While I initially debated upgrading my iPhone to the 3G model, I have since decided that it's just not worth it, for several reasons.

First, the new iPhone plans from AT&T now suck in comparison to the first gen iPhone plans. The voice plans remain the same from what I can see, but the data plan is now $10 more and does not include the 200 text messages like the old one did, so in order to get the "same plan" for the 3G iPhone, you'll be paying $15 extra a month. It may not seem like that much, but over the course of your 2 year contract, it adds up and even cancels out the cheaper price for the phone itself.

A second reason is that despite what others want to say, the battery life on the 3G model is noticeably worse than that with the original. The 3G drains the battery faster than does the EDGE network. Walt Mossberg has already reviewed it and said he barely got 4.5 hours out of it.

A third one is features. The 3G really only adds 2 new features. The first of course is the 3G network, and the 2nd is GPS. Yes the 3G network is faster than the EDGE network, but speed isn't everything. And GPS, on a phone, I could take it or leave it, especially since I would really only see it as useful for maybe driving, but i already have a car GPS system. Keep in mind that all the other features like the app store, etc are part of the 2.0 firmware which still will work just fine on the original models.

So while the 3G iPhone doesn't suck by any means, in fact it looks great, especially for someone who doesn't have an iPhone to begin with, for someone like me however; the new iPhone 3G doesn't pack enough of a punch to make me toss my current iPhone for the new model. Maybe in the future with newer iPhone models, but for now, I will be sticking with my current iPhone.

Tags: opinion, iphone, apple

Many people already know my opinion on the current state of copyright laws here in America...they suck, they're outdated, and they cater too much to the copyright holders many times shafting the consumer like you would not believe. The latest item to piss me off was the recent decision by some technologically-impaired judge to order Google to release all logs from YouTube to Viacom. This is complete and utter bullshit. Viacom is currently suing Google over copyright violations on YouTube and initially wanted the source code of YouTube...are you freakin' kidding me? Source code, with the exception of open source, is the bread and butter of any software company...its often what gets the company their money. Fortunately the judge was no so tech-retarded to actually allow the source code to be given to Viacom, but in the meantime, something almost just as bad, if not maybe even worse came of it. All the logs from YouTube including what IP addresses/users watched, uploaded, etc. has been ordered to be given to Viacom from Google. The consumers...us...our activities will now be given to Viacom for them to look over. This could have some pretty big implications. Now I realize that while we all like to believe that on the internet we are anonymous, this is definitely by far, not the case, but for some half-witted judge to say that ALL users, EVERYONE, innocent or not to be given over for what may very well become a witch-hunt is in my opinion crossing way over the line. And this is what bugs me as it happens time and time again, judges, who are clueless about computers and technology, who probably know about as much about computers as my great-grandmother are benched for cases that are so technologically involved, you really do need someone who is familiar enough with technology to be able to properly preside over these cases...it's like me trying to run for President of the United States...I'm simply not qualified. And because of their ineptitude, which to be fair is not really their fault, bad decisions are made and poor precedents are set.

Now I do see where Viacom is coming from, they want to protect their copyrights which is understandable, but the methods they are using to do so, take it too far.

The RIAA and MPAA have long said that piracy has impacted their profits, but they convieniently leave out some details. Lets look at a music CD. Someone goes out and pirates it. The RIAA would say it lost a sale, and lost money because of that one person pirating it. But who's to say that that same person would've actually gone out and bought the CD had downloading it not been an option? With the prices of music CD's nowadays, it wouldn't be suprising to see people become very picky about what CD's would be good enough to buy if piracy were not an option. And if they wouldn't have bought the CD under normal circumstances, did the RIAA really lose a sale?

This brings me to my final point, piracy of anything, while I don't condone, can also help all industries I think, and here's how. Say that same person just pirated that CD and ended up having a little party. During that party, he/she plays that CD. Other people then start liking the CD as well and want to know what band it is...what just happened? I don't know about you, but I call that advertising. Other party guests who may never have heard of the band, the CD, or the song, have now heard it and may very well start to like it, enough to go out and buy the CD. So while the RIAA "lost" 1 sale, it may have gained several more. Now yes, these guests could just ask for a burned copy of it, but it still gets the band's name out there which I'm sure is what the RIAA wants, even though they will probably never admit to it.

And YouTube fits this perfectly, especially for someone like me who rarely even watches TV. Clips from TV shows, music videos, movie trailers, even if not uploaded officially, still get the content out there for people to see and essentially advertising for the copyright holder. Obviously if a full TV show episode or movie is uploaded, that would cross the line, but a 30 second clip, or a trailer for a movie? give me a break. It may be your [Viacom's] copyright, but it still gives you publicity. Oh yeah...and this whole suing Google/YouTube...Well Viacom, its also gives you a lot of publicity...only its not the good kind of publicity, its the bad kind, the kind that will make me and I'm sure many others despise you and avoid you when possible, and maybe even when not possible.

In the meantime, these two videos go back a little ways, back during the writer's strike, but they're a good way to leave off...

