DISQUS

That seems a lot like spam and/or Brett baiting. Why not, before you bring up something off topic, discuss something on topic to help encourage discussion on the blog?

How is it Brett baiting? Is it forbidden to mention anything Mac-related?

He was the one saying people should ditch iTunes - I was just pointing out that some good alternatives have become available. Lo and behold, fourthof5 comes asking about alternatives. The ones I posted would be perfect (they sync to iTunes).

I just don't get the Brett thing. Why is it OK for him to rant about Apple and iTunes (with frequent inaccuracies, and a great deal of hostility) - but it's wrong for me to post practical, helpful advice on software - in a calm and reasoned manner?

I even responded to the problems Brett was having with actual solutions - which he ignored, and then called me a troll for simply responding to his points. I just don't get it. Why is help and accurate info looked down on, but Brett's tantrums are overlooked?

As for the Macheist thing - yes, I can see how it looks like spam. That's why I made the disclaimer and didn't post an affiliate link. There are potentially many Boxcutters readers who don't know about it, but could get a lot of use out of the software. It would be unfortunate if they missed the sale and had to pay a lot more (this is just a one-off thing). It was just a helpful hint.

If that was spam, then surely the link to the TiVo site also classifies as spam - or the earlier link to IceTV?

Now, on-topic:

With is "Are You Smarter than a Grade Fiver" any less grammatically correct than "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader"? They are both grammatically incorrect. It should be "Are You Smarter than a Person in the Fifth Grade".

Sorry I didn't have anything to say before. I just don't have much to say about this episode. But I was excited about the free newsreaders thing, and thought it would be useful to Boxcutters. It is an RSS feed, after all.

Slightly off-topic:

One of the best feed readers for Mac, NetNewsWire is now free of cost. It did cost US$30 before. Good news for people looking for an iTunes alternative for the Boxcutters feed. I like how it synchronises feeds across the 'net, so you can use it at work and at home.

They have also made their equivalent reader for Windows, FeedDemon free, but I have no idea how it compares to their Mac product.

Even more off-topic:

For those Mac users not yet aware of it, the annual Macheist software sale is now on. The price is pretty damn good, cheaper than some of the individual apps.

* Note: the above link is not an affiliate link, and I'm not associated with the company.

I'm just mentioning this in case it is useful to someone, and I was really happy with last year's bundle. I'm not associated with the company, and I hate spamming with affiliate links. But if you do plan to buy the bundle and want to give me a bonus app, just ask me for a link.

We now return to your regularly-scheduled Boxcutters.

Invented hypothetical? Where did that come from?

It clearly came from you. In the context of the discussion, the "it" that was getting bad was the idea that TiVo would make people hide the equipment in their own homes.

We covered this at least two times on the show when it was news. Check out Replacing stupid laws with moronic ones or New laws to limit use of TV recording to refresh your memory.

Right, but that doesn't have anything to do with TiVo's beta test, so why the non-sequitur?

The one thing they specify in the Beta signup process is that the user not be an employee or related to an employee of a competitor.

But that's just the sign-up process, an initial screening. That's not the NDA - you sign that if and when you are selected.

I think it would be ridiculously naive of any company undergoing beta testing to assume that there will be no leaks of how their product works.

Sure, they will expect some leaks. But if it got bad, then they could just restrict the beta programme more tightly, or put more onerous conditions on participation. Remember, there's nothing forcing these companies to make their beta tests "open to application" from the general public like this.

The TiVo site said that participants "may" have to give back the equipment. My hunch would be that NDA violations would increase that chance of having to give it back as opposed to getting a freebie.

I wonder, also, if an NDA would expect the beta testers - in their own homes - to hide the box and any screens away from their friends…

It’s starting to sound a little like Ruddock’s video for home use legislation.

What sounds like Ruddock, Brett? That little hypothetical bit you just invented? I haven't read the NDA they require, so I have no idea if it contains anything like that. I would doubt it.

Oh, and while I wouldn't violate an NDA, you're welcome to get me liquored up anytime you like.

Whatever works for you, I guess.

I tend to respect things like that, because it seems like there is a fair exchange going on here. I companies can't trust people to honour these agreements, they may do less of this kind of testing in future. And if Boxcutters becomes a source of leaks - that may prevent any future possibilities between Boxcutters and TiVo (say, giving interviews, or even getting swag for your giveaways).

Having said that, I have no problems using channel bittorrent or disregarding many copyright notices (I never signed anything)... but I'd respect an agreement like this, and take it pretty seriously. It's the difference between jaywalking and lying or going back on your word.

