs to be taken before change happens. I agree that complaining plays an integral part in the process, but it accomplishes nothing by itself.
Allow me to extend this point to other things which have performed mighty injustices against me and humanity: 1) my mother, for not being absolutely infallible and a perfect human being, 2) the automobile, for causing countless deaths, traffic jams, global warming, wars, gas shortages, and NASCAR, 3) agriculture, for creating a surplus of food and forcing human beings to barter or exchange money in order to get that which we absolutely need, and for exploding the human population over tens of thousands of years.
This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read in all my time reading slashdot. Let's paint a ridiculously lopsided picture of the government as having never done anything right and perpetually trying to drain us for as much as they can get before killing us. These people must surely be the world's worst tyrants, and we must live the worst lives of any humans on earth, right?...Well, after most African nations, lots of people in China who can't search Google, surely the Russians and other eastern European countries. We can't forget the Arab world and Israel, too. But after them, we're absolutely living the worst lives!
Get a grip. Government isn't perfect, people aren't perfect, the world isn't perfect. Complaining doesn't fix things, and pretty much everyone who's upset with the way things are going already knows what the hell is wrong with the world, and the people who don't already know will figure it out soon enough.
You want governmental change, then convince the electorate that they want governmental change, and by god governmental change will happen. Of course, you've also got to convince them to be vigilant and to hold the media to their jobs as our watchdogs. Yes, it's a pretty tall order, but that's how change happens in a nation with a democratically-elected government. So before we crucify every Representative and Senator, let's make sure that we won't need to crucify the next batch we elect.
Is the government to blame for many of society's ills? Hell yes, but so is society, and it's time that reasonable people stand up and say so. Demanding change without accepting duty or responsibility is childish and has no place in a discussion about our troubles. Lamenting our problems while offering no solution is insulting.
This multiboot thing will be especially impressive as Microsoft continues along this idiotic path of multiple flavours of Windows. God ferbid they just make one REALLY GOOD version that does the job properly (a la OSX).
I'm trying to imagine how this would make sense. I cannot fathom an single operating system that works well for my desktop at work, our company's system administrators, and my mother. I'm perfectly happy running Windows XP Pro at work, and I ran 2k Pro for a long time, but this would be overkill for my mother who needs things to be simple.
Conversely, "simple" doesn't do much for us at work where we have probably 150 people on my floor working on different projects. I came a university that ran a unix network and it ran flawlessly (most of the time), but my workplace network is entirely Windows-based and runs pretty smoothly (until you have to hunt down someone who can give you access your new project's source code repository, but that would be a problem in any company this size).
However, I try to think about my mom running any sort of OS which could also handle this environment, and I imagine myself having a six hour phone conversation trying to tell my mom how to check her e-mail. Maybe Apple has bridged this gap between the highly technical, highly scalable and easy to use and my Mac-using friends have never told me, but I sure don't know of it. And honestly, out of all the things to hate about Windows, the multiple versions? I guess we can't even agree on what to hate about Windows these days.
If we're going to use conjecture, let me interject that I live in a college city which has about 80,000 residents normally and around 100,000 counting temporary college students. How many of these folks do you imagine need an SUV? Sure, lots of people consider their college years to be their partying years, but four average-sized adults can easily fit inside a compact car like I drive.
Heck, even my 6'+ tall friends easily fit inside it. I try to drive with my AC off most of the time, but I don't manage that too often since I live in Texas. I've got lead-foot syndrome coming out all the pores of my body, but my car still manages 29 MPG. I ought to add that I work about 40 miles from home and commute (as most everyone else does) during rush hour. If I drove like a sane person, I could probably scrape the upper 30s.
Now, I realize that not everyone is a college kid who really doesn't need an SUV, and there are quite a few families for whom an SUV is a good answer. I don't think anyone wants to deny these people the ability to buy an SUV, and I certainly don't fault adults I see driving them around (they're easy to differentiate from the college kids in city driving). There are still some who fall into this "I'll own the vehicle I want" category -- my mother being one. I tried and tried and tried to convince my mom to buy a mid-sized sedan or even an estate car (think station wagon, but without the faux wood paneling), but she refused. She loves the high driving position and feels like other drivers give right of way to her because she drives a larger vehicle. Regardless, she certainly doesn't need one, and if she drove my car for a week, I'm sure she'd be quite comfortable with it.
