NamelessMofo’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: Disposable Cameras Hold Off Digital

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2006 @ 11:37am

Of course

Use disposable digital cameras. Then you take a bunch of garbage pictures, and just throw the whole thing out afterwards.

Honestly, with digital cameras, people take hundreds of pictures any place they go and 90% of the pictures are crap. Same with film cameras except that 90% of the roll they pay for are pictures with over and under exposers and thumbs. That or people take 10 of essentially the same picture.

I can't wait for the day that cameras are smart enough to simply tell the user that the picture they are about to take is garbage and they would be better of leaving the freakin camera at home.

On the post: Once Again, You Cannot Sue Google Just Because Your Ranking Sucks

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2006 @ 07:00am

Is this ridiculous?

Honestly, I don't think so. While I don't think that suing Google because your rank drops is valid, the fact that Google suddenly causes top ranking sites to drop unexpectedly suggests that perhaps Google's motivations is to get popular websites to PAY UP in order to get preferred ranking status.

Sorry, I don't believe for an instant that Google is benevolent and does no evil. They are a money making engine, money gives power, and power corrupts. Google wants websites to pay more to get higher ranking, period.

Perhaps the intention or purpose of the lawsuit is in error, but I think that people should scrutinize Google's business practices and decide if this is some form of blatant extortion. Pay up or we will drop your rank.

On the post: For Sale: One Crappy Movie Download Site

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2006 @ 11:29am

One guy eh

It took one guy to get Hollywood to embrace the DVD eh? Did he invent the DVD, no. Sorry, I can't accredit him for making Hollywood adopt the DVD, considering the slow and staggered acceptance of the DVD (i.e. Fox and Disney didn't embrace it right away, only years later). While I am sure he was responsible for getting Warner Bros to adopt DVD, DVD was making its way into our homes with or without him.

Lets put it this say, DVD's wouldn't have been invented if there wasn't going to be some expectation for pre-recorded content on them, I don't think it took one guy to envision a world where movies were distributed on DVD. Maybe some guy saw a potential to speak on behalf of the DVD format and slid in as the defacto champion of the format, but I doubt we would still be watching movies on VHS today if the DVD disk came out without this guy behind it.

Movies were released in digital format before the DVD, on Laserdisk, on VCD and on earlier optical formats. DVD was the next logical step.

Lets finally put it this way, why isn't this guy making Hollywood adopt one standard for high definition DVD's, we have two competing standards. Why not swoop in and be our salvation once again? Probably because the guy made too much money pretending to be the DVD hero of the past.

On the post: Now, Vonage Says Customers Still Have To Pay Up For Shares

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2006 @ 09:06am

Honestly

And my opinion about Vonage has been noted. Vonage promises a lot, and delivers little. So, if I bought an IPO stock, should I have to pay for it? If Vonage can offer less then expected, I don't think they should complain about stock customers not showing them the money.

Cheap as Vonage?, I have seen and used cheaper. MOST competitors to Vonage (at least in Canada) offer unlimited plans $10 cheaper per month then Vonage, and offer better features.

Vonage is just over-hype, period. Its the buzz word that sticks in your head because too many websites like this rave about Vonage this and Vonage that. I bought into this and switch to them expecting cheaper and better service, and I didn't get it. Do yourself a favour and look around, and you will find a dozen competitors to Vonage that do VOIP right.

On the post: How Banks Make The Bogus Check Scam So Easy

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2006 @ 07:04am

Bottom line is

Banks should simply end using cheques.

These are antiquated means of payment and are unnecessary in the 21st century.

The last time I wrote a cheque was for paying rent several years ago, and then my landlord got an Interac machine and I could pay by debit card.

Who would ever accept a cheque from someone these days for payment of something. If I am selling something, like a used computer, its cash or nothing. With access to debit machines these days, there is never a time when someone can't get the money out of their account when they need it (unless they don't have that money to begin with). Heck, they can even email me the funds between banks or use Pay Pal.

If you cash a cheque where the linked account doesn't have enough funds, YOUR charged with an NSF charge. The bank considers you a criminal. So your stuck with a $25 charge AND no money for that computer you sold. Good luck trying to get money back.

The amount of time it takes for a bank to clear a cheque is ridiculous too, 3 - 5 business days? I can pay bills online and its immediate (from the bank's end).

