The real reason is the last one he gives: stuff made through Flash is made to the lowest common denominator between mobile platforms...
No, the real reason is to control ad and app revenue. Apple now owns the ad revenue stream into their devices with iAd in 4.0 and later. If you allow flash, then iAd becomes a non factor and has to compete for dev interest. With flash, it's simple enough to add a web view to an app that can be used to display a small bit of ad content without issue, thus bypassing Apple altogether. And if you can run flash apps on the phone, then it's easy enough to build web delivered flash apps that Apple can't easily stop.
Make no mistake, this is about money first and control of that money second. Apple uses the lack of flash to make sure they own all the entries into their device. The ad stream and the app delivery mechanism. No matter what Steve might say, it's simply about controlling who can generate revenue from their device in mass quantities.
Yeah, that's exactly it. In my business, we try to design for 0 failures, but that's unrealistic. So we also design in restarts that are fast enough that the outage isn't as noticeable to whoever is using the services. The less our customers customers have to deal with outage, the less our customers have to yell at us, or do bad things with contract clauses. If my PPC embedded controller comes back to life and working in 1 second, then my peripheral services can come back that much faster, and the network is up that much faster. Right now, with our high end boards, reboots using WindRiver Linux cycle completely in about 30 seconds and the environment is completely restored in about 2 minutes. Taking 29 seconds off of two minutes would be a 25% improvement almost, and a huge selling point.
Yeah, my view is US centric, but I can tell you that Motorola will tailor it's UI's for any vendor who asks. In the US, Verizon and Sprint are the big abusers here. Motorola's inability to say no to anyone ever means that a Sprint RAZR looks and acts different than a AT&T RAZR and a Verizon RAZR. The service providers still have a lot of pull both here in the US, and maybe to a lesser extent, in other parts of the world. But for me, the big problem is still the apps. Does Google have enough muscle and the desire to make sure it all just works out? I'm not so sure.
Skype is a good example, but I wonder if Skype won't make a bigger difference for small MID's running a WiMAX/LTE stack or something. They would also likely not have as big a problem with tethering (hopefully). I think things will change quite a bit for service providers when mobile wireless internet service isn't tied to a cellular connection. My hope is that this means the device becomes the most important piece of the connection, not the service provider.
I won't argue the open source nature, but to be honest, most people just don't care. If I were to ask 10 of my friends what they know about how their phone does what it does, 9 of them wouldn't even understand the question, and the 10th wouldn't care. Sad, but true. This also makes distribution and platform ownership so important. How easy is it to use, and do things work the same across different implementations? This is where Apple and Google may be much different. That's my point.
I hope Android does make a go. Motorola is making a big Android push, and same for other vendors I know less about. But letting vendors make many implementation decisions could be a big negative. I give Apple credit in that even though there is only one way to do things, it's a very streamlined and easy way focused on the user. If Google can force certain common design paradigms on vendors, then Android stands a very real chance. And, since it's open source, then development takes a pretty interesting turn for the users who are what really matters in the equation. But there are a lot of ways Google can fail here. And simply relying on being "open" is one of those ways.
OK, so toy might be a bit harsh, but really, the G1 is a non factor for 99% of the worlds phone users. Again, to almost everyone, it doesn't matter what ideologies went into building the platform, but
Does it work?
Can I install interesting apps?
Does it pique user interest? Is it cool?
I guess it can do 1 and 2, but it hasn't really cracked 3 yet. And this is where my point from above comes into play. Google is the platform provider, and owns the app distribution channel. But it doesn't own the implementation. Will device vendors make the implementation of the platform common enough? Will a really cool app for the G1 also work the same and well with Motorola's new wiz bang Android flip phone? Or for FTC's mini slide out keyboard phone? I'm not convinced you'll get all the phone vendors to *do the right thing*.