If you get it, you will be under a non-disclosure agreement, so you won't be able to keep the Boxcutters informed,

Was just listening to Brett dropping some funky-n-old-skool choons on RRR, reminded me to check for a new episode.

Though he should be called "DJ Granola" and wear a tablespoon around his neck.

Oh yeah, what does Ms. Hardy have against Mr. Black? He's a stand-up guy!

I actually liked the episode of My Name is Earl where they wrote their own stories. Does that make me a bad person?

It also wasn't pointless. I thought the point was obvious - to get outside the prison setting. As for "out of place" it actually fits in the tradition of an earlier episode where they each had their own stories - "My Name is Randy", etc.

Re: Awards shows & writers

Did they actually negotiate with the writers, or did they just want an "exmeption" as Josh put it? Because if they didn't want to agree/negotiate, then I can see why they got snubbed and World Wide Pants didn't.

Re: Thrush

The classic treatment for thrush is natural yoghurt. It can be adminstered both orally and vaginally. I'm not sure if it also treats sand, however.

Re: I Don't Buy It

What I don't buy is the new ad for Ten HD. It shows a guy walking through some attractive street scenes, and into a beautiful meadow while "I Can See Cleary" plays. In the flowery meadow, he sees an ugly "high-tech" building in the distance. He enters this building, and is now surrounded by bleak white corridors. People wearing white coats surround him, and put him in a reclining chair, and spin him around. He ends up staring at a TV screen with the Ten HD logo on it. The whole thing is very clinical, like a bad trip to the dentist.

The message of this ad appears to be that the world outside is beatiful and colourful - but if you decide to watch Ten HD, this soul-enriching experience will be replaced with sensory deprivation and possible probing by people in lab coats. You'll end up strapped into a chair, Clockwork Orange style with your eyes clamped open.

I can't tell the difference between Bert & Ernie. Their voices are too similar.

Oh, it's not just about cars, either. I believe the presenters all have a background in journalism (at least Clarkson does) and finely-tuned bullshit detectors. There's also the "we're really snarky British curmudgeons, oh so British" thing combined with mock xenophobia, and hilariously twee ideas.

Can you imagine if SBS just picked someone for their expertise in cars? Just think of some Aussie "car enthusiast" or worse, "petrol head" in this role.

Has SBS gone insane? They buy Top Gear, presumably for big bucks - and they don't even have anybody to present it? They're advertising to the general public for presenters?

They obviously have no idea about Top Gear. The show is only a success because of the personalities of the presenters. You can't just find random people, get them to talk about cars, and have it be Top Gear.

As I said a while back, I downloaded some old episodes of Top Gear, and the only thing that it has in common with the Top Gear of 2007 is the personality of Jeremy Clarkson. Everything else was like a bunch of public servants giving a safety and economics assessment.

Top Gear isn't just a generic brand, it became what it is because of a specific personal chemistry among those who make it.

I'll have to remember Pepsi the next time I get shot at. Could save my life.

Guys, don't you realise that you can put hearts on your mobile phone? You can put them on your facebook profile. You can even get Hello Kitty products with hearts on them! So how can they be bad?

PS: Fuck off with the Mac v Windows and whatever else conversations. WHAT.EVER.

It's not a Mac vs. Windows conversation. It's a Brett versus reality debate. I think Brett's the only one treating it as a platform war.

Guys, really. Aren’t there enough places on the web where people fight about who’s operating system would win in a fight with Superman and Spiderman?

Yes, Josh. But that's not what anybody's trying to do here. As I alluded to in my last couple of paragraphs, this might be a unique opportunity to analyse this phenomenon in an intelligent person who we "know" through the podcast.

One typically doesn't get that opportunity in the vast wilds of the crazy internet platform wars.

Let’s talk TV. No Virginia for Media Watch but instead Jonathan Holmes who could bring crankiness, self-righteousness and pedantry back to the screen.

What are your thoughts?

Isn't that the guy with the huge penis?

I’m talking about MacEvangelists in the outside world.

Again, you're talking about a fantasy. For all your talk of cults, it seems to be you who has been programmed into these fairytale beliefs about Mac users. You have totally swallowed the Kool-aid here. This is especially evident in your previous rant where you believe bogus rumours about how Apple is going to force a Safari bundle on you.

What kind of sites are you reading, and who are you listening to, that you are repeating this kind of nonsense?

Truly, I’m platform agnostic. My work necessitates that I work in a Windows environment.

