Just to put this in context, can we assume you do most or all of your cooking and heating by gas? I can well believe a computer making up about 45% of a "computer, TV and lighting" bill, but not 45% of a "computer, TV, lighting, heating and cooking" bill. I have one or two computers running pretty much 24/7, and I knocked 25% off my monthly bill by investing in low-energy light bulbs.
It's worrying that this culture of "energy saving" is so prevalent in the computer world. People install virus scanners to protect their systems, set them to run at 4am so their work won't be interrupted, go away and... Some busybody switches their machine off before leaving.
End result, the antivirus software gives them a false sense of security, while never actually being run. Oh, but it will download upgrades and incur recurring charges on the corporate bank account...
There are two types of ads I would like to be able to avoid.
1) Irrelevant advertising.
I have no children. I'm bald. I'm registered disabled and thus unable to drive. I'm very happy with my furniture. Yet I have to put up with two or three each of nappy ads, shampoo ads, car ads and sofa ads every time I try to watch a TV show. I have no interest in any of these products, and no amount of "clever" or "entertaining" advertising will lead me to buy or recommend any of them.
2) Repetitive advertising.
The same ad twice in every ad break throughout a show will lead to me boycotting that brand whether or not I need that product.
If advertisers would take these facts on board and come up with an advertising model I could live with then I'd be happy to watch ad-supported shows. Until they do, though, there's always BitTorrent...
I suspect that Orange have done this deliberately to discredit the notion of the "free" Broadband business model; all the complaints about their service will be seen as complaints against all "free" services, and so in the long term will keep customers coming to the paying services. Sneaky, really...
TalkTalk pioneered the "Pay for our telecoms service and we'll throw in broadband for free" model in the UK. (I'm using it now!)
Orange (a cellphone company) decided that they would like to compete with this, so they went out and found a broadband provider that was having problems (Wannadoo) and bought them out. Wannadoo had been incapable of servicing the broadband subscribers they already had without a significant investment in further infrastructure; Orange bought them out and started giving away broadband accounts without any such investment. The outcome was easy to predict. :-(
I'm on TalkTalk's "Free" BB service in the UK. Every letter I ever got from them refers to it as "Up to 8Mb", but I've never got over 2Mb out of it, sometimes less.
I'm about to take them to court over another matter, and so I used a Data Protection Act information request (equivalent to the US FoI Act) to get all my records from them, and it amused me to note that every one of their records refers to my service as "Domestic 2Mb". They've never even attempted to give me an 8Mb service.
s it technically feasable for a software product to be made that could (for example) read a copyrighted DVD, check if it has been copied before (via Internet Registration?) - make a backup with copyright protection (no copying allowed, sue anybody who breaks this), it would allow people to make a backup and it be manageable.
It'd be much cheaper and simpler just to ship two copies of every DVD disc, DRM'd to the hilt, with one clearly marked as "Backup". :-)
...by starting programmes thre minutes before they're scheduled to, switching programmes over at the last second and generally dicking around they've rendered all forms of TV schedule redundant. :-)
I have serious vision problems, and the idea of being able to "zoom in" on a page really appeals to me. Also, I have a huge collection of motherboard manuals in PDF form, and the ability to carry all of them in my pocket in a way that makes them viewable while the computer in front of me is in pieces is also something that I couldn't get in any useful way with paper copies.
The Sony reader looks tempting, but at the moment it's far too expensive. I'll wait for Franklin to come out with a cheap knock-off... As long as it can load and display PDFs I'll be happy. :-)
It's not the list, it's labeling them as spammers. None of you have ever happened to purchase hosting on a previous spammer's IP, that they refuse to delist... not because you are a spammer, but because they don't like the ISP, and think they're spam friendly, so YOU suffer. And what do they tell you, "Well, then switch ISPs." In other words, they are digitally blockading you to force YOU to boycott your ISP.
That's your argument; personally I sse it as them trying to close down SPAMmer-friendly ISPs, and as such I think that's a laudible aim. If it makes you take a moment to check out whether an ISP is listed as SPAMmer-friendly *before* you buy hosting from them next time, and then not buy it if they are, that can only be a good thing. Just because you got it wrong this time doesn't make it everybody else's problem.
Don't joke about it, Tek'a - I'm getting ready to sue my teleco for doing just that! The difference, I suspect, is that my contract with them lists my number as ex-directory, yet they published it anyway. :'-(
I hate AOL with a vengance. I had quite a career in the late '90s repairing machines that had effectively been rendered useless because their owners "couldn't see the harm" in loading up an AOL "1000 hour free trial CD". :-(
Then they went and bought Netscape. I wasn't too concerned because the only Netscape peoduct I use is a free email address. I use it a *lot*, though; I've had it since 1998.
