• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 14

My comments

• Let the piracy begin... The incredibly foolisth Authors Guild is going to have a big surprise waiting around the corner for them. Have they learned nothing from the mp3 war? Consumers WILL win, despite their remonstration.
  
  Let us compare their claims, with the film industry. When a viewer watches a movie on DVD, as a general standard these days, they are given the opportunity to hear audio AND read subtitles. Most even offer audio and subtitles in foreign languages too! They are not trying to make more money off of those who cannot hear as well as the average person, which is what the Author's Guild is trying to do. Authors are trying to prey on the, "visually less fortunate." These are the people who do not qualify for help as the blind do, but who still cannot read the words on the page. This means that those book readers have to instead spend more money on audio books, as they are not (yet) declared legally blind.
  
  In the film industry, anyone (despite their disabilities) can either watch or listen to a DVD without any cost difference. This means that they cater to disabilities at all levels, unlike the book industry. Additionally, if we wanted the book in Spanish too, we'd have to buy ANOTHER edition and this is not so with films. What makes the Author's Guild so high and mighty? What makes them any more important than a film industry?!
  
  Nope. This is just plain wrong! As I said, let the piracy begin. The Authors Guild is going to lose this one and lose big. I foresee a lawsuit which will lead to a requirement in packaging both written (in several languages) and audio books (in several languages) in one very reasonably priced package. They shall reap, what they sow. They had better be careful with their demands. They're about to become fewer if consumers get a hold of them. In reply to: "Amazon retreats on Kindle's text-to-speech issue"

  February 28, 2009

  0 replies

• In theory this sounds good. The problem is what it is looking at. Is it only the text of the post, or the entire page to include comments? For example, I could care less about reading Mac posts. I don't have a Mac, I won't have a Mac... you get the idea. Let's say there is a post on a productivity tool. The post might say that it works on both Mac and Windows OR maybe it says only Windows but a commenter posts "hey, it works great on a Mac too." Then I've lost the post. Granted, I suppose I could add a Windows keyword but you see my point. It could turn into a keyword nightmare fairly quickly. In reply to: "Create lean and mean RSS feeds with Feed Rinse"

  November 18, 2008

  1 reply

• It seems apparent to me that Microsoft is scared. All their recent "releases" seem to be Google competition related, which I find amusing. Steve Ballmer likes to bash Google for having only "one product" but isn't it funny how they're trying to run to catch up? They're offering cloud Office and desperately trying to improve their search. What Microsoft isn't getting, is that they weren't LISTENING to their users. That's where they screwed up. All their improvements now are too little, too late.
  
  In this article (http://www.pandia.com/sew/675-microsoft-believes-google-is-a-one-hit-wonder.html), even Ballmer admits that he didn't see the "business model" in search. HELLO?! Users were screaming for a way to actually find something but did Microsoft listen? Ach! What a jerk he is.
  
  There is really not much that Microsoft can ever do to win me back. It would have to be cold hard cash in my banking account or something. Seriously In reply to: "Microsoft promises new search 'instant answers'"

  October 31, 2008

  3 replies

• Excellent post and I couldn't agree more!!!
  
  The most annoying for me, is what the vote lead indicates: Blocker ads. It's SO bad that I deliberately switched browsers for this very reason. I block all ads via the excellent Firefox extension Adblock Plus. It's a shame because it prevents their sponsors from actually sponsoring them, but they asked for it by allowing it. It's also a shame because I shouldn't have to do that to begin with. Intrusive ads are - in my opinion - an invasion of my personal space. It's like someone shouting in my face that I should get new car insurance. Do they really believe that I'm going to listen to that kind of advertising?
  
  Next in line is log ins. I'm with you on that one; there just has to be a better solution. I'm not a Facebook disciple so I can't comment on the way they do things, but I can say that we should have some way to get a global ID.
  
  I dont' have a smart phone, so #4 isn't much of an issue for me and I'm not sure I follow you on #1. Foxnews has an auto-refresh which drives me into insanity. I can't stand it. If you're talking something like that, I'd rather not. In reply to: "Five old-fashioned Web concepts that need to die"

  October 15, 2008

  0 replies

• Why does everyone want to compare it to the iPhone? Why is no one comparing cellular companies instead of phones? To be completely honest here, my choice of a phone lies strictly with who is distributing it. There is not enough money in the world to make me go back to AT&T, who is definitely not customer service friendly. I'd say the majority of everyday average Americans are more concerned with package prices and customer service than any actual phone. Once that decision is made, then the best phone is secondary.
  
