Zune's online store offers far fewer songs, just over two million, compared with 3.5 million for the iTunes store. In fact, as of this writing, songs from one of the big labels, Universal, were missing from Zune Marketplace, though Microsoft says it is confident it will have all the major labels when it launches Zune on Tuesday.
Clearly, Universal stood up to MS, saying "Who do you think you are, Apple? Unless you want your music store to suck and for Zune to be DOA, make with the moolah!"
You're a pussy who is perfectly willing to let people cheat him.
And you are not only a idiot, but a morally suspect one with an attitude. I'd love to see the stats on how many people rate you a "foe" today.
That's why there are anti-trust laws.
No, it's not. Anti-trust laws prohibit anti-competitive behavior. The only way bundling a razor and blade together could constitute anti-competitive behavior is if a company represented a monopoly in the razor market and wanted to use said bundling to muscle in on the diverse blade market.
Clearly Apple is not in anything remotely resembling that situation.
Your morals may tell you to take them, but then you would have the morals of a criminal. You have no "right" to take them. As a matter of law and common sense, it is you who would be cheating the shop keeper by taking his property without permission or compensation.
Keep in mind that, in a free market economy, there is no such thing as a "fair" price. There is only the asking price of many competing vendors. If you paid a $10 for your razor blades, and then later found a place on-line that sold them for $2, you did not get cheated. Assuming the razors are of quantity, you either paid a premium for quality, convenience, and service, or you were too lazy to get off your ass and shop around.
Taking this back to the OP, there are many competitors in the computer hardware and OS markets. If you feel Apple is charging a premium by selling razor and blades together, go buy Windows blades or Dell razors. The only reason you would give money to Apple is if you feel they offer greater quality, convenience, and service, or you're too lazy to get off your ass and research alternatives. Note that in none of these scenarios has anyone "cheated" you.
All snark aside, doesn't it strike you that the message sent by the courts to tech companies with their Apple decision is "You're on your own when it comes to protecting your trade secrets"? That's certainly the message I got, but it could be I've been too cynical.
...we still have to make the case that there was election malfeasance both in 2000 and 2004 - and we have to use means other than people's sympathy for Kerry's loss, since that's not present on the other side.
Yes yes! I don't think I strictly disagree with any of your message, but this, I think, is the key point. I believe there was election malfeasance in both 2000 and 2004. I believe it is important that we make the case for this. But, right now, we are lacking a enough caring people to do anything about it.
The normal methods one employs to get a great many people to care about rigged elections (rousing anger and indignation over the co-opting of one's voice in free society) cannot come in to play here because Kerry didn't win any hearts. People don't care enough about Kerry to care about their Kerry votes. And thus they don't feel disenfranchised by their votes being rigged.
So how do we make this case? What are the "means other than peoples' sympathy for Kerry's loss" that we can employ to get polity to sit up any take notice of the problem?
And yet, I do believe it is true that if the Democrats had managed to run a candidate that anyone really cared about, we wouldn't have to rely on TFA to lay out the case for election fraud. We'd be pissed off enough that our candidate didn't win that we'd delve into these issues ourselves and demand answers.
The fact is, it's proven impossible to get the public concerned enough about the 2004 election results to reach that "critical mass" of outcry that gets the lawyers, reporters, independent investigators, and lawmakers involved. The biggest reason? No one cared about Kerry.
In my own experience, I voted for Kerry because I didn't want Bush to win. When it was announced that Bush did, in fact, "win", I was a little disappointed. But if I'm to be honest with myself (and y'all), I was also a little relieved because I has serious doubts as to Kerry's platform/ability to govern.
My explanation for Steve's sub-par performance can be found on my blog. To sum up? This is just the first sign that Apple's legal troubles (re: the frelled-up stock options) are much worse than they've been letting on.
As I recall, the Golden Age was written as one book. It was the publisher's will that it be split into three novels, perhaps in part because this was Wright's first book, and in part because it's incredibly dense reading.
But you may be in luck. I recall hearing rumors that the three books will be combined into one volume in the near future.
As to the Wheel of Time, there is no comparison to be made between Wright's series and that monstrosity. For one thing, The Golden Age is complete now. You can go and read the whole thing from end to end right now should you choose. For another, Wright wisely decided to finish his series before penning prequels!
Although Star Trek: Enterprise hasn't really rocked at all, it did take a few seasons for TNG to hit their stride.
