It isn't a beta product. It is still alpha. And alpha it is with tons of problems. They need to hire some usability testers because they made some aweful mistakes that only a programmer would do. As Dave Thomas says... they hired hackers.
If Boxee is to make it to retail in products they need a lot more work. I used boxee from the time it was released to Alpha more than a year ago and it has been trimmed back as to what features it allows.
And that means I published the info and made it publicly available to everyone. I know what I published therefore I put it out there. If I put it in a private area and expect that this information remain private then I have the expectation of privacy. I didn't give google nor anyone else the right to track and sell the information about what I am doing. I do that in private. I didn't say "google go ahead and publish this information and keep this other info private". I said to google "keep everything private, period".
The police can't come into your home without a warrant, unless you invite them in, and then leave your drugs (for example) laying around, if so then you screwed the pooch. If I told them to shove off they need to stay out of my house and thus if I had drugs in there they'd not see them.
That's the real difference. Warrants are for specific things and they must be pretty exact. The judge won't let the cops go in to see if there's a crime being committed. But the judge will allow them to go in and see if there's been a specific crime as long as there is a reasonable basis for them to be searching for that. Yes, if some drugs are laying about, and they find them during the search, they can charge you with them.
The difference here is when and how they gain access to me and my home. If I tell social site F to keep all my stuff private and I'll let the stuff out I want out then they have to keep it private. It isn't up to them to determine that nothing I put up there is private, especially when I already indicated prior to the the policy change.
Facebook's founder's comments are absurd. He wants to sell your information hoping you won't go back and remove the information once they make the policy change. This is a huge violation of your privacy.
Want to kill Facebook? Tell everyone you own whatever they put up there and then sell the info to everyone.
I expect privacy first and foremost. I expect the ability to share what I want with whom I want. I do not expect some social site to determine what's private in my life. This man is totally bonkers.
Your computer and other data maintained by you is an extension of your home. It almost sounds like he's being influenced by Microsoft which would rather have the ability to look at you and everything you do with impunity. NO. I decide all things private and no one violates that because they are tired of trying to ensure my privacy with their online system.
The rant is no more of a rant than you find closed source rant about regarding open source.
And, the updated spec for OpenGL had glorious ideas but somehow they fell through. Then Microsoft decided they'd cancel support for OpenGL in Vista/Win7 (yay, way to compete -- try to kill a solid viable product used by so many).
OpenGL still has a bright future as soon as they can complete what they promised.
If Windows didn't have these technologies used to prop it up we'd have far less Windows in the world, which, in many ways would be the greatest thing for the consumer and the industry (as far as innovation and progress goes). Without DirectX propping up the monopoly we'd have other technologies and far more companies that would provide innovative competition, thus providing more, and often better, products.
We know that when you have a large number of competitors you get better products. The eReaders are a perfect example. First the Kindle and now about 10 competitors all showing that the competition has created a much greater choice for consumers as well as better features. Further netbooks and tablet PCs as well as touch capabilities in phones and the tablets are perfect examples of what happens when there's no technology to lock you in thus propping up the monopoly.
A tablet is definitely NOT a phone and thus it has a much greater utility (or should have). The problem with Apple's philosophy WILL be that they will treat this like it is an iPhone. The tablet has to be not just a netbook without a keyboard, but it must also be an e-reader, a browser, a program launcher, a gaming device, and the ability to communicate via webcams, microphones, and it must also have GPS capabilities. It must also have a removable battery as well as the standard USB, wireless & wired network, and expansion such as SSD cards.
My point is that it must be a device with more utility than Apple generally gives to their hardware/software--they tend to limit what you can/should do with it.
I like Apple's products, but I can see that their philosophy of recent has been a wedge driven between themselves and the customer.
Heheh, thanks for the correction. I was just too lazy to look it up, but you are most likely correct.
Nonetheless you understand what I was saying. Companies have a vested interest in not paying overtime to programmers since programming is such a thought intensive task and the pay offs for it are incredible, especially for companies such as Microsoft. Huge money pay offs without having to pay their 80+ hour a week employees anything other than their salary.
