<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>tuntis's thoughts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thoughts.tuntis.net/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thoughts.tuntis.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Look at us, we&#8217;re green!</title>
		<link>http://thoughts.tuntis.net/posts/look-at-us-were-green/</link>
		<comments>http://thoughts.tuntis.net/posts/look-at-us-were-green/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:21:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tuntis</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Other]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[dreamhost]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[fads]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[global warming]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[green]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thoughts.tuntis.net/posts/look-at-us-were-green/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new fad for advertisement seems to be the claim that your product is &#8220;green&#8221;. Whatever that means - less CO2 emissions or whatever. Carbon neutral? Green?
 I recently noticed this fad by browsing for some web hosting for a &#8220;future project&#8221;. Obviously the first hosts I stumbled upon were the usual oversellers: &#8220;Lunarpages&#8221;, &#8220;Bluehost&#8221;&#8230; [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>A new fad for advertisement </strong>seems to be the claim that your product is &#8220;green&#8221;. Whatever that means - less CO2 emissions or whatever. <em>Carbon neutral? Green?</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://flickr.com/photos/wili/614590890/"><img style="border-top-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin: 5px 0px 0px 10px; border-right-width: 0px" src="http://thoughts.tuntis.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green.jpg" border="0" alt="Grass" width="204" height="138" align="right" /></a> I recently noticed this fad </strong>by browsing for some web hosting for a &#8220;future project&#8221;. Obviously the first hosts I stumbled upon were the usual oversellers: &#8220;Lunarpages&#8221;, &#8220;Bluehost&#8221;&#8230; &#8220;<a href="http://www.dreamhost.com">Dreamhost</a>&#8220;. Dreamhost especially seems to be high on the <a href="http://blog.dreamhost.com/2007/04/20/were-green/">&#8220;green train&#8221;</a>: a while back, their landing page, from what I can recall, was basically full of the sentence &#8220;we&#8217;re green&#8221; twisted into every form possible.</p>
<p><strong>Who honestly cares? </strong>I don&#8217;t. Dreamhost might as well force all their employees to walk to their jobs and make them supply all power to their servers with exercise bicycles. <em>Now that&#8217;d be really &#8220;green&#8221;, wouldn&#8217;t it?</em></p>
<p><strong>I mean, seriously. </strong>I know global warming is a serious issue, but &#8220;being green&#8221; is just cashing off a serious topic. <em>Dreamhost </em>should really consider <a href="http://ecoiron.blogspot.com/2007/01/black-google-would-save-3000-megawatts.html">making the background of their website black</a>, and forcing all customers to have black background-only websites too. <em>It saves power, and thus it makes the world a &#8220;greener&#8221; place.</em></p>
<p><strong>Then again,</strong> there&#8217;s probably a million of <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">blog posts</span> bloggeries already ranting on &#8220;being green&#8221;. Oh well. Now there&#8217;s a million plus one.</p>
<p><strong>Dreamhost even gives you </strong>icons with texts like &#8220;My site is green&#8221; on them. But wait - let&#8217;s assume that your site is running <a href="http://www.wordpress.org">WordPress</a> - the #1 blogging platform on the planet. What if <a href="http://ma.tt/"><em>Matt Mullenweg</em></a><em>&#8217;s </em>car releases too much green house gases? Congrats, you&#8217;re running on <em>&#8220;ungreen&#8221; software, removing your website&#8217;s &#8220;green&#8221; status</em>. ▪</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thoughts.tuntis.net/posts/look-at-us-were-green/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dear Microsoft</title>
		<link>http://thoughts.tuntis.net/posts/dear-microsoft/</link>
		<comments>http://thoughts.tuntis.net/posts/dear-microsoft/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:20:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tuntis</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Computers (in general)]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Information Technology]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[directx 10]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[microsoft]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[vista]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[windows xp]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thoughts.tuntis.net/?p=24</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apparently you&#8217;re going to let XP live longer and longer. Vista hasn&#8217;t been as successful as you have wanted it to be. People still want XP - for many reasons: older hardware, software incompatibilities, or just because they don&#8217;t want Vista.