Bullshit. If you're agnostic, why do you have such a warped view of a particular platform? And what the hell work do you do that necessitates a Windows environment? I can't think of any job that necessitates that apart from computer game critic, perhaps.

but I didn’t go around telling Windows users they’re losers who are a danger to themselves and a burden to others.

But who does this? No Mac user that I've ever met. There are many Mac users who listen to Boxcutters. These people are fully aware that you and other boxcutters use Windows. BUT NOBODY EVER SAID ANYTHING. You were the one who came out of left field making bizarre claims about people who use Macs.

You don't have to lookm very far aroiund the 'net to see that the Mac-hating is far more vicious and widespread than any Windows bashing. People may gently rib Windows users once in a while, but it's a far cry from the hysterical lies and trolling that is typical of the Mac haters.

Seriously, I can’t give a shit about who uses what, unlike MacEvangelists (ever meet Frank from the Mac Shop in Flinders Street?) who can’t just shut the fuck up if they find out you use Windows.

No, I have never met Frank. I also tend not to base my views of the world on the behaviour of that alcoholic urine-soaked guy who hangs around outside Young & Jacksons in Flinders street.

If only people like that (and given the point by point rebuffs you post, David, I suspect I’m speaking to one right now) would put the same energy into pressuring Apple to cease following the M$ path of bloatware,

Yeah right. Like we have any power to "pressure" Apple. And the fact is that many Apple fans DO EXACTLY THIS via their blogs. Go read a decent Apple blog sometime. It's not all praise - there is a lot of incisive criticism.

This is another thing you have wrong in your assessment of Mac users - they are extremely critical of Apple, and I have never met these unthinking drones that you speak of.

Please listen to what I’m saying. I can’t be fucked having a pissing competition about platforms and I’m not going to bother entering into this anymore.

Oh, the irony! You have been the one who has not listened to us this whole time. You got some very cogent replies to your last rant, and you ignored them all.

You are the one who has been having a pissing contest about platforms. If you actually read the replies, you might see that. Instead, you seem to be making stuff up and dismissing any replies as "boring".

Myself and other boxcutters addressed many of the problems you were having - but you ignored that. You so ignored the previous conversation that you seem to have forgotten what you said, and have this strange imaginary version of what others said in reply.

Nobody responded in the way you characterised. And your rant was NOT just about the Windows version of iTunes, as you claim. Tell me - what does "proprietary podcast tags" have to do with the Windows version of iTunes? And are you ever going to admit that you were wrong about needing a separate RSS feed for iTunes?

I guess anybody who points out your errors on this topic must be a "Mac Evangelist", huh?

I'd really like to understand where all this hatred comes from, Brett. I've never understood hate of any kind, and I've never understood trolling, or those who choose to believe propaganda. I really would like to understand this phenomenon, as it fascinates me. But any time I come across this irrationality, the person has never been able to hold a proper discussion about it.

The difference is that you generally seem like a pretty rational guy, Brett. perhaps you can hold the crazy in check long enough to analyse and discuss it? or is that too boring for you?

Whaddaya know - looks like I was wrong about the fishing being no good…

So, you admit you were trolling?

Has someone been posting under my name around here or something? I don’t recall ever slamming the entire Mac platform nor claiming the users are deluded or ripped off

You must have a short memory. This is what you said in the comments section to episode #105:

I just wonder how long the sheep-like bleating of the Mac-evangelists will go on before they wake up to themselves and to what Apple are over-charging them for.

Don't you think my summary of your position was accurate? What is "sheep-like" if not deluded? What is "over-charging" if not ripped off?

As to "Mac Evangelists" - it seems that anybody who says anything positive about the platform, or corrects falsehoods about it, is immediately labelled an "evangelist".

What I did do, once, was to write a veritable essay on my complaints about iTunes on the Windows platform.

Except you went far beyond that and said many things that aren't true. If you were just talking about iTunes on Windows, why did you bring the Mac platform into it?

You were the one who started this platform war, Brett. It was never a problem before, everybody was happily using their platform of choice. You chose to cast the first stone.

So, even though you start the fight, you then choose to blame some imaginary people - and claim you are "platform agnostic" in an extraordinary effort at backpedalling.

I find it dull when a MacEvangelist takes it upon themselves to lecture me on how fucking awesome the Mac is and how shit Windows is.

Except nobody did that. In the entire history of Boxcutters, I don't remember anybody lecturing anybody on how awesome the Mac is, nor anybody saying how shit Windows is.

I think these "MacEvangelists" may be a fabrication of your imagination.

Computers are simply tools - like hammers.

Exactly. So, why did you go on about how Mac users are sheep - when everybody else was saying "Calm down, iTunes is just a tool"?