In WA State, as well as others I'm sure, Microsoft managed to get passed a law that says that programmer's needn't be paid for overtime, essentially making them non-exempt. I'm sure this is more the case than the author's explanation. They don't pay more for more productivity because they don't have to. Though programmers do get bonuses and other compensation based on how good a job they do.
Too costly for a system that was designed to be inexpensive. If you look at the videos on hothardware about the ion platform you'll note that it is very inexpensive. 12" display is large but that's not the cost factor.
They need to reduce the cost by $300 before I'll consider buying it.
But that's not my intended point. My point here is that even if she got a troll mod, it only goes that far down. You can't go farther down. No problem with the comments to her post as those won't vary except in adding that she's a anonymous coward.
As someone that's been in the field for over 25 years and has heard this question asked hundreds of times over those years, the answer has nothing to do with men. Women have been encouraged to become involved and they don't.
I've worked for large corporations and small businesses and at no time have I ever seen women shunned from IT or any field related to technology.
What women generally want is to be on top of the IT heap without paying the dues. Yes, that's right. Most men do not make it to the top. Most women wouldn't then either.
The question isn't what's keeping them off the top, it's what's keeping them out of the pile. And that rests squarely with the women. If you can't accept individual responsibility for yourself you'll never go anywhere, nor should you.
Most of the women my age that I have interaction with place no value in technology and do little to pursue it. If you are a cashier at your local Fred Meyer don't expect to gain advancement if you have no eduction and take no time to learn the skills. You deserve what you get if you don't put in the effort. Most of those women that I know essentially belittle and begrudge men for their techy background; instead they seem to want a man who parties, goes camping, works out, etc. This noteworthy, but it won't get women any closer to the top of the IT ranks.
The picture is pretty clear. It's not murky. You don't contribute you don't travel, period.
This is a bogus comment. Most people absolutely do dislike, mind, hate, and are very annoyed by ads. No one is not.
What people want are fewer ads. For instance, you don't need ads on every page. You don't need multiple ads on every page.
One ad, ever couple of times you visit the page would cease annoying people. It would satisfy the majority (greater than 75% for sure). But most sites put multiple ads per page and put ads up every time you hit the page. How about cutting down on all ads.
And mind you, these same companies that are advertising are the same companies responsible for tons of spam that get into your inbox.
I don't need ads to tell me what I should buy. I know what I want and I've gotten there by reading and by trail and error. What good does an ad do for me when I never read them, ever.
Back in the day when computers were first gaining some modicum of popularity I read the magazines for the ads. Yes, I did. Because they did a better job of stating the specifications and pointing out the important information. Since, of course they've gone the same route as the one that sells you frying pan oil. Let's be real.
My main multimedia machine runs Linux and is connected to a 47" TV via HDMI. I have no problem running any program and playing back any sort of multimedia. Now, I fix computers for a living and I know there are all levels of comfort when it comes to what people expect. My thoughts here are just that, that it is the end-user perspective on what you think should or should not work. We work pretty hard in the Linux community to satisfy people's demands and things get fixed pretty quick.
What we ask more than anything in the Linux community is to have you stop thinking that Linux is a clone of Windows. Not only is it not, but we don't want it that way, for several reasons; one of which is that we don't want predicate our advances upon whether Microsoft has implemented them beforehand.
Boxee runs fine on Linux and though I do have Netflix I do not have the desire to try to get it to run under Linux (after my initial attempt), as silverlight is pretty much a Microsoft technology that really can't compete with Flash. I'm amazed that Netflix went with them and that they are still using it. 80% of all streamed multimedia is done with flash. Those are hard fast numbers. silverlight is just Microsoft attempting to get back at Adobe due to Adobe punching them out of the market on PDF.
One has to wonder just how many other services use silverlight or how many other products are based on it. On top of that one has to wonder just how many people use Netflix streaming. Even if it is 2 million or even 5 million that's nothing compared to how many that don't use it. That makes it essentially a moot point as it isn't significant enough to worry about. What incorporating Netflix into Boxee does is to give it some sense of legitimacy--that is for the product itself. If it is seen to be partnering with legitimate companies it seemingly is perceived as a legitimate product--for the consumer as well as for their partners (e.g., D-Link).
The key here is "for Windows". There's plenty of hardware acceleration under OpenGL.