I&#8217;m using Vista: I&#8217;ve used it for about 9 months now, since buying a new [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.whizkiddreloaded.com/2008/10/xp-stays-alive-for-another-six-months.html"><strong>Apparently</strong> you&#8217;re going to let</a> <a href="http://digitaldaily.info/2008/10/05/rumors-are-flying-that-microsoft-is-extending-the-date-to-downgrade-to-xp/">XP live longer</a> <a href="http://nexus404.com/Blog/2008/10/05/microsoft-extends-windows-xp-availability-ms-bows-to-oem-pressure-xp-gets-6-months-further-stay-of-execution/">and longer</a>. Vista hasn&#8217;t been as successful as you have wanted it to be. People still want XP - for many reasons: older hardware, software incompatibilities, or just <em>because they don&#8217;t want Vista.</em></p>
<p><strong><img style="border-top-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px" src="http://thoughts.tuntis.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/windows-xp-logo-thumb.jpg" border="0" alt="[Windows XP logo.]" width="240" height="169" align="right" />I&#8217;m using Vista: </strong>I&#8217;ve used it for about 9 months now, since buying a new computer. I don&#8217;t really have any problem with it - but <em>if I could, I&#8217;d still be running on Windows XP: after all, it _is_ a lighter OS</em>. Not that it really matters to me, because I&#8217;m running on a quadcore rig with 4 gigabytes of DDR2 memory.</p>
<p><strong>So what stops me? </strong>I&#8217;m an avid <em>video gamer</em>. With Windows Vista, Microsoft introduced <em>DirectX 10</em>, and games that are <strong>Vista-only</strong>. I want the full graphical experience (<em>although most &#8220;DX10 features&#8221; of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis">Crysis</a></em> <em>could be enabled with a tweaked configuration file</em>). And how am I going to play games that are restricted to Vista only in XP?</p>
<p><strong>Vista isn&#8217;t a bad OS.</strong> But there&#8217;s honestly nothing &#8220;new&#8221; in it that I want. I could as well use XP - whichever is OK for me.</p>
<p><strong>But guess what would be a great idea? </strong>Drop the price of XP to something like 20-50 dollars. I&#8217;m pretty sure that a lot of P2P users would even be willing to pay that sum for a good desktop OS, to save them the trouble of removing &#8220;Windows Genuine Advantage&#8221; nags and the <em>activation system</em>.</p>
<p><strong>But then again, this&#8217;ll never happen. </strong>But it&#8217;d be really awesome. ▪</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thoughts.tuntis.net/posts/dear-microsoft/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>YouTube: When content restrictions go too far.</title>
		<link>http://thoughts.tuntis.net/posts/youtube-when-content-restrictions-go-too-far/</link>
		<comments>http://thoughts.tuntis.net/posts/youtube-when-content-restrictions-go-too-far/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tuntis</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Information Technology]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[content filtering]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[content restriction]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[finland]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[geolocating]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[the rasmus]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[youtube]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thoughts.tuntis.net/?p=9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I recently wanted to hear a few songs of the Finnish band The Rasmus. So what did I do? I went to YouTube, which is full of songs, mostly illegally uploaded by other people, but seems like record companies are getting on the train, too. I mean, who honestly fires up iTunes to listen to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>I recently wanted to hear a few songs of the Finnish band <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rasmus"><em>The Rasmus</em></a></strong>. So what did I do? I went to <a href="http://youtube.com">YouTube</a>, which is full of songs, mostly illegally uploaded by other people, but seems like record companies are getting on the train, too. I mean, who honestly fires up iTunes to listen to a 30 second sample of the song, instead of listening to the whole thing in YouTube and then deciding if to <em>&#8220;purchase&#8221; </em>the song?</p>
<p><strong>So, record labels </strong>are getting into this whole &#8220;YouTube&#8221; thing. That&#8217;s great - maybe I can watch higher quality music videos while enjoying the music. But wait&#8230; this sounds too good to be true.</p>
<p><strong>And it is. </strong>Pretty much any modern artist that gets their stuff uploaded to YouTube by their record label is <em>restricted to certain countries</em>. &#8220;This video is not available in your country.&#8221; is a familiar error message to me. Ok, I understand, there&#8217;s probably some slight legal complications, et cetera, et cetera&#8230;</p>
<p><strong>But then&#8230; </strong>Back to <em>The Rasmus</em>. I believe that the video in question is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azpErXezD8M"><em>this one</em></a>. At the moment of writing (4 October, 2008), it still gives me the following error message:</p>
<p style="text-align: center"><img style="border-top-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px" src="http://thoughts.tuntis.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tobehonest-thisisactually-pissingmeoff.png" border="0" alt="This video is not available in your country. [picture]" width="416" height="32" /></p>
<p><strong>Now, keep in mind</strong>, I&#8217;m Finnish. <em>Rasmus</em> is a Finnish band. Of course it makes sense that I can&#8217;t even see videos that should exactly be targeted at <em>my goddamn country.</em> This is starting to get a bit too ridiculous. Or perhaps they&#8217;re so out of hope they need to force Finns to buy the album to even hear the song for the first time in their life? ▪</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thoughts.tuntis.net/posts/youtube-when-content-restrictions-go-too-far/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