The point I'm trying to get at here is that it seems like some of us Americans have come to the conclusion that we should buy whatever we please just because we can. It's no secret that SUV sales have been a huge fad, and have even kept the Big Three propped up against foreign manufacturers. I, for one, do think that quite a lot of people have bought SUVs out of vanity.
Although I wouldn't be caught dead owning one (I never said I wasn't vain, too), minivans aren't horrific for people who have lots of kids. My roommate owns one (hand-me-down from his parents) and we use it to lug stuff around all the time. I much prefer it to my mom's SUV, although each person is different. In addition to this, you could buy an estate car. It's not the sportiest-looking vehicle in the world, but I've never thought that SUVs were anything to write home about either. A friend of mine owns a Subaru estate car, and it's even got the oomph to go along with the space and good gas mileage. My little Lancer would be jealous if it knew I rode in a Subaru and liked it.
The crux of this whole arguement hinges on the belief that SUVs are somehow the only way for a certain minority of Americans to get on with their daily lives. This is simply just not the case.
Although we do not all have great choices when it comes to public transport, we do have a great many choices in the vehicles we drive. Sadly, not a great many of those choices include diesel-powered cars, as fuel emissions standards are so starkly different between the EU and the US that it's quite difficult (from what I understand) for a car manufacturer to get a diesel-powered car to meet US emissions standards. I, for one, say "screw it" to ethanol -- biodiesel is what we should really be looking at as a dropping-off point between where we stand now and whatever our fuel of the future happens to be. Maybe GM's and Ford's financial troubles will be enough of a wakeup call that the "next generation of environmentally-friendly cars" won't be a gimmick.
Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The discourse that's really missing in this discussion is about demographics. Most casual computer users use webmail I'd wager that a lot of serious computer users do too. Webmail has been around so long that it's become ubiquitous. Logging into my GMail account is simple, and I don't have to carry a thumbdrive with a portable version of putty and whatever else on it in order to get my e-mail from a client/interface that I'm comfortable using.
I have never in my life understood the storage space arguement, and it was one reason I resisted moving from Hotmail to GMail (I have to admit, it's embarassing now to think that I resisted moving away from Hotmail) -- Google's 2GB promotion point made it seem like that was the only reason you'd want to switch over. I'm currently using a whopping 45 megs of space on my GMail account (this includes about 400 e-mails from particular mailing lists I subscribe to). If you ask me, GMail is popular because it's web-based, people are comfortable with web-based clients, and it's surely the fastest and (arguably) the best web-based e-mail service around.
Are the features worthwhile? I guess that depends on who you ask. I think labels are the dumbest "feature" in GMail. If I see that I have mail in more than one label, I (and I imagine most people) instinctively think that I have two separate, distinct e-mails. Not one e-mail that falls under multiple categories for some godforsaken reason. The whole GMail ads point is moot under these (webmail) circumstances too. If you think GMail's text ads are intrusive, take some heart medicine and then create a Hotmail account. It's been years since I logged into my Yahoo e-mail account, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's on a similar level.
Ultimately, people use what they're comfortable with. I'm not so particular about my e-mail that I need to have a system-based client configured the way I like it, but I'm particular enough that I don't want to use a different web-based e-mail provider -- GMail does what I want, is fast (for webmail), and is simple, so that's what I use.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember produce scales and a bar tag system in stores here in the States. I think the problem here (as with most of the other complaints in these comments) is that most Americans (and perhaps people in general) aren't observant. What would the cashier do if someone brought this fruit up to the register without a bar code? Call a manager? Wait while the customer goes back to weigh the item again? Neither of those are great solutions. The grocery stores I shop at solve this problem by pre-packaging items that are typically sold by weight (such as grapes) and selling others (such as apples or bananas) as amount per fruit/vegetable, and that suits me just fine.