While all that is true, it's not all that helpful to most, even many developers. I'm an iPhone developer right now, and hate that there are so many restrictions on my apps. But I have consumers for my apps, and to be honest, I can live with the issues (though don't always like them). The G1 is still a toy, so until there are more devices, all the openness doesn't mean as much. To some extent, it's open source nature is irrelevant to most. Unfortunate, but the phone is just a tool, not an ideology. It needs to work and be useful. And if someone makes money from making it useful, then so be it.
Yes, Android is more open, but Google still owns the platform for effectively everyone (not everyone will own a dev phone). The grandparent post is right, Google might not be all that much better than Apple when it all comes down to it. And I still don't know one person who is sporting an Android based phone.
All wrong. The RIAA is packaging the signals and calling it the next teen rock star invasion. You can't honestly believe that some human is writing that music, can you?
Feasible, but not economically viable I think. Most of the big money venues really only do one thing with the field, and the small money venues don't care enough to drive something this cool.
Although I do like the idea that it might be possible to watch a movie on a football field. Heck, when the team is away, home fans can buy a ticket and watch an HD feed of the game, on the field. Make it a 3D broadcast, and you can double the amount of tickets sold for each game! How cool would it be to watch a baseball game in Wrigley Field in Chicago which is being played at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx NYC? And the display at Wrigley makes it look like the players are actually playing on the field?
The lesson is don't shoot anything unless you're sure it deserves to die,
A point well made. I'm certainly not a gun nut, but I do believe in the right to own firearms. Now only if we could teach everyone what you said above. Gun ownership would be a safe privilege, not a hotly debated topic.
Very true, but an unenforced law isn't really much of a law, now is it?
As for the statistics, yes, you're right. However, one way to non scientifically test the theory is to search local papers for stories involving home invasion and the use of a gun to stop such an act. Or the use of a gun by an individual to stop an attack. Those stories are hard to find. Probably to some extent because even though many believe an armed society is the best defense, there are still those who aren't comfortable carrying or handling a gun. It would be interesting to actually see a study try and provide statistical data for this. Unfortunately, what you do see when you search the local accounts of gun usage is that many are reports of accidental shootings or angry and disenfranchised gun owners. Maybe this is a media bias (negative sells far better than positive), but it is a point fairly made.
Yeah, that's true. Although I question using mob mentality as a defense for concealed weapons. An 18 year old freshman whose parents bought them a gun to hold just in case may not be the best defense. Even worse, 10 kids in an auditorium all deciding it would be a good idea to defend themselves and their neighbors at the same time. In a situation like that, lacking training or experience, then who is shooting who? I'm not saying it would always be bad, your example is a solid point taken, although there was still carnage and the defender didn't stop the problem, just reduced the potential damage. But I don't buy that arming society is a sure fire bet that no one would ever make things worse. Honestly, I don't believe there is a good answer to this particular issue. Can't take guns away, but proliferation means more unforeseen problems. I will argue the status quo isn't a good solution. I think one potential step is to unify all the laws for gun ownership so they are clear and meaningful, which may stop the random mentally ill killings we've been seeing quite a bit.
Cho would not have been allowed to purchase guns in many states, that he was allowed to was an effect of bureaucracy and jurisdiction, not a problem with legal gun ownership.
I disagree. Just because it isn't allowed in *some* places doesn't mean that it's all good and fine everywhere. Gun ownership is mangled in bureaucracy, so I'm not exactly sure how you can untangle the two to make such a statement. This inconsistency makes legal gun ownership very troublesome. The fact is that he was allowed to purchase his guns legally, and he committed a crime with those guns. The reply I made was specific to this point and not to the efficacy of government regulation of gun ownership.
Statistically, your last statement is valid, but untrue. The last two major campus shootings (NIU, Va Tech) were by legal gun owners. Granted, both suffered mental illness, but that wasn't enough to make them unfit gun owners.
Ronald Regan and James Brady were shot by a legal gun owner, prompting the much debated Brady Bill for gun ownership.
The Arizona 8 year old who was killed by the machine gun was in a fully vetted and safe place for shooting. His death was determined not to be criminal and no one was held accountable for the action.
Columbine featured weapons purchased legally.