  For those who are talking about how it looks.... who freaking cares how it looks?! If it's functionally sound, I could care less what it looks like. It's not a part of my wardrobe, so that doesn't even matter to me in the slightest.
  
  Debating over Yahoo vs. Hotmail vs. Gmail is a silly side issue. Gmail is definitely the king when it comes to better email organization and email search which is really the key for Google. Everything for them centers around searching for information and THAT will be what draws the geek crowd, not looks and not bells and whistles. If users can find things that they need while they're out and about in this world then Google will consider themselves a success.
  
  Will it beat out the iPhone? Probably not. Firefox hasn't beaten IE (yet) but it sure has Microsoft running scared. My prediction is that Google's phone will do the same thing for phones that Firefox has done for browsers and this is a good thing. Microsoft finally began listening to its users and perhaps Apple might do the same, though it's doubtful AT&T will listen. In reply to: "Underestimating Google can be disastrous"

  September 25, 2008

  0 replies

• All the more reason to flee from the iPhone, not that I ever had one to begin with. It's interesting to see that Apple is all of a sudden taking advantage of the NDA. Is it coincidence that Android has been revealed? Anyway, it's too bad that Apple is treating their customers (yes, if developers can't get out the software it is the customers who suffer) so badly. All I can say is that I predict a mass exodus to Android and I can't wait! I have hated ATT for so long and have been a happy T-Mobile user. You can bet your sweet business that I'm going to be getting the gPhone. :D In reply to: "This week in Apple App Store angst"

  September 24, 2008

  0 replies

• I'm still trying to figure out what that creepy picture has to do with the article. I realize it's a wax Laurel and Hardy, but are you trying to compare them to Gates and Seinfeld? Um. I still don't get that part. They're not even closely related. In reply to: "Gates outacts Seinfeld in 'Back to the Future'"

  September 7, 2008

  0 replies

• While dollars are obviously Google's ultimate goal, there is an issue that I've not heard the big G address. How will Chrome sync with Android? The timing of Chrome's release is just so close to Android that it's too much of a coincidence to not believe something bigger is about to come along too.
  
  I have another question too about the recent 3-year plan with Mozilla. Why would Google do this if they're releasing Chrome? To avoid a lawsuit? Does anyone think Mozilla knew about this already?
  
  My head is just spinning with utter shock. I certainly didn't see this coming. In reply to: "Why Google Chrome? Fast browsing = $$$"

  September 2, 2008

  0 replies

• Personally I can't stand MapQuest. There are a variety of reasons, but the biggest one that seriously annoys me is that I can't just drag the map over a tiny bit. I have to click and reload. I swear it feels like I'm still in the 90s. For that reason alone I avoid it like the plague. In reply to: "MapQuest inches toward modernity"

  September 1, 2008

  0 replies

• You know, if I could just have a seriously awesome contacts manager I'd be a happy camper. I know that a lot of phones like to boast of such a feature, but most are seriously lacking. Too many phones have an all or none mentality and those that aren't still lack flexibility in other areas. It would be really cool if I could back up my contacts to something like a flash drive, assign a speed dial to more than one number in a contact (some will allow this, but not all), create shortcuts for certain contacts (there are a few people I send text messages to often, it would be very cool if I could hit *23 - for example - and automatically have a text message addressed to a specific someone) and not be limited to the amount of phone numbers someone has. Today people have a fax number, a cell number, a work number, a home number and even a Grand Central number, not to mention all other kinds of numbers! It's sad, but many cell phones still think you can only have a couple of numbers and you can only categorize your numbers into three groups: work, personal, other.
  
  Then what about extensions? My son's school has an extension for everything. Rather than sit and try and wait for someone to answer the phone at the front desk, when they never do, I'd much rather have his teachers numbers keyed in with their extensions but nooooo! My phone keeps telling me that the number is already in use!!! UGH!
  
  If I could tag my contacts that would even be better. I don't often need a dog groomer and when I need to make an appointment, I can't find the stupid number because I can't remember what the name of the place is. If I could tag it pets or dogs, then I'm in business.
  
  Sorry to go off on such a rant, I just can hardly believe that contacts haven't improved all that much. Admittedly though, I don't have an iphone so I can't compare to that. Still, I don't like being dictated to by a phone maker. I simply REFUSE to use ATT or Cingular (there is nothing they can do to make me forgive them for such bad service) so I'm likely never going to get an iphone.
  
  I very much am interested in Android though. It definitely sounds promising. In reply to: "Android apps: What would you want?"

  August 28, 2008

  2 replies