I think some of the other problems mentioned in these comments break down into common sense. Do hardware stores really need self-checkout lanes? Did anyone with any training in technical design and usability look this checkout process over? Self-checkout lanes make a lot of sense (to me) in grocery stores where the customer isn't likely to buy extremely light or extremely bulky goods (though both of these exist in grocery stores, I admit), but grocery stores seem prone to placing the change dispenser/receipt printer as far away from the scanner as possible, and in the hardest-to-find places. Sometimes it seems like corporations lack common sense even more than the average person.
They're probably unhappy because we've gone and decided that the middle east also qualifies as "our house". Of course we don't want the rest of the world telling us what's good and what isn't, just the same way many children don't want to hear what's good for them from their parents. There was a time when the international community respected the US, you know.
Frankly, it galls me to think that this issue is still seen as liberal vs. conservative. Has nobody noticed that Bush administration recently agreed to let the FISA court (which was created for this specific purpose) review these cases? I don't feel less safe because our newspapers report on these programs; I feel less safe because our President and his administration believe that the terrorists can win because the media did their jobs.
Was it a threat to national security when Robert Novak leaked Valerie Plame's identity? Shouldn't an administration committed to national security have investigated this seriously? I guess it's okay because her husband didn't tow the line (whether or not you believe Joseph Wilson's story is another matter entirely).
After the post-9-11 hysteria died down and it came to light that what happened that day was the culmination of several intelligence failures, I stopped worrying about terrorism. That's not to say I believe we have a foolproof system in place here, just that it took a number of governmental failures for such a thing to happen.
Do we have to be smarter now than we were then? Absolutely we do. Islamic fundamentalism (and indeed, Christian fundamentalism as well) bent on societal destruction will be tough to defeat (if such a thing is even possible). Frankly, I would like to be secure in the knowledge that once we overcome this adversary, that we have civil rights left to enjoy. Is it dramatic of me to say something like that? Maybe so, but at least I haven't told you that opposing viewpoints are less American.
But would you think it wise for a woman to wear a low-cut blouse in a seedy part of town? It doesn't excuse the criminals in any way, but a bit of common sense might go a long ways.
Some of the comments after this article were certainly interesting. One poster said that the two papers quoted in the article (for their time statistics) were tabloids. Any Britons confirm or deny this?
Gawd, finally someone who seems to understand that the W3C can't actually enforce standards on companies who write software. The W3C isn't a government agency, they don't have law-enforcing power on the Internet, and they post guidelines for the love of god. How is it that so many computer literate people blame the W3C's CSS guidelines for the problems created by different implementations of not-quite W3C standards?
And I thought Slashdot comments were frustrating to read on a normal article...
Frankly, I tend to think of GHz as being meaningless. If your architecture is powerful enough that you don't need to push big numbers at people, why bother? Intel's high-range of GHz values makes me think of car manufacturers who advertise huge horsepower figures, when the true measure of a car's ability to accelerate is a lot more subtle than that.
AMD has been pushing processor architecture for a while, which is something that a handful of people understand. Do you really think the average computer expert is going to understand architecture improvements? Not to speak of mom and pop buying a new computer -- they're going to look at rating.
The bottom line really is that you shouldn't be paying attention to numbers at all. Benchmarks (although some can be skewed) are the true test of a processor's power. Do you think they want to tempt fate and test the hardware review community? Beyond that, do you think AMD really wants to overinflate their processor value so they can piss off the enthusiast crowd they pays attention to these things? Aside from poor business practice, it would be dumb for them to just throw big numbers around if those numbers didn't correspond to some well-understood performance value. (I realize I just said that GHz is meaningless, but it is the historical metric.)
I remember hearing about the fury of information coming in to Wikipedia after the bombings. The reason I mentioned an editor or moderator for an evolving current event is just that some people, like myself, would rather not see so much conflicting information. I'm not trying to say that editors or moderators should act like traditional newspaper editors; perhaps merely keeping out the ludicrous or poorly-formed edits would suffice (though I'm not entirely sure how many edits this would comprise as a current event unfolds). Of course the Wikipedia article is good now that the picture is clear and edits can be checked against the current pool of knowledge or investigated if nobody knows for certain.