Yes, it's statistically true that gun owners, as a rule, don't generally commit crimes. But the statement isn't factual the way it is made.
I'm not making a case for or against more gun control. But ignoring reality is a sure bet that no matter what, the problems cannot be made to go away or lessen any time soon.
Oh, that would be wonderful. However, since Congress hasn't passed a law in favor of the consumer in decades, it's not likely. This would really piss off carriers and phone providers who couldn't care one whit about consumers.
Also, if you had one stop kill switches, jealousy would be bricking phones on a fairly regular basis.
OK, two pieces to this. One, isn't all life mortal by design (you choose the designer, it's irrelevant here)? How can one increase the chance of mortality? I mean, you either are gonna die or you aren't. You can't be more or less *likely* to die unless you are referring to a time period, which seems to be assumed in all of the posts and the FA.
If you aren't gonna die, where did you come from? What makes you different?
You're right to some extent. I doubt the officers themselves are really all that concerned about how much money the tickets generate. The cops I know are genuinely interested in public safety. But you better believe someone above them with budget concerns is.
A favorite example comes out of Boston from some time ago. I can't confirm this story, but what I heard/read/saw somewhere was that Boston had considered raising the speedlimit on many of the urban expressways from 55 to 65. The attempt failed due to the expected loss of many millions of dollars in ticket revenue.
Even better was the posting recently regarding the stoplight cameras actually causing accidents, not preventing them. Now that there is a dollar figure associated with them, you better believe that people will continue to be injured in the name of ticket revenue as more are installed.
This is an important point in the downtime argument. Sure if you're down 10 minutes, you meet some number of 9's uptime. And if you do that every couple of weeks, no one will notice. But if you only have one outage that lasts hours, you are pretty much screwed as an operator.
Digging further into an operators view, the entire infrastructure is what counts, so a router going down isn't the end of the world with redundancy, but if a router + an SDU + HLR go down, you're really out of luck, because it takes so long to get them restarted. One of the products I worked on for a US cellular customer actually had perfect uptime for several years (none of the units deployed ever actually went down unexpectedly), but the network as a whole didn't meet 5 9's. We could brag about the network element, but were still getting pasted by the operator because things still weren't perfect. Telco equipment contracts tend to have money and penalties attached to uptime and response time as well.
The biggest problem here is as things get more complicated, there isn't time to engineer new devices and test them to meet the uptime requirement. Telco operators want it now, and they want it perfect. You can't have both. Now I'm working on WiMAX network infrastructure equipment and the biggest issue we face developing the equipment is that our bosses know it means more to be first to market than it does to be perfect. Decisions are made that sacrifice quality for speed, and both my bosses and the telco's know this. Everyone still screams that quality is the priority, but we all know it isn't true. Get it good enough to release, and then try to clean up the mess later.
What I enjoy the most is that some of the people who run the telco operators really believe that it's possible to build a complete WiMAX setup in less than a year and have it be flawless. When I end up chatting with their reps on support calls that development have to be involved in, they are sometimes flabbergasted that bugs still exist in the equipment.
Consumerism is driving this. We want our new toys now, and we want the next gen tomorrow.
This would be good for the Sci-Fi channel maybe. As a correlary, I turned off Tivo a while back, wasn't using it. I had gotten to a point where I was paying for basic cable because I felt better having it, but I realized I wasn't recording anything, and actually didn't turn the TV on very much. I'm not anti TV, but don't need to spend that much time in front of it. When I called Tivo to tell them, the very pleasant woman was surprised. She kept asking why I stopped recording and whether I just needed some new services to keep me interested. I didn't have a better answer than over the last few years, TV has pretty well sucked raw eggs, so there isn't much to watch. I've since picked up my viewing habits a bit, mostly for sports, although I do watch a few shows regularly. To be honest, TV still sucks raw eggs. I just live by myself now and find there is more alone time than I can deal with. Sounds sad, it's not really, but sounds sad.
This could be entertaining on Clark south of Addison on Friday and Saturday nights, especially around the Cubs clinching a playoff spot (it could happen), any Bears win, and Halloween. I guess it depends on what is suspicious.
