$.99 is too expensive in my books - if digital copy of a song costs as much as a cheap bottle of beer, then that's too much. I'd say that about $.35 is my threshold before I start thinking twice about buying - $3.50 for a 10-song album is a decent price, but $10 is kind-of too much to allow for an impulse buy.
These guys need to start lowering their prices...or maybe wait a couple decades for inflation to catch up.
Seriously...why don't they just sell music online for *reasonable* prices, and screwing around with licenses/DRM. Standard copyright issues would apply (i.e., if you want to make money off someone else's work, you need to cut a deal with the copyright owner), but otherwise, just make it really easy and cheap to buy music.
If they could just do that, I'd actually be buying music - right now I only bother with stuff I can download (legally) for free. Buying mainstream music online these days is generally expensive and/or involves too much hassle/DRM - and the music isn't convincing enough for me to go through all that. I guess I'm just too poor and lazy.
So essentially what they've invented is a hardware implementation of what I can already do on any ordinary screen: superimpose one translucent image on top of another.
Can anyone suggest how this is really advantageous, other than perhaps the novelty aspect of it?
I read the Otherland books as well, and I really liked them. I didn't find the dream/VR stuff so inconsequential, because (in the book) they had real-life consequences in various ways (including death).
As for the game having 'no rules for the world', I wouldn't take this to mean there would be 'no rules', but really that there will be different 'worlds' or simulations that play by different rules that can be defined to fit that world's purpose, which is how things really went with in the book.
Each world in Otherland still had some common underlying elements. IIRC, these included geographical extents to each world, and some sort of stream/road/linear feature that linked entry/exit points between the worlds. The rules that governed each world were defined by the individual scientists/companies that designed and operated them (e.g., for research simulations, recreation, business, or whatever). Within each world, you had to play by those rules.
I think, if done well, this game will shape up to be something really cool.
oh and BTW, the windshield is necessary to allow a human driver to continue breathing at today's highway speeds. it's very hard to properly exhale at 50-60 mph.
This is getting way OT, but I thought a windshield was also to protect my face from flying objects (stones, bugs, etc.). Considering my windshield just got chipped by a stone the other day, I'd rather not have to endure something like that hitting me in the eye.
In general, I agree with you here. But really, how much can really be that different? Desktop environments (whether we're talking Windows, Linux, or whatever) have generally looked/worked the same since I can remember. Yes, each new version has added flasher/fancier/more efficient bits and pieces, but in general, it's all the same.
It's what the software does, not what it looks like that really makes the difference. Even then, the differences are pretty nominal, as the OS/Desktop is mostly just a platform for running the applications you actually *use*. The desktop just UI/Eye-candy for the most part...so leaked screenshots really mean little, IMHO.
Well thanks for clarifying that...my first thought was wtf are they doing this for when Peru already passed a law favouring open source three years ago.
So what do I do with my existing MP3 (not iPod) music players? They play unencrypted MP3 files (even OGG files) without any hassle. If we buy into this DECE (or any DRM scheme for that matter), we might as well throw our existing devices into the junk drawer with all our other useless/obsolete technology.
Sure...I'm biased against DRM in general. But I'm even more biased against creating even more unnecessary tech waste. I pisses me off that all these corporations couldn't care less about the endless garbage that their DRM initiatives will add to the world - just so they can line their pockets a little more.
What's this all talk about Canadian this and Canadian that? The article is about Quebec - doesn't anyone outside Quebec know that it is a sovereign nation?
That's entirely different. Cloning such Mickey Mouse products as you suggest is entirely different than buying them from Disney, and reselling them on to other customers.
I think it's all about perception in the eyes of the end user...while making IE function like FF may seem redundant, an average person may just think 'cool, now IE works better when I view my favourite web page'.
It also avoids having two browsers on one operating system. Although this is par for anyone that uses Linux, or who has become accustomed to installing FF on Windows...many less saavy users will forget which browser is which - especially those who get confused whenever the 50 icons on their desktop get rearranged.