The reason behind the lack of OpenGL in windows is that Microsoft dropped it in Vista. When you discontinue a "competing active technology" you can easily guess the reason.
Under Linux HD video's play just fine, even under cheap onboard video chipsets.
I think with Vista people just got tired of trying to explain the same old same old. There is a lot to like about Win7 and a lot to dislike. It certainly is better than Vista. Vista isn't hard to beat. Even an older OS won out over it. But Win7 is nice and it is much better optimized. That doesn't mean that I use it as my primary OS as I don't like to support an organization that is a convicted monopolist. I also don't like supporting technologies such as DRM (or any other that can act as a lock in to the consumer). But it does get tiring trying to keep explaining the obvious when most are oblivious to what those things mean.
Win7 sales will taper off. There's a lot of hype about it. That will settle and people will buy it as infrequently as they buy their new computers.
Much of what has been said in defense of Win7 is deserved but for the average person buying a product to fix something that isn't broken is stupid.
And, unfortunately if you remember back to when Vista was released it too was being touted as record breaking, but when you actually got a hold of the numbers clearly that wasn't the case. Microsoft had also done quite a few things to manipulate the market and force consumers into making a choice they didn't want. I'm sure some of that is occurring here.
Right now the only numbers you have regarding sales is what Microsoft provides and there is no way on heaven or earth they should be trusted. Wait for a year or so to go by and look at the official numbers from disinterested third parties.
The actual number of products such as Active Directory are only used in a limited way by a limited few corporations and other entities. It is disappointing to think that (of the billion or so computers used worldwide) people here seem to think that the vast majority are part of those few corporations and are used within Active Directory at that.
There seems to be some contention in this thread about what the value of Win7 is when you can use Linux (or other free OSes) instead. The obvious retort by the Win7 fans is that it supports Active Directory. No matter what you think that product just isn't a product for the vast majority of users in the world. Not only do they not use it they wouldn't even begin to know what it means. Not only that they wouldn't have a clue what to do with it if they knew what it meant.
People need to take a step back and ask themselves what they are justifying and whom for. You don't justify win7 by saying the average user can use Active Directory (or other features) if they don't use it nor ever will. In regard to other OSes, while LDAP is considered by some to be a major element of Active Directory, OpenLDAP is available. Thus that eliminates the Win7 advantage (except that Active Directory offers other benefits), but nonetheless there is no need to even consider any argument as the vast majority of computer users will never use and do not need any LDAP feature or Active Directory feature).
99% of all businesses worldwide will never use active directory. That means that virtually no one will ever use it or encounter it, including those in business. Only a fraction of the large businesses will even use it and that's only within a very limited scope as it is a fractional product.
There's no reason to justify it by demonstrating other products. It just isn't a big deal. What, there are over a billion computers world-wide in use and only a few major corporations take advantage of it.
The average user does not need nor use active directory and will never need nor use active directory in any form in any organization anywhere on the face of the planet. So, stop trying to claim a feature has value when so few will actually use it.
First, Lala.com isn't a very good service and overall it sucks. You can't do with it what you think. You can only have so many credits to repeat play songs. Otherwise you can listen to any song once and then you can buy the song if you so choose, which I believe is through Amazon (though I'm not positive). Hardly something worthy of shaping.
No. This is just a search result. No one has stated as fact that Lala.com is owned, in part, by Google.
Most people don't know but it isn't illegal to be a monopoly. Though most would agree that a monopoly is bad for the market and thus for consumers. You must be declared a monopoly by the courts for it to matter. And, then you must violate some of those special conditions that are placed upon a monopoly that's beyond the restrictions placed on a non-monopoly. Hence, no company wants to be declared a monopoly by the courts--they just want to act as one for as long as possible. Microsoft was declared a monopoly and were judged to have been violating antitrust due to them acting as a monopoly prior to being declared. Once declared it's a different ballgame.
I agree with the GP. Windows was designed to allow the user to log in as administrator. In fact, take a retail copy of XP and install it on a new computer. You will end up with an account that has administration privs. Enough said.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you a moron Mr. AC? STFU when you don't know what you are talking about.