And it took Firefly how long? About 30 seconds. From only the teaser of the pilot that runs before the opening credits, you could tell it was going to be an excellent show.
UPN, if they were smart, would dump Trek and pull a Buffy, buying Firefly from Fox. They should get it cheep. Fox cancelled it after only 11 episodes. But those mere 11 were enough to hook a fan base big enough to buy out THREE presales Amazon did for the Firefly DVD collection.
Shows that take more than two episodes to hook you are a waste of time. They should be scrapped to make room for those that actually work.
Oh no, the worst sci-fi writing since Lost in Space might be taken off the air after three unbearably long seasons.
In other news, Firefly, widely acclaimed as the best show on TV by the two people who could track down it's illusive time slot was chumped after a scant 13 episodes.
I won't cry for you, Star Trek -- you weren't worthy of the time you got.
In space, no one can hear you freeze...
on
Eating in Space
·
· Score: 0
How could they not have refrigeration!? Don't you get that for free by being in space!?
"Dude, where's the Dews I just brought up here?"
"Ugh! They were all warm, so I hung them out over the dark side of the station for a bit."
In any case, this is the first public attempt at breaking Apple's Digital Rights Management format.
Unless, of course, you count burning the track to CD and then ripping it to whatever format you like. Which, by the by, is much easier than using this so-called "crack" and is perfectly legal under Apple's EULA.
OS X make easy things non-existant! It does them for you, and this is the big benefit of using a mac. Imagine if every little chore you had to do on your linix box that made you sigh or groan just wasn't there anymore. How much more productive or happy would you be using your computer? Considering 80% of my time is spent doing simple stuff, 19% is spent doing hard stuff, and 1% doing impossible stuff, an OS that takes out the easy things and leaves the impossible is a great benefit to me. Of course, your percentages may vary.
No, I'm saying it would be wrong, but not as bad as the TechNewsWorld article because it would only insult a few people instead of a few thousand people.
What few thousand people were insulted? The zealots who have been making false claims and hurting the image of the linux community? Those thousand? Yeah, I think the idea of the article was to call a spade a spade and point out that these people are blowhards. It's hard to do that in a way that the easily offended blowhards themselves will not take exception to.
Who's denying the existence of the OS Agnostic?
Nobody is. What the article is denying is the existance of anybody who isn't either an agnostic, a priest, or a zealot about Linux, and the insulting implication is that if you show a consistent preference for Linux over other operating systems it must because you're in one of the two irrational groups.
Except that it isn't. The article clearly states: I thought it might be useful to share how my perception of Linux has been created over the last several months by a minority of those who back Linux. It's right there above the fold. The groups the author is about to list are a minority of linux users -- only the vocal or squeeky wheels that have influenced the media.
As to the implication that if you prefer linux, you're automatically what the author calls a "Priest", it sounds to me like you're guilty of reading only the first sentence of every paragraph. Amongst the many traits attributed to Priest are:
they are one-sided lectures
they tend to write in dogma
they are long on beliefs but short on facts
contrary evidence is twisted to fit their cause
belief that Microsoft is Satan
unwillingness to acknowledge behavior similar to Microsoft
general pro-linux bias
If you fit all these criteria and are offended by what the article, I say again: boo hoo. You deserve it.
Those that flat-out deny obvious truths that have been shown to them first hand in their effort to blindly hate Microsoft and love Linux are not a benefit to our community.
I agree entirely. The solution to the problem is to ignore those people, not to blindly tar anyone who happens to agree with them occasionally with the same brush.
I can't help but note the hypocrisy in this claim. You say we shouldn't criticize people who happen to agree with some of the zealots' claims. On the other hand, you seem to think it's fine to criticize people who happen to disagree with some of those claims. (rightly) naming zealots as extremists is no greater a crime than (rightly) agreeing OSS has advantages over proprietary software.
I don't understand a thing in your first paragraph. Are you saying my post is similar to speeches given by Hitler? Are you saying Hitler's speeches were famebait? Are you saying if you were to compare my post to Hitler's speeches, the comparison would be flamebait? It looks as though you are saying comparing my post to Hitler's speeches would be wrong but not too bad because it wouldn't deny the existance of the OS agnostic. Who's comparing me to Hitler? Who's denying the existence of the OS Agnostic? You've lost me. Please rephrase.
As to your second paragraph, I don' think he's joking when he claims that linux zealotry will undermine the SCO case in court. And I think he's correct in his assessment. Zealots do not always have the greatest idea of what's going on because their blind faith doesn't require rigorous fact-checking. They do, therefore, say things that are untrue, and it is human nature (and the assumed nature of the court) to think someone who has been caught in a lie will lie again.