I've always said that the criticisms against Wikipedia for being open and online are inane because anyone doing serious research checks their sources (regardless of the medium in which the information has been published), and no piece of information is worthwhile unless confirmed by other experts. However, I didn't think it worth mentioning given the lack of expert information while a current event unfolds -- even big media stories change during current events.
I've got to agree here. Reuters misidentified the person who gave them the cause of death. It wasn't as if the source originally said "died from alien anal probe" and then later recanted. I love Wikipedia and all, but this guy is doing them a disservice by pretending to understand actual journalism. Wikipedia would be better served by a critical article that shed light on both sides of the issue and offered some solutions or alternatives to the current method, not some tow-the-line, open-for-everyone-is-always-good mentality.
Frankly, I imagine that Wikipedia would be best served by pre-comment acception editors or moderators of some sort during major current event times. Of course it would be difficult (especially given the fact that Wikipedia users aren't tied to some predetermined schedule), but slowing down the flow of information -- even at the expense of correct but uncorroborated fact addition -- would surely be worthwhile during the early hours/days of a current event.
I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I would rather spend the first few hours after a story broke not seeing the whole picture instead of seeing completely conflicting and potentially oddball explanations. Not to say that Wikipedia is always like this during a current event, but the potential certainly exists as things stand right now.
Based on sheer statistics, it would be impossible for everyone to seed to 100% on everything they download. WB can't ban people based on this -- they'd lose customers with every new movie released.
It does seem kind of ridiculous to expect people to seed content they paid for in the first place. Maybe WB will be smart and offer some sort of rewards system for seeding (free movie downloads or movie tickets would be the obvious choice)? Honestly, I wouldn't expect a whole lot, but just a little something would probably encourage at least some people who wouldn't otherwise seed.
I'd agree that it's not a particularly big deal, but I do find it rather strange nonetheless. According the Ars Technica article, Kent State could be concerned about atheletes posting pictures of themselves participating in some unsavory act during a party. That's a pretty legitemate reason, but it's also pretty easy to believe that anyone else on campus attending the same party could take similar pictures and post them on...oh just for grins let's say Facebook.
This thread has already addressed the issues of student atheletes vs. students being in legal agreements, so I'm not headed down that road. I do think, however, that this is a pretty short-sighted move on the part of the University. Again, the Ars Technica article makes a good point: Kent State is an educational institution. Why aren't they educating their students on this instead of outright banning the site and creating an opportunity for students with friends on athletic teams to make a nice, fat mistake in the name of ignorance?
Now I'll grant you that it's impossible for them to prevent all student-related bad moves, but wouldn't it make more sense for them to have an athletic department meeting with the students, explain what the University wants and why that's best for all parties involved? Similarly, wouldn't it be fairly easy to add a little five minute segment to the Freshman orientation presentation explaining Facebook, MySpace, and similar sites, and explain why posting pictures of this sort of thing can be embarassing for students, parents, and the University? Hell, this message applies to non-athletic groups as well -- think of how many College-related organizations there are, and how many students belong to the organizations. It's pretty easy to explain to someone that when you belong to a College-related organization, your actions frequently reflect (to a greater degree, even) upon the college, you, and your family.
The notion that you sell me the rights to repeatedly experience your cultural creation in the privacy of my home, but only under your terms and conditions is fairly absurd as well. The free market doesn't solve everything.
Humans are social animals. What do you call living if you don't interact with other people who share interests similar to your own? Of course media isn't as important as the bare necessities needed for survival, but life isn't only about surviving. Beating a drum loudly and making a blanket statement that everyone can live without a segment of culture, whether or not it happens to be part of their culture, is unfair. Maybe you and I can agree that it's ridiculous to feel like you need DRM music to be a part of a culture, but who are we to say that everyone else can make the same statement?