Also, didn't London, the worlds first true nanny city just figure out that crime is the same or worse where the cameras are the densest?
No, Microsoft had the option to not purchase made illegal and immoral quite a while ago. Apple is just riding the coat tails. In summer 2008, I believe it also becomes illegal not to use AT&T for all services including face to face visits with friends and family. In 2009, not only will it be illegal to smoke, but also to not use Apple and AT&T HW, SW, and services for everything you do (I hear the iToilet touch flush will be amazing). All this for the low cost of 40% of your yearly salary or $30K, whichever is greater.
Be careful, Daley's illiterate croney grunts have literate croney grunts working for them now (the machine is learning). They can probably read this, and being very liberal, just may.
I'm a local resident too (go Cubbies) and even with competition, I'm paying out the nose for RCN 5MB/384K service. Seriously, 5 down, and 384 up? Whose bright idea was that? Try to find the 384 part on the webpage, I dare you. I think DSL is still better than cable, if not for the price.
However, Sprint is going to be rolling out their WiMAX service soon, very soon. I don't know what it will cost, probably on the same level as Comcast/AT&T, but the benefits will be pretty big, especially before everyone gets on board (IF anyone gets on board). The ability to take your network connection with you will be huge, and the speed will be comparable to other broadband options (again, I know nothing of the price, I'm just building the equipment). The mobility aspect, and the idea that you can then use it as a phone option via VOIP equipment is huge in my mind, and something I hope that a lot of people recognize. Maybe not. I'm mostly hoping, because I want more companies to buy our equipment so my seriously sagging stock price rebounds a bit.
Consumer *have* to vote with their wallets, and they are, because they are mostly ill-informed about alternatives and the drawbacks to what they are being asked to pay for.
Slashdot Mirror
The real reason is the last one he gives: stuff made through Flash is made to the lowest common denominator between mobile platforms...
No, the real reason is to control ad and app revenue. Apple now owns the ad revenue stream into their devices with iAd in 4.0 and later. If you allow flash, then iAd becomes a non factor and has to compete for dev interest. With flash, it's simple enough to add a web view to an app that can be used to display a small bit of ad content without issue, thus bypassing Apple altogether. And if you can run flash apps on the phone, then it's easy enough to build web delivered flash apps that Apple can't easily stop. Make no mistake, this is about money first and control of that money second. Apple uses the lack of flash to make sure they own all the entries into their device. The ad stream and the app delivery mechanism. No matter what Steve might say, it's simply about controlling who can generate revenue from their device in mass quantities.
Yeah, that's exactly it. In my business, we try to design for 0 failures, but that's unrealistic. So we also design in restarts that are fast enough that the outage isn't as noticeable to whoever is using the services. The less our customers customers have to deal with outage, the less our customers have to yell at us, or do bad things with contract clauses. If my PPC embedded controller comes back to life and working in 1 second, then my peripheral services can come back that much faster, and the network is up that much faster. Right now, with our high end boards, reboots using WindRiver Linux cycle completely in about 30 seconds and the environment is completely restored in about 2 minutes. Taking 29 seconds off of two minutes would be a 25% improvement almost, and a huge selling point.
Yeah, my view is US centric, but I can tell you that Motorola will tailor it's UI's for any vendor who asks. In the US, Verizon and Sprint are the big abusers here. Motorola's inability to say no to anyone ever means that a Sprint RAZR looks and acts different than a AT&T RAZR and a Verizon RAZR. The service providers still have a lot of pull both here in the US, and maybe to a lesser extent, in other parts of the world. But for me, the big problem is still the apps. Does Google have enough muscle and the desire to make sure it all just works out? I'm not so sure.
Skype is a good example, but I wonder if Skype won't make a bigger difference for small MID's running a WiMAX/LTE stack or something. They would also likely not have as big a problem with tethering (hopefully). I think things will change quite a bit for service providers when mobile wireless internet service isn't tied to a cellular connection. My hope is that this means the device becomes the most important piece of the connection, not the service provider.