I'll give you an example. A linux zealot recently informed me that it was impossible to print to a network printer using only an ip address in Windows. "That's something only lpd can do" he claimed "windows doesn't support open standards like that" (by "that" I assume he meant tcp/ip??). Now I dislike Windows immensely, but the fact that this guy wouldn't even bother to check his wrong-headed claim annoys me more than MS's wrong-headed operating system. When I finally strapped the guy down in the chair and stepped him through setting up the printer, he said "Oh, that must be new, or you must have installed cygwin or something. Windows can't do that."
Those that flat-out deny obvious truths that have been shown to them first hand in their effort to blindly hate Microsoft and love Linux are not a benefit to our community. In fact, because they are extremists that are 50 times as vocal about views only 10% of our community holds, they are often times harmful to the outside world's perception of our community, and therefore harmful to us.
They exist, and they will always exist. But that is no excuse for us pretending like they are a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
They should really name this newly discovered sequence "Bono" — being responsible, as he is, for making Apple's red.
Clearly, Universal stood up to MS, saying "Who do you think you are, Apple? Unless you want your music store to suck and for Zune to be DOA, make with the moolah!"
You're a pussy who is perfectly willing to let people cheat him.
And you are not only a idiot, but a morally suspect one with an attitude. I'd love to see the stats on how many people rate you a "foe" today.
That's why there are anti-trust laws.
No, it's not. Anti-trust laws prohibit anti-competitive behavior. The only way bundling a razor and blade together could constitute anti-competitive behavior is if a company represented a monopoly in the razor market and wanted to use said bundling to muscle in on the diverse blade market.
Clearly Apple is not in anything remotely resembling that situation.
Your morals may tell you to take them, but then you would have the morals of a criminal. You have no "right" to take them. As a matter of law and common sense, it is you who would be cheating the shop keeper by taking his property without permission or compensation.
Keep in mind that, in a free market economy, there is no such thing as a "fair" price. There is only the asking price of many competing vendors. If you paid a $10 for your razor blades, and then later found a place on-line that sold them for $2, you did not get cheated. Assuming the razors are of quantity, you either paid a premium for quality, convenience, and service, or you were too lazy to get off your ass and shop around.
Taking this back to the OP, there are many competitors in the computer hardware and OS markets. If you feel Apple is charging a premium by selling razor and blades together, go buy Windows blades or Dell razors. The only reason you would give money to Apple is if you feel they offer greater quality, convenience, and service, or you're too lazy to get off your ass and research alternatives. Note that in none of these scenarios has anyone "cheated" you.
All snark aside, doesn't it strike you that the message sent by the courts to tech companies with their Apple decision is "You're on your own when it comes to protecting your trade secrets"? That's certainly the message I got, but it could be I've been too cynical.
Yes yes! I don't think I strictly disagree with any of your message, but this, I think, is the key point. I believe there was election malfeasance in both 2000 and 2004. I believe it is important that we make the case for this. But, right now, we are lacking a enough caring people to do anything about it.
The normal methods one employs to get a great many people to care about rigged elections (rousing anger and indignation over the co-opting of one's voice in free society) cannot come in to play here because Kerry didn't win any hearts. People don't care enough about Kerry to care about their Kerry votes. And thus they don't feel disenfranchised by their votes being rigged.
So how do we make this case? What are the "means other than peoples' sympathy for Kerry's loss" that we can employ to get polity to sit up any take notice of the problem?
And yet, I do believe it is true that if the Democrats had managed to run a candidate that anyone really cared about, we wouldn't have to rely on TFA to lay out the case for election fraud. We'd be pissed off enough that our candidate didn't win that we'd delve into these issues ourselves and demand answers.
The fact is, it's proven impossible to get the public concerned enough about the 2004 election results to reach that "critical mass" of outcry that gets the lawyers, reporters, independent investigators, and lawmakers involved. The biggest reason? No one cared about Kerry.
In my own experience, I voted for Kerry because I didn't want Bush to win. When it was announced that Bush did, in fact, "win", I was a little disappointed. But if I'm to be honest with myself (and y'all), I was also a little relieved because I has serious doubts as to Kerry's platform/ability to govern.
Far from not caring, this is what people are demanding. How are HP's actions not just an example of a corporation "adequately pursuing other possible means to identify the source of the information in question"? I can't help but think tech journalists are reaping a little of what they sowed here.