I, for one, oppose DRM because I see it as corporate America buying off our freedoms. Let's liken this to flag burning. I hate flag burning mainly because it's (generally) overused by people who are trying to make a trite political point in an extremist way. However, I'm vehemently opposed to a flag burning amendment because I see it as an easy slippery slope. How much farther would we have to go until we reach a statement like "Flag burning is unpatriotic and it's unconstitutional, so is (action/belief/idea)! Ban (action/belief/idea) too!"?
DRM isn't slowly killing me, but giving corporate America the idea that they can push the average person around sure as hell will someday. How did we get to a point where fast food is barely food and government barely governs? We stopped paying attention. Maybe DRM isn't the worst thing to ever happen in this country, but it may lead to something that will be -- in its current form, it sure doesn't sit well with me.
Your post misses the greater issue of free speech being controlled by corporate America. If I have time to call today, it will be because I'm protesting the abuse of our rights, not because I want to buy music from non-Indie labels. I haven't liked big-name music in years, but that doesn't mean the principle of the issue should be ignored.
I absolutely agree, but only included those with English degrees and minors because they are more authoritative sources. If an English professor said that grammar, spelling, and usage were unimportant, that would have greater repurcussions than the average lay English speaker believing such things (especially given the "i dont tink speling shud effekt ur opinion of other ppl" crowd).
Yep, we definitely have a monopoly on stupidity here in the states. Who explained it away as "evolution of the language"? A 14 year-old? Come over here and ask anyone with an English degree or an English minor and they'll tell you how much they despise things like this. Just because you have a prejudice against us doesn't mean that everyone over here is uneducated and dull.
Most of us who say "British English" call it that because saying "English" over here doesn't mean to us what it does to you. Do Australians always refer to the English they Australian English? Get over yourself.
Excuse us while we treat companies as plural nouns, inferring that every employee in the business had something to do with the current topic of conversation. Now I'm going to go complain about how Yanks drive on the right-hand side of the road, and insinuate that this makes them want to marry their sisters.
For any sane, rational Brits with common sense, this isn't directed at you. Just the ridiculous people who us as driving down the road in our Confederate-flag-sticker, gun-rack-with-hunting-rifle, open-beer-drinking, NASCAR-playing-on-a-four-inch-battery-powered-TV-
I was a little vague here. I meant that I don't see them as performing the same functions in society, nor approaching a point where they perform the same functions. I see a PC as a general purpose machine, and a console as something consumers use purely for entertainment purposes. I can't fathom ever checking my e-mail on a console, nor wanting to do so.
Specialized hardware like what? I always recommend to my friends that they buy their parents a motherboard with good integrated hardware, and I don't know of anything you really need beyond that for the vast majority of applications.
Here's where I just don't know that marketing is going to convince anyone. Like I said before, I just don't know that the average consumer is savvy enough to do media players like this, and I'm not sure that the average savvy computer user either wants a set-top media player (as opposed to just using his/her computer) or is convinced by its capabilities. Time will tell, though.
In my area of the country, we have Charter "High Speed" "Internet" and Verizon as a choice. Yeah, the free market is sure going to be great for my little neck of the woods.
This is terrible because the average person isn't informed enough to make the so-called free market work here. Companies being able to limit your access (even if it is only a slightly longer time to access) to the last vestige of true free speech is not a good thing, and cannot -- in my mind -- lead to good things.
Even if a PS3 is a better buy (raw performance for price vs. raw performance for price) than a top of the line computer, why are they going there?
Do you want to play a PC FPS on a console using a keyboard and mouse? How cumbersome would that be for anyone who doesn't have their PS3 in their rooms or near a desk that happens to be at arm's length? Will the games even support keyboard and mouse input (or, will the console have a built-in key binder)? Is the game going to look anywhere near as good on a $500 PS3 as it would on an absolute top of the line computer with everything turned on?
I see PCs as entirely separated from consoles. Consoles are essentially plug and play devices, whereas PCs aren't simple, focused pieces of electronics. I've never understood this console versus PC comparison. There is no comparison between playing a game using a controller and playing the same game using keyboard and mouse (so long as it was intended for keyboard and mouse). There's not really a comparison (for me) between seeing a graphical titan on a console and a graphical titan on the PC. Maybe it would be different if I owned a fantastic HDTV, but if I bought an HDTV so my (hypothetically purchased) PS3 would look as good and be in as high a resolution as a PC game, the price comparison ($500 to a top of the line PC's cost, that is) makes no sense.