I won't argue the open source nature, but to be honest, most people just don't care. If I were to ask 10 of my friends what they know about how their phone does what it does, 9 of them wouldn't even understand the question, and the 10th wouldn't care. Sad, but true. This also makes distribution and platform ownership so important. How easy is it to use, and do things work the same across different implementations? This is where Apple and Google may be much different. That's my point.
I hope Android does make a go. Motorola is making a big Android push, and same for other vendors I know less about. But letting vendors make many implementation decisions could be a big negative. I give Apple credit in that even though there is only one way to do things, it's a very streamlined and easy way focused on the user. If Google can force certain common design paradigms on vendors, then Android stands a very real chance. And, since it's open source, then development takes a pretty interesting turn for the users who are what really matters in the equation. But there are a lot of ways Google can fail here. And simply relying on being "open" is one of those ways.
OK, so toy might be a bit harsh, but really, the G1 is a non factor for 99% of the worlds phone users. Again, to almost everyone, it doesn't matter what ideologies went into building the platform, but
I guess it can do 1 and 2, but it hasn't really cracked 3 yet. And this is where my point from above comes into play. Google is the platform provider, and owns the app distribution channel. But it doesn't own the implementation. Will device vendors make the implementation of the platform common enough? Will a really cool app for the G1 also work the same and well with Motorola's new wiz bang Android flip phone? Or for FTC's mini slide out keyboard phone? I'm not convinced you'll get all the phone vendors to *do the right thing*.
While all that is true, it's not all that helpful to most, even many developers. I'm an iPhone developer right now, and hate that there are so many restrictions on my apps. But I have consumers for my apps, and to be honest, I can live with the issues (though don't always like them). The G1 is still a toy, so until there are more devices, all the openness doesn't mean as much. To some extent, it's open source nature is irrelevant to most. Unfortunate, but the phone is just a tool, not an ideology. It needs to work and be useful. And if someone makes money from making it useful, then so be it.
Yes, Android is more open, but Google still owns the platform for effectively everyone (not everyone will own a dev phone). The grandparent post is right, Google might not be all that much better than Apple when it all comes down to it. And I still don't know one person who is sporting an Android based phone.
All wrong. The RIAA is packaging the signals and calling it the next teen rock star invasion. You can't honestly believe that some human is writing that music, can you?
Feasible, but not economically viable I think. Most of the big money venues really only do one thing with the field, and the small money venues don't care enough to drive something this cool.
Although I do like the idea that it might be possible to watch a movie on a football field. Heck, when the team is away, home fans can buy a ticket and watch an HD feed of the game, on the field . Make it a 3D broadcast, and you can double the amount of tickets sold for each game! How cool would it be to watch a baseball game in Wrigley Field in Chicago which is being played at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx NYC? And the display at Wrigley makes it look like the players are actually playing on the field?
Seriously?
The lesson is don't shoot anything unless you're sure it deserves to die,
A point well made. I'm certainly not a gun nut, but I do believe in the right to own firearms. Now only if we could teach everyone what you said above. Gun ownership would be a safe privilege, not a hotly debated topic.
The laws are actually there, it's enforcement
Very true, but an unenforced law isn't really much of a law, now is it?
As for the statistics, yes, you're right. However, one way to non scientifically test the theory is to search local papers for stories involving home invasion and the use of a gun to stop such an act. Or the use of a gun by an individual to stop an attack. Those stories are hard to find. Probably to some extent because even though many believe an armed society is the best defense, there are still those who aren't comfortable carrying or handling a gun. It would be interesting to actually see a study try and provide statistical data for this. Unfortunately, what you do see when you search the local accounts of gun usage is that many are reports of accidental shootings or angry and disenfranchised gun owners. Maybe this is a media bias (negative sells far better than positive), but it is a point fairly made.