Now they've "upgraded" my account to "AIM Mail". That means I still get my emails, but they're hidden in the middle of a pagefull of flashing ads, and because they created a "free" Messenger account I also get alerts that people are trying to AIM me while I'm on-line. I don't use AIM; the only instant messaging system that I condone is IRC...
It's really depressing that AOL seem to be going out of their way to force themselves onto my computer and slow down my browsing experience. I had to resort to an ad-blocking proxy, which doesn't just affect them, but removes the ads from more legitimate sites that I would otherwise have left there. Nice one, AOL.
What makes him the anti-christ? That he was able to use his programming skills to make an operating system and then use his business skills to market and sell it and since it was good people actually bought it and it sold so well over numerous versions that he is now the richest person in the world.
Actually, Bill's personal programming skills were limited to the creation of Microsoft BASIC on various 8-bit platforms. He used the money he made from that to buy in an OS, then sheer dumb luck to sell it to IBM for inclusion with their new PC range. If Gary Kildall had shown up for his appointment they would have gone with CP/M-86.
And as for Microsoft BASIC, it followed much of the specification of BASIC as laid down by Kemnay(sp?) and Kurtz, except he omitted the "MAT()" command because he didn't understand it. This omission meant that "proper" 3D graphics took ten years longer to emerge than would otherwise have been the case. That's why I hate Bill Gates.
Here in the UK, I was just able to sign up for a £9.99/mo. 'phone package (plus £11/mo. "line rental") and get an 8Mb DSL line thrown in for free! (TalkTalk)
naturally i'll bet the places flogging these crippleware copies of films are somewhat reluctant to exchange them for a full version once people find out.
Er... The whole point is that they're advertising them as cut-down copies, and charging more for removing the "objectionable" content (sex, violence, Jim Carrey) before your family is exposed to it. It's not a case of "finding out" later. That's their business model!
In the UK we pay £131.50/$243.41 a year for our "TV Licence". This funds four ad-free TV channels, eight major national ad-free radio stations and a plethora of "local" ad-free radio stations. (It's only £44/$81.45 per year if you have a black-and-white TV, and free if you are of pensionable age!)
The BBC also find enough surplus money from that to fund some of the world's most used message board systems informational websites and a news infrastructure that's considered by many to be one of the best in the world.
Now, the US has a much larger population; I guess you could do something on the same scale for, say, $100/year per family. So why don't you? ;-D
eliminating commercials in favor of a $8 per show fee
So, the people paying for the commercials are being charged the number of viewers times $8, huh? (Spread through a show, so divide by, say, 16 commercials for an hour)
That would mean that for an hour-long show, a single commercial spot would cost 50c times the viewing figures. So if a show has a 5 million rating, they're charging $2.5 Million per ad spot.
Oh, but wait... The most expensive Superbowl commercial ever only cost $2.5 Million.
I think your theory that a TV company currently makes $8 per episode from every subscriber is an overestimate at best. I don't have figures to hand, but I suspect that $1 per episode would be closer to the mark. And, for decent shows like "Law & Order" or "The Shield" I'd *happily* pay $1 not to watch any ads. (Or *grudgingly* pay $1.50)
On the post: Please Turn Off Your Computers Over Vacation
Re: Laugh all you want but
On the post: Please Turn Off Your Computers Over Vacation
Proliferation of Viruses
End result, the antivirus software gives them a false sense of security, while never actually being run. Oh, but it will download upgrades and incur recurring charges on the corporate bank account...
Pessimist Peet.
On the post: People Don't Hate Advertising; They Hate Bad, Intrusive And Annoying Advertising
Ads I would like to avoid...
1) Irrelevant advertising.
I have no children. I'm bald. I'm registered disabled and thus unable to drive. I'm very happy with my furniture. Yet I have to put up with two or three each of nappy ads, shampoo ads, car ads and sofa ads every time I try to watch a TV show. I have no interest in any of these products, and no amount of "clever" or "entertaining" advertising will lead me to buy or recommend any of them.
2) Repetitive advertising.
The same ad twice in every ad break throughout a show will lead to me boycotting that brand whether or not I need that product.
If advertisers would take these facts on board and come up with an advertising model I could live with then I'd be happy to watch ad-supported shows. Until they do, though, there's always BitTorrent...
On the post: This Holiday Season, All I Want Is A Package That Opens Easily
It depends on the tools you have to hand...
On the post: It May Be Free* To Get Broadband, But It Sure Ain't Free To Leave
Re: Orange
On the post: It May Be Free* To Get Broadband, But It Sure Ain't Free To Leave
Orange
Orange (a cellphone company) decided that they would like to compete with this, so they went out and found a broadband provider that was having problems (Wannadoo) and bought them out. Wannadoo had been incapable of servicing the broadband subscribers they already had without a significant investment in further infrastructure; Orange bought them out and started giving away broadband accounts without any such investment. The outcome was easy to predict. :-(
On the post: More WiFi Freakouts In The UK
Re:
You are George W Bush and I claim my $5.