Then again, maybe I missed their definition of a computer. I don't think of my PC as performing a few functions well and the rest poorly -- I don't do one or two things, and I have an expectation of being able to do pretty much anything that can be done on a computer and do it well. I just can't see how Sony is going to convince the average PC gamer or knowledgeable PC user this is a worthwhile venture, nor can I see how they're going to convince the average PC user that this will be an easy and worthwhile thing to do.
FM/AM radio isn't nearly the same audio quality you'd get from a CD or tape. Recording songs off air radio means you're also probably getting parts at the beginning and ending cut out. Also, copying from analog source to analog source introduces further noise into the recording. As we all well know, digital copies can be made a (for all intents and purposes) infinite number of times with no quality loss.
I haven't read the article, so I can't comment there, but I wouldn't be shocked to find that the RIAA is just trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.
I understood what you were saying ages ago, but perhaps I have not spelled out my meaning enough. Complaining does not make change. Reaction to complaints makes change. Hence why I said that it was important but did not by itself produce results. Saying "We're out of milk," does not immediately buy milk, while the typical reaction to hearing such a statement does indeed result in the purchase of milk. Obviously politics and societal issues are hairier than milk (hopefully), but I hope you get the gist of what I've been trying to say.
My point was that commentary without action or call to action is useless. Plenty of people in America know that something's wrong, but there is an overwhelming wealth of action that needs to be taken before change happens. I agree that complaining plays an integral part in the process, but it accomplishes nothing by itself.
Allow me to extend this point to other things which have performed mighty injustices against me and humanity: 1) my mother, for not being absolutely infallible and a perfect human being, 2) the automobile, for causing countless deaths, traffic jams, global warming, wars, gas shortages, and NASCAR, 3) agriculture, for creating a surplus of food and forcing human beings to barter or exchange money in order to get that which we absolutely need, and for exploding the human population over tens of thousands of years.
...Well, after most African nations, lots of people in China who can't search Google, surely the Russians and other eastern European countries. We can't forget the Arab world and Israel, too. But after them, we're absolutely living the worst lives!
This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read in all my time reading slashdot. Let's paint a ridiculously lopsided picture of the government as having never done anything right and perpetually trying to drain us for as much as they can get before killing us. These people must surely be the world's worst tyrants, and we must live the worst lives of any humans on earth, right?
Get a grip. Government isn't perfect, people aren't perfect, the world isn't perfect. Complaining doesn't fix things, and pretty much everyone who's upset with the way things are going already knows what the hell is wrong with the world, and the people who don't already know will figure it out soon enough.
You want governmental change, then convince the electorate that they want governmental change, and by god governmental change will happen. Of course, you've also got to convince them to be vigilant and to hold the media to their jobs as our watchdogs. Yes, it's a pretty tall order, but that's how change happens in a nation with a democratically-elected government. So before we crucify every Representative and Senator, let's make sure that we won't need to crucify the next batch we elect.
Is the government to blame for many of society's ills? Hell yes, but so is society, and it's time that reasonable people stand up and say so. Demanding change without accepting duty or responsibility is childish and has no place in a discussion about our troubles. Lamenting our problems while offering no solution is insulting.
If we're going to use conjecture, let me interject that I live in a college city which has about 80,000 residents normally and around 100,000 counting temporary college students. How many of these folks do you imagine need an SUV? Sure, lots of people consider their college years to be their partying years, but four average-sized adults can easily fit inside a compact car like I drive.
Heck, even my 6'+ tall friends easily fit inside it. I try to drive with my AC off most of the time, but I don't manage that too often since I live in Texas. I've got lead-foot syndrome coming out all the pores of my body, but my car still manages 29 MPG. I ought to add that I work about 40 miles from home and commute (as most everyone else does) during rush hour. If I drove like a sane person, I could probably scrape the upper 30s.