It isn't a beta product. It is still alpha. And alpha it is with tons of problems. They need to hire some usability testers because they made some aweful mistakes that only a programmer would do. As Dave Thomas says ... they hired hackers.
If Boxee is to make it to retail in products they need a lot more work. I used boxee from the time it was released to Alpha more than a year ago and it has been trimmed back as to what features it allows.
And that means I published the info and made it publicly available to everyone. I know what I published therefore I put it out there. If I put it in a private area and expect that this information remain private then I have the expectation of privacy. I didn't give google nor anyone else the right to track and sell the information about what I am doing. I do that in private. I didn't say "google go ahead and publish this information and keep this other info private". I said to google "keep everything private, period".
The police can't come into your home without a warrant, unless you invite them in, and then leave your drugs (for example) laying around, if so then you screwed the pooch. If I told them to shove off they need to stay out of my house and thus if I had drugs in there they'd not see them.
That's the real difference. Warrants are for specific things and they must be pretty exact. The judge won't let the cops go in to see if there's a crime being committed. But the judge will allow them to go in and see if there's been a specific crime as long as there is a reasonable basis for them to be searching for that. Yes, if some drugs are laying about, and they find them during the search, they can charge you with them.
The difference here is when and how they gain access to me and my home. If I tell social site F to keep all my stuff private and I'll let the stuff out I want out then they have to keep it private. It isn't up to them to determine that nothing I put up there is private, especially when I already indicated prior to the the policy change.
Facebook's founder's comments are absurd. He wants to sell your information hoping you won't go back and remove the information once they make the policy change. This is a huge violation of your privacy.
Want to kill Facebook? Tell everyone you own whatever they put up there and then sell the info to everyone.
I expect privacy first and foremost. I expect the ability to share what I want with whom I want. I do not expect some social site to determine what's private in my life. This man is totally bonkers.
Your computer and other data maintained by you is an extension of your home. It almost sounds like he's being influenced by Microsoft which would rather have the ability to look at you and everything you do with impunity. NO. I decide all things private and no one violates that because they are tired of trying to ensure my privacy with their online system.
The rant is no more of a rant than you find closed source rant about regarding open source.
And, the updated spec for OpenGL had glorious ideas but somehow they fell through. Then Microsoft decided they'd cancel support for OpenGL in Vista/Win7 (yay, way to compete -- try to kill a solid viable product used by so many).
OpenGL still has a bright future as soon as they can complete what they promised.
If Windows didn't have these technologies used to prop it up we'd have far less Windows in the world, which, in many ways would be the greatest thing for the consumer and the industry (as far as innovation and progress goes). Without DirectX propping up the monopoly we'd have other technologies and far more companies that would provide innovative competition, thus providing more, and often better, products.
We know that when you have a large number of competitors you get better products. The eReaders are a perfect example. First the Kindle and now about 10 competitors all showing that the competition has created a much greater choice for consumers as well as better features. Further netbooks and tablet PCs as well as touch capabilities in phones and the tablets are perfect examples of what happens when there's no technology to lock you in thus propping up the monopoly.
D i g i t a l R e s t r i c t i o n s M a n a g e m e n t.
Sheesh.
A tablet is definitely NOT a phone and thus it has a much greater utility (or should have). The problem with Apple's philosophy WILL be that they will treat this like it is an iPhone. The tablet has to be not just a netbook without a keyboard, but it must also be an e-reader, a browser, a program launcher, a gaming device, and the ability to communicate via webcams, microphones, and it must also have GPS capabilities. It must also have a removable battery as well as the standard USB, wireless & wired network, and expansion such as SSD cards.
My point is that it must be a device with more utility than Apple generally gives to their hardware/software--they tend to limit what you can/should do with it.
I like Apple's products, but I can see that their philosophy of recent has been a wedge driven between themselves and the customer.
Heheh, thanks for the correction. I was just too lazy to look it up, but you are most likely correct.
Nonetheless you understand what I was saying. Companies have a vested interest in not paying overtime to programmers since programming is such a thought intensive task and the pay offs for it are incredible, especially for companies such as Microsoft. Huge money pay offs without having to pay their 80+ hour a week employees anything other than their salary.