Banks should simply end cheques, period. It would probably reduced operating costs and would end an obvious source of fraud that the banks have to deal with every day. If your some yokel or Grandma that fires off a cheque to pay for everything, time to get into the 21st century and get that debit card and learn about online and telephone banking.

On the post: My Phone Is Too Complicated, But I Love It

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 31 May, 2006 @ 07:36am

not a luddite

But I still don't see the point of a whiz bang phone that does everything under the sun except offer good quality voice calling.

Its not to say that there can't be devices that do it all, but why is it that the only phones you can buy these days have a useless camera option?

I have an iPod, so what do I want with a phone that can play video and music?

I have a good quality digital camera that takes amazing pictures, why do I need a poor quality camera on my phone?

We are entering an era of technological redundancy. You already own 12 devices that do the following, play video, play digital music, take pictures, display pictures, do text messaging, make phone calls, store video, play games, schedule your life and browses the internet. Does your phone need to do all this TOO?

The problem is, once you start getting phones that do little more then just voice communications, maybe a text page or something, then they are cheap plastic Fisher Price looking models.

Why people are satisfied with their all-in-wonder phone is because typically the flagship phones from Motorola, Nokia, et al. are thin and highly stylized devices. They are status icons. Sure, you will never watch television or take video with the thing, nor will you bother to download games, music, or other data content on it, nor are you heavy into text messaging or wireless internet access, but damn, that phone looks hot!

I double Motorola will ever cater a Razor to people that only want a cell phone to make phone calls.

It would be nice if we can truly create an all in one device for voice, text, games, video, music, photos, etc, but the simple fact is, I have a PSP, I have a DS, I have an iPod, I have a notebook, I have a desktop, I have a PVR, I have a digital camera, I have countless other devices that have all the SAME FEATURES. So, I don't NEED these features in a Cell phone.

Make me the worlds thinnest cell phone out of metal that looks good, has weeks of battery life, that only makes GOOD QUALITY phone calls, and I will buy it. Just don't give me those thick plastic garish looking bricks for $0 with 4 years service as a basic featureless phone.

On the post: VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 30 May, 2006 @ 11:00am

OK, Sure

However, Vonage ISN'T doing anything more then offering a service that is cheaper then regular phone service. I mean, this is their major marketing drive, they have a cost calculator linked on their home page to determine how much cheaper it is to use them.

Vonage doesn't offer anything revolutionary to the VOIP market, I mean, they don't even offer such features as being able to block incoming calls for specific caller ID's, a feature that any VOIP service should excel at. I asked their customer service why they don't offer this feature, and they say they are looking into it, as if it requires lots of research and development.

I know on the open source PBX Asterix used with VOIP this is a very easy feature to implement. Once you add a software layer to telephony service, it is easy to implement this feature, you just block the call from going to the phone or extension if it has a certain number in its caller ID header. The fact that Vonage doesn't offer this service seems to suggest they are more interested in keeping telemarkeing companies happy by not having Vonage customer block their numbers.

Sorry, still bitter about switching to Vonage, but I mean, in the VOIP business, no company is looking for to offer more then cheaper service compared to the telcom giants. If anything changes in VOIP it will be more marketing and advertising which will ruin this industry.

On the post: Segway Glides Towards IPO?

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 30 May, 2006 @ 07:19am

Who's buying these things?

If your going IPO, then you have to at least be making a profit, and I doubt Segway is making any.

I haven't seen these things revolutionize urban transportation the way they were hyped up about, and the only people I have seen give a rats ass about them are yuppie executive offers that think they are cool and young driving their 50 year old ass around the office on one.

As much as the technology is cool and the concept sound, the arrogance of the company in believing this is anything more then a child's scooter is astounding.

I will invest in Segway the moment they sign a deal with Toys R Us to market this for children. For kids, this will be a HUGE market. For adults, this is a novelty item that will never be a success.

On the post: Vonage IPO Funny Business, Or Buyer's Remorse?

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 26 May, 2006 @ 12:30pm

I will tell you what I regret

Vonage is a product of overhyped marketing and too much of this kind of reporting and online speculation.

I had Primus Canada Talkbroadband. I was paying $29.95 a month for unlimited North American calling. It had all the bells and whistles you can get on a phone line, caller ID, voice mail, call transfer, etc, etc, etc. Also, you can create a BLOCK calls list, have "timeout periods" where the phone won't ring at certain times of the day, or ring another phone, etc. It also sent you an email when you get voice mail WITH the wav file attached.