On the post: How About We Pay Some Amount 'Up To' What Your Invoice Says?
TalkTalk
I'm about to take them to court over another matter, and so I used a Data Protection Act information request (equivalent to the US FoI Act) to get all my records from them, and it amused me to note that every one of their records refers to my service as "Domestic 2Mb". They've never even attempted to give me an 8Mb service.
On the post: What Will The Election Mean For Copyright?
Re:
It'd be much cheaper and simpler just to ship two copies of every DVD disc, DRM'd to the hilt, with one clearly marked as "Backup". :-)
On the post: Australian Network Says Electronic Publishing Guide Violates Their Copyright
ITV have found a way to combat this in the UK
On the post: Replacing Cheap And Useful With Expensive And Limited Can Be A Difficult Sell
The Sony reader looks tempting, but at the moment it's far too expensive. I'll wait for Franklin to come out with a cheap knock-off... As long as it can load and display PDFs I'll be happy. :-)
On the post: Diebold Machine Didn't Count Votes, But Diebold Says Not To Worry: They Can Tell You The Actual Vote Totals
Re: The reason is twofold...
They've got nothing to fear as long as they use Diebold machines to conduct the vote...
On the post: Accused Spammer Sues Spamhaus, Wins $11 Million
That's your argument; personally I sse it as them trying to close down SPAMmer-friendly ISPs, and as such I think that's a laudible aim. If it makes you take a moment to check out whether an ISP is listed as SPAMmer-friendly *before* you buy hosting from them next time, and then not buy it if they are, that can only be a good thing. Just because you got it wrong this time doesn't make it everybody else's problem.
On the post: Accused Spammer Sues Spamhaus, Wins $11 Million
Re: Directoy Services
On the post: You're In Good Hands... With AOL?
I was forced into using their services...
Then they went and bought Netscape. I wasn't too concerned because the only Netscape peoduct I use is a free email address. I use it a *lot*, though; I've had it since 1998.
Now they've "upgraded" my account to "AIM Mail". That means I still get my emails, but they're hidden in the middle of a pagefull of flashing ads, and because they created a "free" Messenger account I also get alerts that people are trying to AIM me while I'm on-line. I don't use AIM; the only instant messaging system that I condone is IRC...
It's really depressing that AOL seem to be going out of their way to force themselves onto my computer and slow down my browsing experience. I had to resort to an ad-blocking proxy, which doesn't just affect them, but removes the ads from more legitimate sites that I would otherwise have left there. Nice one, AOL.
On the post: Fake Bill Gates Quotes More Boring Than The Real Thing
Re: Re:
Actually, Bill's personal programming skills were limited to the creation of Microsoft BASIC on various 8-bit platforms. He used the money he made from that to buy in an OS, then sheer dumb luck to sell it to IBM for inclusion with their new PC range. If Gary Kildall had shown up for his appointment they would have gone with CP/M-86.
And as for Microsoft BASIC, it followed much of the specification of BASIC as laid down by Kemnay(sp?) and Kurtz, except he omitted the "MAT()" command because he didn't understand it. This omission meant that "proper" 3D graphics took ten years longer to emerge than would otherwise have been the case. That's why I hate Bill Gates.
On the post: The Fake Broadband Price War
Things are looking brighter across the pond...
On the post: Judge Says You Can't Edit Movies You've Bought
Re: Re: Re: (Is there an echo in here?)
Er... The whole point is that they're advertising them as cut-down copies, and charging more for removing the "objectionable" content (sex, violence, Jim Carrey) before your family is exposed to it. It's not a case of "finding out" later. That's their business model!
On the post: ABC Says People Wouldn't Mind If TiVos Can No Longer Fast Forward
Ad-free: The costs
The BBC also find enough surplus money from that to fund some of the world's most used message board systems informational websites and a news infrastructure that's considered by many to be one of the best in the world.
Now, the US has a much larger population; I guess you could do something on the same scale for, say, $100/year per family. So why don't you? ;-D
On the post: ABC Says People Wouldn't Mind If TiVos Can No Longer Fast Forward
Re: Commercials vs pay
So, the people paying for the commercials are being charged the number of viewers times $8, huh? (Spread through a show, so divide by, say, 16 commercials for an hour)
That would mean that for an hour-long show, a single commercial spot would cost 50c times the viewing figures. So if a show has a 5 million rating, they're charging $2.5 Million per ad spot.
Oh, but wait... The most expensive Superbowl commercial ever only cost $2.5 Million.
I think your theory that a TV company currently makes $8 per episode from every subscriber is an overestimate at best. I don't have figures to hand, but I suspect that $1 per episode would be closer to the mark. And, for decent shows like "Law & Order" or "The Shield" I'd *happily* pay $1 not to watch any ads. (Or *grudgingly* pay $1.50)
Next >>