Are you saying that we should abandon any new idea or technology if, in its infancy, it isn't better than what we already have? I think that would put an end to a great deal of innovation that we could benefit from in the future.
You have to suffer through the arduous tedium of answering that P-o-P question - to be honest, I don't know how we've been able to get by as long as we have without the new innovative approach IBM has developed.
Did you need to read a book before you started using Windows? If so...then I guess you might want to do the same for Linux. If not, then why bother? Just download a distro, burn it to cd, and install it the same as you would from a typical Windows CD. Most popular desktop Linux distros (e.g., Ubuntu) will hold your hand through the installation process...just like Windows did. Once its done, you'll probably find the desktop is about as intuitive as Windows was. If you can click on an icon to open a web browser, you'll be fine...no books necessary.
Desktop operating systems are going to be hard to replace. There's really no substitute to having all your resources locally accessible on your computer. I like the web for access to information, transfer of information and communication, online applications (that make sense to have online - i.e., stuff that I'll want to access anywhere, like email, facebook, etc), and maybe the odd multiplayer game. I just really don't have much interest in paying someone else to take the most important software and data that I use out of my hands. I guess I'm old-fashioned that way.
If Comcast didn't give crap service, and/or actually listened to their customers when they complain the first time...then they wouldn't have to dig around looking for public complaints and attempt damage control after the fact.
Yeah, it's good to make an effort to fix mistakes, but this is a kind of bass-ackwards way of dealing with problems related to the company's ability deliver services effectivel. Not to mention creepy.
I'm not a Comcast customer, but I'm sure they're on par with most other big telcos, who are completely happy to forget about you once they've got you paying a monthly bill.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe those pipes would need to be made from an alloy known as 'unobtainium'.
Er...I was hoping to get modded funny. But now I think maybe your post is funnier.
Would get bored with the article.
I don't get it - was there something more to that sentence?
$.99 is too expensive in my books - if digital copy of a song costs as much as a cheap bottle of beer, then that's too much. I'd say that about $.35 is my threshold before I start thinking twice about buying - $3.50 for a 10-song album is a decent price, but $10 is kind-of too much to allow for an impulse buy.
These guys need to start lowering their prices...or maybe wait a couple decades for inflation to catch up.
Seriously...why don't they just sell music online for *reasonable* prices, and screwing around with licenses/DRM. Standard copyright issues would apply (i.e., if you want to make money off someone else's work, you need to cut a deal with the copyright owner), but otherwise, just make it really easy and cheap to buy music.
If they could just do that, I'd actually be buying music - right now I only bother with stuff I can download (legally) for free. Buying mainstream music online these days is generally expensive and/or involves too much hassle/DRM - and the music isn't convincing enough for me to go through all that. I guess I'm just too poor and lazy.
So essentially what they've invented is a hardware implementation of what I can already do on any ordinary screen: superimpose one translucent image on top of another.
Can anyone suggest how this is really advantageous, other than perhaps the novelty aspect of it?
I read the Otherland books as well, and I really liked them. I didn't find the dream/VR stuff so inconsequential, because (in the book) they had real-life consequences in various ways (including death).
As for the game having 'no rules for the world', I wouldn't take this to mean there would be 'no rules', but really that there will be different 'worlds' or simulations that play by different rules that can be defined to fit that world's purpose, which is how things really went with in the book.
Each world in Otherland still had some common underlying elements. IIRC, these included geographical extents to each world, and some sort of stream/road/linear feature that linked entry/exit points between the worlds. The rules that governed each world were defined by the individual scientists/companies that designed and operated them (e.g., for research simulations, recreation, business, or whatever). Within each world, you had to play by those rules.
I think, if done well, this game will shape up to be something really cool.
oh and BTW, the windshield is necessary to allow a human driver to continue breathing at today's highway speeds. it's very hard to properly exhale at 50-60 mph.
This is getting way OT, but I thought a windshield was also to protect my face from flying objects (stones, bugs, etc.). Considering my windshield just got chipped by a stone the other day, I'd rather not have to endure something like that hitting me in the eye.