In WA State, as well as others I'm sure, Microsoft managed to get passed a law that says that programmer's needn't be paid for overtime, essentially making them non-exempt. I'm sure this is more the case than the author's explanation. They don't pay more for more productivity because they don't have to. Though programmers do get bonuses and other compensation based on how good a job they do.
They are all laptops. A netbook and a notebook are all laptops. Netbook is a marketing term.
Too costly for a system that was designed to be inexpensive. If you look at the videos on hothardware about the ion platform you'll note that it is very inexpensive. 12" display is large but that's not the cost factor.
They need to reduce the cost by $300 before I'll consider buying it.
Everyone here is technically anonymous.
But that's not my intended point. My point here is that even if she got a troll mod, it only goes that far down. You can't go farther down. No problem with the comments to her post as those won't vary except in adding that she's a anonymous coward.
As someone that's been in the field for over 25 years and has heard this question asked hundreds of times over those years, the answer has nothing to do with men. Women have been encouraged to become involved and they don't.
I've worked for large corporations and small businesses and at no time have I ever seen women shunned from IT or any field related to technology.
What women generally want is to be on top of the IT heap without paying the dues. Yes, that's right. Most men do not make it to the top. Most women wouldn't then either.
The question isn't what's keeping them off the top, it's what's keeping them out of the pile. And that rests squarely with the women. If you can't accept individual responsibility for yourself you'll never go anywhere, nor should you.
Most of the women my age that I have interaction with place no value in technology and do little to pursue it. If you are a cashier at your local Fred Meyer don't expect to gain advancement if you have no eduction and take no time to learn the skills. You deserve what you get if you don't put in the effort. Most of those women that I know essentially belittle and begrudge men for their techy background; instead they seem to want a man who parties, goes camping, works out, etc. This noteworthy, but it won't get women any closer to the top of the IT ranks.
The picture is pretty clear. It's not murky. You don't contribute you don't travel, period.
This is a bogus comment. Most people absolutely do dislike, mind, hate, and are very annoyed by ads. No one is not.
What people want are fewer ads. For instance, you don't need ads on every page. You don't need multiple ads on every page.
One ad, ever couple of times you visit the page would cease annoying people. It would satisfy the majority (greater than 75% for sure). But most sites put multiple ads per page and put ads up every time you hit the page. How about cutting down on all ads.
And mind you, these same companies that are advertising are the same companies responsible for tons of spam that get into your inbox.
I don't need ads to tell me what I should buy. I know what I want and I've gotten there by reading and by trail and error. What good does an ad do for me when I never read them, ever.
Back in the day when computers were first gaining some modicum of popularity I read the magazines for the ads. Yes, I did. Because they did a better job of stating the specifications and pointing out the important information. Since, of course they've gone the same route as the one that sells you frying pan oil. Let's be real.
My main multimedia machine runs Linux and is connected to a 47" TV via HDMI. I have no problem running any program and playing back any sort of multimedia. Now, I fix computers for a living and I know there are all levels of comfort when it comes to what people expect. My thoughts here are just that, that it is the end-user perspective on what you think should or should not work. We work pretty hard in the Linux community to satisfy people's demands and things get fixed pretty quick.
What we ask more than anything in the Linux community is to have you stop thinking that Linux is a clone of Windows. Not only is it not, but we don't want it that way, for several reasons; one of which is that we don't want predicate our advances upon whether Microsoft has implemented them beforehand.
Boxee runs fine on Linux and though I do have Netflix I do not have the desire to try to get it to run under Linux (after my initial attempt), as silverlight is pretty much a Microsoft technology that really can't compete with Flash. I'm amazed that Netflix went with them and that they are still using it. 80% of all streamed multimedia is done with flash. Those are hard fast numbers. silverlight is just Microsoft attempting to get back at Adobe due to Adobe punching them out of the market on PDF.
One has to wonder just how many other services use silverlight or how many other products are based on it. On top of that one has to wonder just how many people use Netflix streaming. Even if it is 2 million or even 5 million that's nothing compared to how many that don't use it. That makes it essentially a moot point as it isn't significant enough to worry about. What incorporating Netflix into Boxee does is to give it some sense of legitimacy--that is for the product itself. If it is seen to be partnering with legitimate companies it seemingly is perceived as a legitimate product--for the consumer as well as for their partners (e.g., D-Link).