So, all was fine with Primus until they dinged me with a $25 NSF charge because my credit card was maxed out for probably 5 minutes one day. I had paid off my credit card, but the bank took too long to get balance settled and it just happend that Primus decided to try and charge my card. Rater then doing something human like try again a few hours later, or contact the individual to get the right details, they just added $25 to my account. I didn't like that and decided to go to Vonage.

I went to Vonage because of all the hype and hoopla over it. I like the idea I could go to Best Buy and get a pair of WiFi phones and router geared towards Vonage, Primus only offers their own DLink router which was a pain in the ass to set up. I got Vonage's $19.95 500 minute plan (I didn't need more then 500 minutes calling a month) and thought I was going to be happy.

Then the telemarketing calls started coming in, around 10 a day. I swear that Vonage probably sells off phone numbers all their new customers. Then I find out Vonage doesn't offer call blocking. Second, Vonage will send you an email if you get voicemail, but won't send you a wav file (even though I think they offer the option in voicemail setup). They charge you per minute billing, so a 5 second call rings up a 1 minute thus significantly eating away at your 500 minute plans. Also, Vonage has called me about 6 times since I got their service for stupid messages like "Give us a call and we will guide you through all the features Vonage has to offer". This is just an effort to eat up your monthly minutes quicker. And BTW, I did the math and Vonage doesn't call you with their free "In Networking" minutes. Vonage doesn't use their own service for calls.

On the whole Vonage is a very INFERIOR VOIP provider. Its almost like they are flying by the seat of their pants. Despite having over a years head start over Primus, Primus has a significantly better service, is cheaper, and except for a few quirks, is the company I should have stayed with.

So, for now, I am staying with Vonage for 90 days so I can get a rebate on the phone/router I bought, and then I am switching back to Primus.

BTW, Vonage and Primus both use adapters so you can use your regular phones using VOIP, you don't have to go through the computer. I won't buy into Skype because its just hype that begins with Skunk.

On the post: When A Bar Urinal Is Smarter Than Its Patrons

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 25 May, 2006 @ 01:46pm

How about a device

That stops a car from starting by testing your urine.... um, wait a minute, they already do that using your breath, good thing I didn't patent my first idea.

I don't think its any mystery to people that drinking and driving don't mix, so does wasting money on advertising and other gimmick like "reminders" really worth it?

We live in a culture where there is just too much ad stimuli and we learn to shut it out. Advertising in general is becoming less effective, and public service announcements even more so. Even if we actually hear the message or see it, do we even absorb it into our conscious? For the most part, people don't like to be told what they can and can't do, so a talking urinal puck isn't going to stop some dumb schmuck from getting into his car with a blood alcohol level of .20 and drive home.

What will work is to simply give stiff fines, penalties and jail time if your caught drinking and driving. I mean, if your drunk and you kill a person in an accident, it is considered "INVOLUNTARY" manslaughter which can have sentences measured in months. Change that to murder in the 1st degree, and you will see a big change in how people look at drinking and driving. I mean, people do make a deliberate decisions to drive drunk, so I don't think it is too rash to consider someone that kills another person while driving drunk deliberate murder.

But, being good ol' USA, your going to get some dumb *ss that claims he never knew that drinking impairs driving and he will probably get away with it. The US court system seems gullible and believes there are still people that live in caves that just don't know better.

On the post: Yet Another Camera Company Ponders Dropping Film

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 25 May, 2006 @ 11:12am

Well

Lets face it, at a consumer level, film is dead. There is just no need for the average picture taker to have to use film. They don't care about particulars and artistic merit of film, so digital is all they need. Film is a waste of money, resources and time. Kodak knows it, and most consumer or even prosumer level companies recognize there is no money in flim photography.

I doubt film will die off completely, as there will be some professional level market that values it. Until digital can duplicate the effects of, say, infra red film or good quality black and white film and media, digital won't completely replace film. This is when photography is an artform, rather the just something to document everyday life.

The idea the cellphones will ever be good cameras is laughable. Even at high resolutions, there isn't enough ability for a cellphone to take good pictures, even for everyday users. Camera phones are a gimmick for cellular companies to get teenagers to eat up data bandwidth sending pictures thus being able to charge more for their phone service. There is NOT ONE FEATURE on a cellphone that is not designed to make cellular providers richer.

