the art of writing is discovering what you believe
The Robot Co-op: All Consuming has become a part of the Robot Co-op family!:
All Consuming has become a part of the Robot Co-op family!
So 43 Things and All Consuming have assimilated each other. And now you can list albums and movies as consumables . . .
Will I bother? It would make sense if it tied in with audioscrobbler or used Growl to handle updates in real time.
The shop where I perform something like gainful employment needed a Mac for usability testing so they got a mini. The tech guy there is a big fan of white box PCs, and considers Apple hardware too expensive — first thing out of his mouth. Oh, like many, he’ll say good things about the user experience, the quiet fans, and well-designed components, but doesn’t consider that worth paying for.
So I wondered if there was a similar system to a mini, all the same ports and accessories, same form factor, and same or better price. Intel floated a concept system that got a lot of press, but I don’t see a mass-produced system that matches those specs.
Is there such a thing? And if not, how is “product A” too expensive if there is no “product B” to compare to it?
And this was an interesting comment:
Intel shows off concept for Mac mini knock-off – Engadget – www.engadget.com.:
If it wasn’t for companies like Apple, there would be NO innovation in the computing world. 
There’s a world of original ideas in the universe, but the PC world repeatedly chooses to steal Apple’s designs. 

The only reason there’s PC cases in colors other than beige is because Apple created the iMac. The only reason there’s a Windows “XP” is because there was a Mac OS “X”. The only reason you can import and organize music with Windows Media Player is because Apple created iTunes. The only reason there’s a Windows Movie Maker is because Apple created iMovie. The only reason there’s slim lightweight Pentium M class laptops is because Apple created the PowerBook. And now, the only reason Intel is floating this mini PC is because Apple created the Mac mini. 

Apple takes all the creative risks. Thank goodness for the innovations of companies like Apple, Google, and those Linux rebels. Or we’d all be using big beige boxes and Windows 95. (Heck! There wouldn’t even be a Windows 95 if it wasn’t for OS/2 and Geoworks!)
Dow Closes Up 52 on Apple-Intel Report:
An Apple move to Intel’s chips would make Macs far less expensive — a major hurdle in Apple’s ongoing battle with cheaper PCs already using Intel processors and Microsoft’s operating system. The possible deal, reported in The Wall Street Journal, could spell trouble for International Business Machines Corp., Apple’s current supplier.
How do they know? I have no idea how much Apple pays for its G4/5 CPUs or what kind of a sweetheart Intel would give them to move away from the PPC. I do know that a lot of what you pay for in Apple hardware is design, both in software and hardware. It’s not obvious to me that an Intel-powered mini would be a lot cheaper than a the current model. Given the different levels of power consumption and heat generation, it wouldn’t be a straight swap.
And taking a short trip through the Wayback Machine . . .
One reboot away, indeed. Competition between OSes right ON YOUR DESKTOP. May the best platform win.
Wouldn’t that be interesting?
Here are our suggestions:
Your blog is so stupid Rosie O’Donell made fun of it in free verse on her blog.
Your blog is like a sausage patty: no links.
Your blog is so boring Nick Denton wants to pay you $1000 a month not to write.
Your blog is like a pedestrian walkway: no traffic.
Your blog is so lame even Greg Lindsay refused to write for it.
Your blog is like Martha Stewart during her trial for securities fraud: no comments.
Your blog is so ugly Matt Drudge sent you an e-mail offering to help you redesign it “so it’s more aesthetically pleasing.”
Your blog is like the intensive care unit after 8 P.M.: no visitors.
Your blog is so self-indulgent Stephanie Klein sent you a box of tampons and a note that says, “Get over it.”
Your blog is so badly written it got you your own column at the New York Press.
Your blog is like Jason Kidd’s domestic situation after court-ordered anger-management classes: no hits.
Ouch. I winced at a few of these.
File sharing benefits record companies.:
The CBC provides this interesting breakdown:Where does the money go when I buy a CD?
Larry takes the position that with filesharing obviates the need for the costs associated with manufacturing, retailing, promotion, and marketing. I’m not sure that would hold up in reality, but it does point out how little the artists are “losing” with their share of the take at less than 1/8th.
Continue reading “slicing the pie”
Are you trying to win an argument or solve a problem?
[appropriated from a sticker I saw on a backpack today]
I dropped $20 in the RadioParadise tip jar: any time I have to sit at a computer and work for any length of time, I tune this in, even if I have my iPod with me. I hear stuff I like, stuff I didn’t know I liked, but never anything I simply can’t stand. Not as cool as KEXP, but then I’m not that cool.
I need to kick a few bucks to the FreeBSD foundation.
And I have my Amazon associates credit from the 1st quarter of this year to send along to the Red Cross (all $10.71 of it).
News:
Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.
The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant, which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.
Reasons to look for the GMO-free label: I’m not saying it’s all poison, but why hide the facts?
[hat tip to Wade]
My eight year old had bronchitis with all the attendant coughing and unhappiness. At the visit confirming that today, his doctor was asked what could used to help with sleep, and he recommended a tablespoon of wine.
And as it turned out, we gave it to him too early, so instead of a mellow sleepy guy, we got a goofy, giddy guy. Turned out we ended up in the ER later that night anyway, only to leave without seeing anyone (we would have been there for breakfast is we had waited that long). But the cool night air — and the lateness of the hour — seemed to help, and he did sleep when we got home.
Now playing: Symphony no. 8 in B minor “Unfinished” (Unvollendete) Andante con Moto | Get it
So Josh in comments mentioned that the UK’s TV license covers everything that can receive over the air broadcasting.
British TV license could be replaced with PC tax:
Prompted by concerns that TV ownership will drop as PC owners begin tuning in on their computers, the UK is considering an annual tax on PCs similar to the country’s TV licenses. Currently, residents of the UK pay £116.00 a year for a color TV license and £38.50 for a black-and-white TV. The money raised through the licensing program is used to fund the operations of the government-owned BBC (and keep the two BBC networks commercial-free).
It looks like it’s still in the planning stages. Interesting how if this was a business, they would likely be praised for being alert to new opportunities but since it’s the tax man, it’s bloody-minded intrusion.
And what to make of this argument?
BBC TV License – Why the British Should Kill Their Televisions:
In the United Kingdom, citizens must pay a licence if they own a television set. That’s right, a TV tax. For Americans, the whole idea of an annual tax to own a television borders on the absurd. However, in the UK, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a government agency that has the power to tax and enforce laws. In order to obtain funding, the BBC requires that anyone using its services must pay for them. So, if you own a TV set and live in the UK, you could conceivably turn on the BBC broadcasts, so therefore you better pay.
He goes from “kill your television” to “stick it to the [taxpayer-funded] man.” The article makes clear that with a few exceptions — an uninhabited-since-the-12th-century castle is a waste of effort — but it’s by no means a blanket tax: TV owners and users are the target. And the point of the license is to ensure that TV programming is commercial-free, ie developed without regard for advertising sales. That seems hard to argue with: it’s the endless marketing of crap that I object to.
We all like to complain about taxes, it’s true. But should we balk at paying for services we know we use, just because they’re provided by a public entity?