So...did they unpolish Ubuntu to make it look like a turd, so that windows users would feel better about the polished turd they're using?
In general, I agree with you here. But really, how much can really be that different? Desktop environments (whether we're talking Windows, Linux, or whatever) have generally looked/worked the same since I can remember. Yes, each new version has added flasher/fancier/more efficient bits and pieces, but in general, it's all the same.
It's what the software does, not what it looks like that really makes the difference. Even then, the differences are pretty nominal, as the OS/Desktop is mostly just a platform for running the applications you actually *use*. The desktop just UI/Eye-candy for the most part...so leaked screenshots really mean little, IMHO.
Well thanks for clarifying that...my first thought was wtf are they doing this for when Peru already passed a law favouring open source three years ago.
I'm pretty sure this was already covered in Spiderman 3 - hopefully things turn out better this time around.
So what do I do with my existing MP3 (not iPod) music players? They play unencrypted MP3 files (even OGG files) without any hassle. If we buy into this DECE (or any DRM scheme for that matter), we might as well throw our existing devices into the junk drawer with all our other useless/obsolete technology.
Sure...I'm biased against DRM in general. But I'm even more biased against creating even more unnecessary tech waste. I pisses me off that all these corporations couldn't care less about the endless garbage that their DRM initiatives will add to the world - just so they can line their pockets a little more.
What's this all talk about Canadian this and Canadian that? The article is about Quebec - doesn't anyone outside Quebec know that it is a sovereign nation?
That's entirely different. Cloning such Mickey Mouse products as you suggest is entirely different than buying them from Disney, and reselling them on to other customers.
I think it's all about perception in the eyes of the end user...while making IE function like FF may seem redundant, an average person may just think 'cool, now IE works better when I view my favourite web page'.
It also avoids having two browsers on one operating system. Although this is par for anyone that uses Linux, or who has become accustomed to installing FF on Windows...many less saavy users will forget which browser is which - especially those who get confused whenever the 50 icons on their desktop get rearranged.
3: It's a phone
(sorry, I have karma to burn I guess)
This sounds like a bit of a red herring to me.
Are you saying that we should abandon any new idea or technology if, in its infancy, it isn't better than what we already have? I think that would put an end to a great deal of innovation that we could benefit from in the future.
Yeah, and I know who you are...you're the nut who drives so close behind me that you might as well be in my back seat.
RTFA *AND* SFTW? For pathophysiology of Alzheimers no less?
I think that's just asking way too much of the average /.er here.
You have to suffer through the arduous tedium of answering that P-o-P question - to be honest, I don't know how we've been able to get by as long as we have without the new innovative approach IBM has developed.
Did you need to read a book before you started using Windows? If so...then I guess you might want to do the same for Linux. If not, then why bother? Just download a distro, burn it to cd, and install it the same as you would from a typical Windows CD. Most popular desktop Linux distros (e.g., Ubuntu) will hold your hand through the installation process...just like Windows did. Once its done, you'll probably find the desktop is about as intuitive as Windows was. If you can click on an icon to open a web browser, you'll be fine...no books necessary.
What if the asteroid is rotating...maybe very fast...maybe on multiple axes? Isn't quite so simple then I don't think.
Desktop operating systems are going to be hard to replace. There's really no substitute to having all your resources locally accessible on your computer. I like the web for access to information, transfer of information and communication, online applications (that make sense to have online - i.e., stuff that I'll want to access anywhere, like email, facebook, etc), and maybe the odd multiplayer game. I just really don't have much interest in paying someone else to take the most important software and data that I use out of my hands. I guess I'm old-fashioned that way.
If Comcast didn't give crap service, and/or actually listened to their customers when they complain the first time...then they wouldn't have to dig around looking for public complaints and attempt damage control after the fact.
Yeah, it's good to make an effort to fix mistakes, but this is a kind of bass-ackwards way of dealing with problems related to the company's ability deliver services effectivel. Not to mention creepy.
I'm not a Comcast customer, but I'm sure they're on par with most other big telcos, who are completely happy to forget about you once they've got you paying a monthly bill.