Yeah, that's true. Although I question using mob mentality as a defense for concealed weapons. An 18 year old freshman whose parents bought them a gun to hold just in case may not be the best defense. Even worse, 10 kids in an auditorium all deciding it would be a good idea to defend themselves and their neighbors at the same time. In a situation like that, lacking training or experience, then who is shooting who? I'm not saying it would always be bad, your example is a solid point taken, although there was still carnage and the defender didn't stop the problem, just reduced the potential damage. But I don't buy that arming society is a sure fire bet that no one would ever make things worse. Honestly, I don't believe there is a good answer to this particular issue. Can't take guns away, but proliferation means more unforeseen problems. I will argue the status quo isn't a good solution. I think one potential step is to unify all the laws for gun ownership so they are clear and meaningful, which may stop the random mentally ill killings we've been seeing quite a bit.
Cho would not have been allowed to purchase guns in many states, that he was allowed to was an effect of bureaucracy and jurisdiction, not a problem with legal gun ownership.
I disagree. Just because it isn't allowed in *some* places doesn't mean that it's all good and fine everywhere. Gun ownership is mangled in bureaucracy, so I'm not exactly sure how you can untangle the two to make such a statement. This inconsistency makes legal gun ownership very troublesome. The fact is that he was allowed to purchase his guns legally, and he committed a crime with those guns. The reply I made was specific to this point and not to the efficacy of government regulation of gun ownership.
Statistically, your last statement is valid, but untrue. The last two major campus shootings (NIU, Va Tech) were by legal gun owners. Granted, both suffered mental illness, but that wasn't enough to make them unfit gun owners. Ronald Regan and James Brady were shot by a legal gun owner, prompting the much debated Brady Bill for gun ownership. The Arizona 8 year old who was killed by the machine gun was in a fully vetted and safe place for shooting. His death was determined not to be criminal and no one was held accountable for the action. Columbine featured weapons purchased legally. Yes, it's statistically true that gun owners, as a rule, don't generally commit crimes. But the statement isn't factual the way it is made. I'm not making a case for or against more gun control. But ignoring reality is a sure bet that no matter what, the problems cannot be made to go away or lessen any time soon.
"Two Englishmen got drunk in Texas, got lost and walked up the path to a front door to ask the way - at 2am."
Wait, wait, I think I heard this one before...
"The owner shot them dead without asking questions."
Oh...wait...that isn't funny.
Was it the one making the whooshing sound?
Oh, that would be wonderful. However, since Congress hasn't passed a law in favor of the consumer in decades, it's not likely. This would really piss off carriers and phone providers who couldn't care one whit about consumers.
Also, if you had one stop kill switches, jealousy would be bricking phones on a fairly regular basis.
OK, two pieces to this. One, isn't all life mortal by design (you choose the designer, it's irrelevant here)? How can one increase the chance of mortality? I mean, you either are gonna die or you aren't. You can't be more or less *likely* to die unless you are referring to a time period, which seems to be assumed in all of the posts and the FA.
If you aren't gonna die, where did you come from? What makes you different?
You're right to some extent. I doubt the officers themselves are really all that concerned about how much money the tickets generate. The cops I know are genuinely interested in public safety. But you better believe someone above them with budget concerns is.
A favorite example comes out of Boston from some time ago. I can't confirm this story, but what I heard/read/saw somewhere was that Boston had considered raising the speedlimit on many of the urban expressways from 55 to 65. The attempt failed due to the expected loss of many millions of dollars in ticket revenue.
Even better was the posting recently regarding the stoplight cameras actually causing accidents, not preventing them. Now that there is a dollar figure associated with them, you better believe that people will continue to be injured in the name of ticket revenue as more are installed.
This is all I can say about more Futurama being anounced.
This is an important point in the downtime argument. Sure if you're down 10 minutes, you meet some number of 9's uptime. And if you do that every couple of weeks, no one will notice. But if you only have one outage that lasts hours, you are pretty much screwed as an operator.