Now, I realize that not everyone is a college kid who really doesn't need an SUV, and there are quite a few families for whom an SUV is a good answer. I don't think anyone wants to deny these people the ability to buy an SUV, and I certainly don't fault adults I see driving them around (they're easy to differentiate from the college kids in city driving). There are still some who fall into this "I'll own the vehicle I want" category -- my mother being one. I tried and tried and tried to convince my mom to buy a mid-sized sedan or even an estate car (think station wagon, but without the faux wood paneling), but she refused. She loves the high driving position and feels like other drivers give right of way to her because she drives a larger vehicle. Regardless, she certainly doesn't need one, and if she drove my car for a week, I'm sure she'd be quite comfortable with it.
The point I'm trying to get at here is that it seems like some of us Americans have come to the conclusion that we should buy whatever we please just because we can. It's no secret that SUV sales have been a huge fad, and have even kept the Big Three propped up against foreign manufacturers. I, for one, do think that quite a lot of people have bought SUVs out of vanity.
Although I wouldn't be caught dead owning one (I never said I wasn't vain, too), minivans aren't horrific for people who have lots of kids. My roommate owns one (hand-me-down from his parents) and we use it to lug stuff around all the time. I much prefer it to my mom's SUV, although each person is different. In addition to this, you could buy an estate car. It's not the sportiest-looking vehicle in the world, but I've never thought that SUVs were anything to write home about either. A friend of mine owns a Subaru estate car, and it's even got the oomph to go along with the space and good gas mileage. My little Lancer would be jealous if it knew I rode in a Subaru and liked it.
The crux of this whole arguement hinges on the belief that SUVs are somehow the only way for a certain minority of Americans to get on with their daily lives. This is simply just not the case.
Although we do not all have great choices when it comes to public transport, we do have a great many choices in the vehicles we drive. Sadly, not a great many of those choices include diesel-powered cars, as fuel emissions standards are so starkly different between the EU and the US that it's quite difficult (from what I understand) for a car manufacturer to get a diesel-powered car to meet US emissions standards. I, for one, say "screw it" to ethanol -- biodiesel is what we should really be looking at as a dropping-off point between where we stand now and whatever our fuel of the future happens to be. Maybe GM's and Ford's financial troubles will be enough of a wakeup call that the "next generation of environmentally-friendly cars" won't be a gimmick.
The discourse that's really missing in this discussion is about demographics. Most casual computer users use webmail I'd wager that a lot of serious computer users do too. Webmail has been around so long that it's become ubiquitous. Logging into my GMail account is simple, and I don't have to carry a thumbdrive with a portable version of putty and whatever else on it in order to get my e-mail from a client/interface that I'm comfortable using.
I have never in my life understood the storage space arguement, and it was one reason I resisted moving from Hotmail to GMail (I have to admit, it's embarassing now to think that I resisted moving away from Hotmail) -- Google's 2GB promotion point made it seem like that was the only reason you'd want to switch over. I'm currently using a whopping 45 megs of space on my GMail account (this includes about 400 e-mails from particular mailing lists I subscribe to). If you ask me, GMail is popular because it's web-based, people are comfortable with web-based clients, and it's surely the fastest and (arguably) the best web-based e-mail service around.
Are the features worthwhile? I guess that depends on who you ask. I think labels are the dumbest "feature" in GMail. If I see that I have mail in more than one label, I (and I imagine most people) instinctively think that I have two separate, distinct e-mails. Not one e-mail that falls under multiple categories for some godforsaken reason. The whole GMail ads point is moot under these (webmail) circumstances too. If you think GMail's text ads are intrusive, take some heart medicine and then create a Hotmail account. It's been years since I logged into my Yahoo e-mail account, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's on a similar level.
Ultimately, people use what they're comfortable with. I'm not so particular about my e-mail that I need to have a system-based client configured the way I like it, but I'm particular enough that I don't want to use a different web-based e-mail provider -- GMail does what I want, is fast (for webmail), and is simple, so that's what I use.