As long as cell phones are self serving profit makers for cellular providers, they will never become an ideal all in one device for everyday use, which means they will never offer greater capacity to take higher resolution pictures then what the cellular networks can easily transmit with their available bandwidth. I.e. 8mp pictures would saturate a cellular network and bring it to its knees if people started sending large resolution pictures. That is why camera phones don't offer more then 1 - 2mp images. Not because there is no CCD available to make higher resolution pictures, or the cost is too high (honestly, a $600 cell phone SHOULD offer 8mp camera), its simply because cell networks could not handle the bandwidth required by people sending high resolution pictures to each other.

On the post: I'm Sorry Dave, I Can't Let You Drive That Fast

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 24 May, 2006 @ 11:00am

Dumb

Do all politicians share one brain cell.

ANYTHING that limits control of a car is a potential for disaster.

Say your driving down the road and you see some transport truck jackknife. You need to make a split second decision, so you punch the gas because your brain figured out it can get around the truck before it completely blocks the road (and thereby causing you slam into the side of the truck). But, your car decides that because the speed limit is 60km/h you have no power or cannot gain speed.

So, you slam into the truck and die because some asshole politician somewhere getting kickbacks from whatever shyster company developed the technology decided it was a good idea to force people to drive the speed limit using computers regardless of any situation that might arrise on the roads.

Even the idea of automatically ticketing individuals for going over the speed limit won't fly. There are countless situations in which my MUST drive faster, to avoid an accident or to get out of a bad situation (i.e. a bunch of braindead drivers bunching up and cutting each other off). If you are automatically fined or car won't work to speed up then this will just cause more hassle then its worth as countless people will be fighting the fine or suing the hell out of the company that developed technology that kills people.

On the post: UK To Build Useless Facial Recognition System

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 23 May, 2006 @ 11:33am

Re: Posterlogo

Its not about not trying, its about getting politicians to stop wasting taxpayers money on systems that don't work yet.

It would be like British Airways offering trans-Atlantic flights using the Wright brother's plane.

Its not about NOT developing the technology, its about deciding when it is time to use it, and it ain't time yet.

On the post: Infinium Labs' Founder Charged With Pump And Dump Scam

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 17 May, 2006 @ 05:58am

Well Duh!

I mean, when a company hypes a product for years without delivering even a prototype, then yeah, its a scam.

Anybody investigating 3D Realms and DukeNukem Forever, I think this is another scam.

On the post: Creative Sues Apple Over iPod Interface Patents

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 16 May, 2006 @ 06:14am

Missing the point

Its not the patent, but the actual look and feel of the interface I think Creative has taken issue with. When you look at the early Creative Jukebox interface, and the iPod interface that came out 10 months after Creative's product, they are very similar in nature. The simplistic front/back menu interface listing songs by album, artist, genre, etc in a single column of items.

While I agree that the idea of patenting the idea of hierarchical data is kind of hard to fight for, the fact that Apple looked to have blatantly ripped off Creative's interface is what the case will center on. There could have been any number of ways Apple could have created the iPod interface, and in fact, the iPod interface is really not apple like at all (compared to their OS products). I think if Apple spent a little more time making the interface look less like Creatives, then just keeping it similar, there wouldn't be an issue.

On the post: What Right Do You Have Over Your Pricing Information?

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 10 May, 2006 @ 12:03pm

Well.

If someone releases a product price before the company releases that price, then I can agree that this is grounds for a lawsuit. Retail is highly competitive, and if your constantly being undercut because your competitors are getting prices before your customers and so they take business away from you, this is anti-competitive.

Once your prices are public knowledge, then its public knowledge, period. I believe anybody as a right to post WalMart prices on their website if this is the publicly advertised price. If a company wants you to know they are selling something cheaper then WalMart, then they have full rights to post WalMarts current advertised price along with their own price.

You can't trademark or copyright a price if its public knowledge, and I don't think there is any merit even if the number is being used in derogatory or negative marketing.

In the case where pricing ISN"T public knowledge, as in the medical equipment or any industry in which your supposed to contact a sales representative, then I agree that the pricing is a "trade secret". Unless your company advertises a price, there is is no reason to believe that another person or website can publish their prices.

On the post: Shouldn't Taxpayers Get To See Taxpayer-Funded Research?

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 09 May, 2006 @ 10:36am

Um

how about this. Nasa or Pentagon is researching some new weapon or space delivery system. Are you going to want everyone in the world to know?

Its all fine and dandy to say that the US government should be held accountable for letting taxpayers know what they are doing with their taxes, but there are some things that taxpayers (and by extension, the rest of the world) dont need to know about.