The key here is "for Windows". There's plenty of hardware acceleration under OpenGL.
The reason behind the lack of OpenGL in windows is that Microsoft dropped it in Vista. When you discontinue a "competing active technology" you can easily guess the reason.
Under Linux HD video's play just fine, even under cheap onboard video chipsets.
I think with Vista people just got tired of trying to explain the same old same old. There is a lot to like about Win7 and a lot to dislike. It certainly is better than Vista. Vista isn't hard to beat. Even an older OS won out over it. But Win7 is nice and it is much better optimized. That doesn't mean that I use it as my primary OS as I don't like to support an organization that is a convicted monopolist. I also don't like supporting technologies such as DRM (or any other that can act as a lock in to the consumer). But it does get tiring trying to keep explaining the obvious when most are oblivious to what those things mean.
Win7 sales will taper off. There's a lot of hype about it. That will settle and people will buy it as infrequently as they buy their new computers.
Much of what has been said in defense of Win7 is deserved but for the average person buying a product to fix something that isn't broken is stupid.
And, unfortunately if you remember back to when Vista was released it too was being touted as record breaking, but when you actually got a hold of the numbers clearly that wasn't the case. Microsoft had also done quite a few things to manipulate the market and force consumers into making a choice they didn't want. I'm sure some of that is occurring here.
Right now the only numbers you have regarding sales is what Microsoft provides and there is no way on heaven or earth they should be trusted. Wait for a year or so to go by and look at the official numbers from disinterested third parties.
The actual number of products such as Active Directory are only used in a limited way by a limited few corporations and other entities. It is disappointing to think that (of the billion or so computers used worldwide) people here seem to think that the vast majority are part of those few corporations and are used within Active Directory at that.
There seems to be some contention in this thread about what the value of Win7 is when you can use Linux (or other free OSes) instead. The obvious retort by the Win7 fans is that it supports Active Directory. No matter what you think that product just isn't a product for the vast majority of users in the world. Not only do they not use it they wouldn't even begin to know what it means. Not only that they wouldn't have a clue what to do with it if they knew what it meant.
People need to take a step back and ask themselves what they are justifying and whom for. You don't justify win7 by saying the average user can use Active Directory (or other features) if they don't use it nor ever will. In regard to other OSes, while LDAP is considered by some to be a major element of Active Directory, OpenLDAP is available. Thus that eliminates the Win7 advantage (except that Active Directory offers other benefits), but nonetheless there is no need to even consider any argument as the vast majority of computer users will never use and do not need any LDAP feature or Active Directory feature).
99% of all businesses worldwide will never use active directory. That means that virtually no one will ever use it or encounter it, including those in business. Only a fraction of the large businesses will even use it and that's only within a very limited scope as it is a fractional product.
There's no reason to justify it by demonstrating other products. It just isn't a big deal. What, there are over a billion computers world-wide in use and only a few major corporations take advantage of it.
The average user does not need nor use active directory and will never need nor use active directory in any form in any organization anywhere on the face of the planet. So, stop trying to claim a feature has value when so few will actually use it.
First, Lala.com isn't a very good service and overall it sucks. You can't do with it what you think. You can only have so many credits to repeat play songs. Otherwise you can listen to any song once and then you can buy the song if you so choose, which I believe is through Amazon (though I'm not positive). Hardly something worthy of shaping.
No. This is just a search result. No one has stated as fact that Lala.com is owned, in part, by Google.
Most people don't know but it isn't illegal to be a monopoly. Though most would agree that a monopoly is bad for the market and thus for consumers. You must be declared a monopoly by the courts for it to matter. And, then you must violate some of those special conditions that are placed upon a monopoly that's beyond the restrictions placed on a non-monopoly. Hence, no company wants to be declared a monopoly by the courts--they just want to act as one for as long as possible. Microsoft was declared a monopoly and were judged to have been violating antitrust due to them acting as a monopoly prior to being declared. Once declared it's a different ballgame.
Does mocking Windows make you anti-malware?
I agree with the GP. Windows was designed to allow the user to log in as administrator. In fact, take a retail copy of XP and install it on a new computer. You will end up with an account that has administration privs. Enough said.