Tags: google, youtube, viacom, copyrights

I've gotten very involved with the Mixx site of late, I find it to be a fun site with an amazing community. One thing that I have started to notice is that the occasional spam story gets on, which I actually think is partially good...but not in the way you're thinking. I'm thinking that maybe it shows that Mixx is starting to really make it into the spotlight which is something I would love to see happen.

the point I'm really trying to make is that I've been seeing a few of these stories make it to popular status. I'm sure some of the people who voted for them were spambots themselves, but I have seen some votes in the up direction from seemingly legitimate Mixxers (and Mixxers I have seen around for some time, but I won't name names, you know who you are). This by far should not be the case! I'm sure many others have touched on this, and I know they have, but blind voting does NOTHING to help the Mixx Community. Not to say you should abandon your friends or not vote up their submissions, but read, look at, or watch their submission, don't just vote it up, and especially don't blind vote other stories either. If the title says "how to get free poker chips in online poker", it's probably spam and should be voted down and reported. We all want better quality submissions, so don't just blind vote.

I mean I write this blog to get feedback, to share ideas, to hear other people's opinions, to learn new things, pretty much to make conversation. As much as I would love the votes, I would like feedback more.

I hate going on these rants, so I'm gonna stop now

Tags: socialmedia, mixx, blindvoting

I was recently reading this artcle [lockergnome.org] and this article really annoyed me as I am a rather large supporter or open source, free software, and of course Linux. Linux is still of course behind Windows and OS X, but over the past couple years, it has truly become a viable operating system for the desktop and even the laptop.

My main complaint about this is that it's filled with all these half-truths.

It first starts off complaining about application compatibility with Linux. The truth of the matter is that many applications have a very good open-source alternative. And if you ABSOLUTELY need to run a Windows-only piece of software, wine does a decent job of running most pieces of software. Yes, there are some truths in compatibility problems, but the author of this article over-exaggerates the problems to the point where he makes it sound like EVERY piece of software can't be run under wine. I would've really chewed him a new hole if he complained about Microsoft Office not working on wine with OpenOffice gaining stock value in my eyes.

The second thing he complains about is the command line. Yes, Linux is still heavily based on the command line, but at the same time, more and more tasks can be easily done without even opening a terminal. GUIs and point and click functionality has been increasing in Linux distros to make configuration tasks simpler for the novice user to understand and use, and for the more advanced user, the terminal actions aren't removed, just hidden underneath the surface.

He talks about hardware support and lack of official vendor Linux drivers. Hello? Linux has such a great community that many produce great drivers for multitudes of old and new hardware that may very well end up being better than anything the companies could produce themselves. I myself have had very few hardware problems on any of my computers running Linux, most of the time, all hardware was found and installed just fine under Linux.

DRM. One word that pisses off many upon many a tech user. Yes, sometimes Linux has problems reading DRM'ed content, but so do Windows and even OS X. Problems with DRM are the root of an inherent flaw associated with DRM, and one of several reasons why I hate DRM. Saying Linux doesn't work with DRM is like saying Windows Vista doesn't work with my Pentium 2 processor, its absurd because DRM may not work period, with ANY operating system.

He complains about the saying "Ubuntu just works". I can partially agree with him on this one as Ubuntu may or may not work out of the box. But I will say that he again overexaggerated his point. With the exception of my latest desktop, EVERY computer I've tried to install Ubuntu on has worked right out of the box, with the only thing needing to be done is to install the official nVidia drivers which just took a couple mouse clicks. In fact, Ubuntu recognized all my hardware, whereas Windows XP and Vista needed at least a half-dozen drivers to be installed separately. I was even able to get Ubuntu running on my old Dell Inspiron 4000, wireless and all. My latest desktop does show that sometimes there are hiccups, but at the same time, all problems I had with it were solved with Ubuntu 8.04.

Making the switch to Linux is not something that one can expect to do in an hour, but it does not take months to set up either. In maybe a couple of days, I think even a new user could learn his way around. I would reccommend it to anyone, but at the same time, pushing it on someone is not the best way to spread Linux. If you do want to help someone switch to Linux, make sure you help them as best you can, but also let them do things on their own, that's how people learn, from hands on learning and experimenting.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not trying to bash Microsoft or any other operating system for that matter, I just think that articles that spread these half-truths aren't helping anyone or anything.

Tags: opensource, linux, ubuntu

So I was in Walmart the other day picking up a few things, and I happen to pass by the electronics department. I glance over and see a Blu-Ray DVD player priced at $900. I didn't think anything of it until I got home. I'm wondering why Blu-Ray players are still so expensive even now that Blu-Ray defeated HD DVD in the high definition DVD war. What makes this even more curious is the price of Sony's PlayStation 3. You can go out to the store now and get a 40GB PlayStation 3 for $399.99. The PS3 is Sony's next generation game system but it also acts as a Blu-Ray DVD player, and a good one at that. It plays Blu-Ray and does a pretty good job upscaling regular DVDs as well. I'm just curious what makes standalone Blu-Ray players cost more than the PS3. The PS3 is an advanced game console with more hardware, and more expensive hardware than a simple Blu-Ray player would need. And unlike some players, the PS3 can use firmware updates to allow the everchanging Blu-Ray spec to be fully compatible and playable on the PS3, something that is definitely something to think about with the semi-regular updates to Blu-Ray.

So far I can really only think of one reason for this significant price difference:  Sony's need to keep the price of their game console more in line with that of the XBOX 360 and the Wii. And $900 would probably alienate a chunk of their PlayStation base. So they bring the price of the PS3 down but keep the other Blu-Ray players up in price to help their bottom line.

So in other words, if you want to get a Blu-Ray player, even if you're not a gamer, the PS3 might be the better option unless of course you have the money to spend or you can wait for the prices to inevitably go down (whenever that may be).

Tags: hd, sony, bluray