The cult of Mac, the cult of the iPod, the cult of Steve Jobs… you’d think people that can effectively use a computer would have more questioning minds than to mindlessly defend and recruit for Apple. When Jobso comes out with the Kool-Aid, will you ask yourself exactly what it is that you’re sacrificing yourself for?

And this is the heart of the nonsense. The "Cult of Mac" doesn't even exist. It's just a fabrication by haters.

And to be completely clear, none of this is slagging off all the users of a brand of computer - it is specifically about the mindless drones.

So, who in particular are you talking about here?

I’m not interested in expending energy (and yet, look at what I’m doing) on debating it with someone that’s never going to accept any of the valid arguments put forward and come back with “It works fine on my Mac”. Boring!

Again, nobody said that, so who are you talking to?

What happened was that you received very specific rebuttals and answers to you complaints - such as the "Proprietary Podcast tags" gripe. Yet you ignored all of those. You didn't reply to any of the articulate replies you received. Instead you continue deeper into this fantasy of "Mac cults" and other such nonsense.

Nobody on Boxcutters responded with "It works fine on my Mac".

I’m actually platform agnostic

How are you platform agnostic, if you totally slam a particular platform, and say that its users are deluded and being ripped off? Doesn't sound anything like agnosticism to me. Particularly the way you repeat urban myths and FUD verbatim.

David, perhaps there’s a problem with the platform you’re listening to the podcast in that’s leading to the confusion between me and Ross. What are you running it on? Does it handle audio well generally?

Oooooh, bitchy.

Well, I use either studio monitor speakers, or Sennheiser headphones for my audio monitoring needs.

But I'd say the main point of failure in my platform of choice is... ears. Damn those concerts. But I'm not the only one who has problems decoding the analogue signal in wetware. Perhaps I need to hire an 8-year-old to decipher the podcast. That would probably violate child labour laws, though.

I made the point about surround sound, not Brett

Bross strikes again!

I think you completely wrong - I think there will be many many people who say “I’ve got a set top box, why don’t I get the HD channels?”

Sure, but what does that have to do with the surround sound analogy? Re-read my post. Who thinks that an actual TV set will materialise because there is a new TV service?

That's the parallel with surround sound. Even with limited technical knowledge, nobody expects new speakers to appear in their lounge room.

The HD/SD difference is much more subtle and confusing to the layperson than things like surround sound. Plus people have been dealing with surround sound for a lot longer than HD - since DVDs basically.

Running both digital and analogue broadcasts is ridiculously expensive.

Is it? Why? Transmitters cost a lot to build, but adding a signal to an existing transmitter is pretty negligible. And again, once the service is up, it's not going to cost that much to run each month. The costs are mostly up-front.

Therefore it would be cheaper in the long run to give everybody set top boxes and turn the analogue off now.

But it's not that simple. If you live in a rural area, a digital receiver isn't going to do shit. You will likely need a new antenna as well.

With analogue broadcasts, even if you get a weak signal, you can still get picture and sound (even if it has a lot of static). With digital, once the signal drops below a certain level, you get nothing, not just a degraded signal.

Subsidies for digital receivers? Don't make me laugh. I could see it if we paid a TV license fee like the British do. But we've always paid for our own TV sets and VCRs. When VCRs came in, very few people could afford them, but you didn't hear people calling for them to be subsidised by the government.

There is a significant cost difference between SD and HD boxes. The SD boxes are cheap enough that there's no need to subsidise it - like $30 at the supermarket. And HD is not a necessity, it's a luxury, so there's no need to subsidise that.

I think Brett has been a little disingenuos over this whole digital transition. Particularly last week, when he complained that the channel 10 ads were misleading because "you need a surround sound system to get surround sound". That's about as stupid as complaining that "you need a TV to watch TV".

I don't think anybody would think that a new HD service would cause a HDTV to instantly materialise in the living room. So why say that about surround sound or HD tuners, or anything else? People understand that new technology and features means buying more stuff.

Pie in the sky!

Did anyone else hear Red Kezza’s gaff regarding the “ABC, I mean ALP victory”?!

That was particularly cool, because at the time he was referring to Maxine McKew, who of course is a former ABC colleague.

Watching ABC election coverage. I love how whenever they show the seat of Benelong, with former Kerry O'Brian cohort Maxine McKew possibly winning - there are massive cheers coming from the floor. Classic.

Although I wish whoever's phone that is would turn the ringer off and put it on vibrate. So annoying.

I'm going to call it now. Nooooooooo Howardo!