What the government should be forced to be accurate and truthful about is HOW MUCH Nasa or the Pentagon gets to do their research. You dont have to get into details, just let tax payers know that billions of dollars are being wasted in Nasa every year.

On the post: Yes, SGI Still Exists, But Maybe Not For Long

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 08 May, 2006 @ 12:20pm

End of an era

I agree, SGI definitely couldn't carve out a niche for themselves in the 21st century. Whether it was high end NT workstations, or now high end Linux workstations, or high end linux servers, there just isnt' any motivation to buy SGI over a slew of other companies offering products that, while they may not match in quality, are simply more affordable and get the job done just as well. If your setting up a server bank, are you going to use Dell or SGI? Dell's sales figures are all the proof that people don't need highlyg customized an proprietary server solutions, just a bunch of off the shelf Intel components.

SGI is one of the few computer companies that actually invested time and money developing custom PC solutions. Like Apple, I think if they could realize a potential to develop high end PC based workstations, combining well designed enclosures using off-the-shelf PC components (ala Macintels!) then SGI could potentially remain solvent by making high end gaming rigs as well as continue to cater to graphics, video and scientific workstations.

The worst that could happen to SGI nos is that Dell or HP buys them out. It will water down their technology, but at least if some of SGI's innovation trickles into the average PC workstation or server, then it will not be a total loss.

The best case senario, ideally, is for Apple to be looking to aquire SGI to get their talent pool integrated into Apple. Think of Apple developing a line of high end graphics/3D workstations that can be field tested by Pixar!!!!

On the post: Will Vista Decimate Third Party Security Sales? Is That An Antitrust Issue?

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 08 May, 2006 @ 05:39am

Well, ask if OSX is an anti-trust issue

I mean, Symantec and McAfee and all the rest are not making any money off the Mac OSX platform simply because there isn't any (or rare) viruses or security issues on that platform. Same goes (but not as strong a case) for Linux. So, shouldn't those companies sue Apple for antitrust for not supplying an OS that creates a market for them?

I am being facetious, but I can't stand the double standards that constantly are applied against Microsoft but ignored by every other software company and OS maker.

So, Vista will be more secure. Whether that comes from bundled Firewall and Anti-virus/spy/spam tools, or whether that comes from tighter security in their networking and kernels, you can't expect an OS to continue to leave gaping security holes in their OS just because some 3rd party Firewall/anti-virus maker is getting rich off of it.

I believe there are certain features that MUST comes with an OS, these are not optional components. Network Security, Media handling (simple playback of all media types), Internet Browsing and support for simple data types like text, xml, etc. This is what I consider the minimum functions of an OS. Microsoft gets challenged every time they add a "value-added" application, but these are simply required features of an OS.

OSX and Linux come with bundled features, and nobody bats an eye, but Microsoft integrates a web browser (which, BTW, nobody likes anymore), or some simple firewall/anti-virus feature, and suddenly its fair game to attack Microsoft.

Anyways, Microsoft being who they are, I am sure that Symantec and McAfee have nothing to worry about. Expect years of REQUIRED 3rd party security features for Vista and any upcoming OS in Microsoft's future. Largely this point is moot, its just bitching for the sake of not having something else to bitch about Microsoft today.

On the post: How Many Times Have You Bought Star Wars? How Many Times Will You?

NamelessMofo ( profile ), 07 May, 2006 @ 10:57am

NEVER AGAIN!

Once Episode 3 came out with its dismal end to the whole lot of movies, I vow I will never buy another Star Wads movie / game or franchise item again.

George Lucas will not get one red cent out of me ever again.

I literally tossed the DVD's of Ep 1 and 2 in the garbage after seeing Ep3. I did buy the original series on DVD when it came out, but that is when I believe Star Wars truly ended, not after the next 3 Mickey Mouse Edition episodes.

Even if and when I get an HD setup, I won't buy the original trilogy in HD.

Lucas milked us along for nearly 30 years and dupped us out of hard earned money into buying uncountable limited editions and digital remasters and special editions of Star Wars, and after that crap that was Ep1-3, thats the end of my facination with that galaxy far far away.

It will be a great day when people can finally live their lives without thinking about Star Wars, and I feel sorry for all those pathetic losers that can't let go and continue to keep Lucas a billionaire buying whatever junk edition he somes out with next.

NamelessMofo 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (160)