Digging further into an operators view, the entire infrastructure is what counts, so a router going down isn't the end of the world with redundancy, but if a router + an SDU + HLR go down, you're really out of luck, because it takes so long to get them restarted. One of the products I worked on for a US cellular customer actually had perfect uptime for several years (none of the units deployed ever actually went down unexpectedly), but the network as a whole didn't meet 5 9's. We could brag about the network element, but were still getting pasted by the operator because things still weren't perfect. Telco equipment contracts tend to have money and penalties attached to uptime and response time as well.
The biggest problem here is as things get more complicated, there isn't time to engineer new devices and test them to meet the uptime requirement. Telco operators want it now, and they want it perfect. You can't have both. Now I'm working on WiMAX network infrastructure equipment and the biggest issue we face developing the equipment is that our bosses know it means more to be first to market than it does to be perfect. Decisions are made that sacrifice quality for speed, and both my bosses and the telco's know this. Everyone still screams that quality is the priority, but we all know it isn't true. Get it good enough to release, and then try to clean up the mess later.
What I enjoy the most is that some of the people who run the telco operators really believe that it's possible to build a complete WiMAX setup in less than a year and have it be flawless. When I end up chatting with their reps on support calls that development have to be involved in, they are sometimes flabbergasted that bugs still exist in the equipment.
Consumerism is driving this. We want our new toys now, and we want the next gen tomorrow.
This would be good for the Sci-Fi channel maybe. As a correlary, I turned off Tivo a while back, wasn't using it. I had gotten to a point where I was paying for basic cable because I felt better having it, but I realized I wasn't recording anything, and actually didn't turn the TV on very much. I'm not anti TV, but don't need to spend that much time in front of it. When I called Tivo to tell them, the very pleasant woman was surprised. She kept asking why I stopped recording and whether I just needed some new services to keep me interested. I didn't have a better answer than over the last few years, TV has pretty well sucked raw eggs, so there isn't much to watch. I've since picked up my viewing habits a bit, mostly for sports, although I do watch a few shows regularly. To be honest, TV still sucks raw eggs. I just live by myself now and find there is more alone time than I can deal with. Sounds sad, it's not really, but sounds sad.
This could be entertaining on Clark south of Addison on Friday and Saturday nights, especially around the Cubs clinching a playoff spot (it could happen), any Bears win, and Halloween. I guess it depends on what is suspicious.
Also, didn't London, the worlds first true nanny city just figure out that crime is the same or worse where the cameras are the densest?
No, Microsoft had the option to not purchase made illegal and immoral quite a while ago. Apple is just riding the coat tails. In summer 2008, I believe it also becomes illegal not to use AT&T for all services including face to face visits with friends and family. In 2009, not only will it be illegal to smoke, but also to not use Apple and AT&T HW, SW, and services for everything you do (I hear the iToilet touch flush will be amazing). All this for the low cost of 40% of your yearly salary or $30K, whichever is greater.
Yeah, but the article clearly states 3D specs sometime soon (next week was it?). So why complain?
Be careful, Daley's illiterate croney grunts have literate croney grunts working for them now (the machine is learning). They can probably read this, and being very liberal, just may.
I'm a local resident too (go Cubbies) and even with competition, I'm paying out the nose for RCN 5MB/384K service. Seriously, 5 down, and 384 up? Whose bright idea was that? Try to find the 384 part on the webpage, I dare you. I think DSL is still better than cable, if not for the price.
However, Sprint is going to be rolling out their WiMAX service soon, very soon. I don't know what it will cost, probably on the same level as Comcast/AT&T, but the benefits will be pretty big, especially before everyone gets on board (IF anyone gets on board). The ability to take your network connection with you will be huge, and the speed will be comparable to other broadband options (again, I know nothing of the price, I'm just building the equipment). The mobility aspect, and the idea that you can then use it as a phone option via VOIP equipment is huge in my mind, and something I hope that a lot of people recognize. Maybe not. I'm mostly hoping, because I want more companies to buy our equipment so my seriously sagging stock price rebounds a bit.
Consumer *have* to vote with their wallets, and they are, because they are mostly ill-informed about alternatives and the drawbacks to what they are being asked to pay for.