My explanation for Steve's sub-par performance can be found on my blog. To sum up? This is just the first sign that Apple's legal troubles (re: the frelled-up stock options) are much worse than they've been letting on.
Great. Now how about a Mac version!
The computer? Gone crazy? In a BUNGIE game? Surely you jest!
Air pollution in New Mexico has dropped 80% as motorists, waiting for their cars to start, decide to walk instead.
"Ah, fuck it!" said one driver, when asked for comment.
And on the news Apple's stock does...
Nothing!
A technology that is going to save wal*mart MILLIONS of dollars a year and their pushing for its adoption?! What could they possibly be thinking!?
As I recall, the Golden Age was written as one book. It was the publisher's will that it be split into three novels, perhaps in part because this was Wright's first book, and in part because it's incredibly dense reading.
But you may be in luck. I recall hearing rumors that the three books will be combined into one volume in the near future.
As to the Wheel of Time, there is no comparison to be made between Wright's series and that monstrosity. For one thing, The Golden Age is complete now. You can go and read the whole thing from end to end right now should you choose. For another, Wright wisely decided to finish his series before penning prequels!
Although Star Trek: Enterprise hasn't really rocked at all, it did take a few seasons for TNG to hit their stride.
And it took Firefly how long? About 30 seconds. From only the teaser of the pilot that runs before the opening credits, you could tell it was going to be an excellent show.
UPN, if they were smart, would dump Trek and pull a Buffy, buying Firefly from Fox. They should get it cheep. Fox cancelled it after only 11 episodes. But those mere 11 were enough to hook a fan base big enough to buy out THREE presales Amazon did for the Firefly DVD collection.
Shows that take more than two episodes to hook you are a waste of time. They should be scrapped to make room for those that actually work.
Bablylon 5, Farscape, Stargate SG-1, to name a few.
Firefly, Firefly, Firefly!!!!!!
Seriously, if you haven't seen this yet, go out and rent the DVDs. You'll be hooked by the first episode!
Oh no, the worst sci-fi writing since Lost in Space might be taken off the air after three unbearably long seasons.
In other news, Firefly, widely acclaimed as the best show on TV by the two people who could track down it's illusive time slot was chumped after a scant 13 episodes.
I won't cry for you, Star Trek -- you weren't worthy of the time you got.
How could they not have refrigeration!? Don't you get that for free by being in space!?
"Dude, where's the Dews I just brought up here?"
"Ugh! They were all warm, so I hung them out over the dark side of the station for a bit."
In any case, this is the first public attempt at breaking Apple's Digital Rights Management format.
Unless, of course, you count burning the track to CD and then ripping it to whatever format you like. Which, by the by, is much easier than using this so-called "crack" and is perfectly legal under Apple's EULA.
Wayback Machine
no, you miss the point entirely.
OS X make easy things non-existant! It does them for you, and this is the big benefit of using a mac. Imagine if every little chore you had to do on your linix box that made you sigh or groan just wasn't there anymore. How much more productive or happy would you be using your computer? Considering 80% of my time is spent doing simple stuff, 19% is spent doing hard stuff, and 1% doing impossible stuff, an OS that takes out the easy things and leaves the impossible is a great benefit to me. Of course, your percentages may vary.
What few thousand people were insulted? The zealots who have been making false claims and hurting the image of the linux community? Those thousand? Yeah, I think the idea of the article was to call a spade a spade and point out that these people are blowhards. It's hard to do that in a way that the easily offended blowhards themselves will not take exception to.
Who's denying the existence of the OS Agnostic?
Except that it isn't. The article clearly states: I thought it might be useful to share how my perception of Linux has been created over the last several months by a minority of those who back Linux. It's right there above the fold. The groups the author is about to list are a minority of linux users -- only the vocal or squeeky wheels that have influenced the media.As to the implication that if you prefer linux, you're automatically what the author calls a "Priest", it sounds to me like you're guilty of reading only the first sentence of every paragraph. Amongst the many traits attributed to Priest are:
- they are one-sided lectures
- they tend to write in dogma
- they are long on beliefs but short on facts
- contrary evidence is twisted to fit their cause
- belief that Microsoft is Satan
- unwillingness to acknowledge behavior similar to Microsoft
- general pro-linux bias
If you fit all these criteria and are offended by what the article, I say again: boo hoo. You deserve it.Those that flat-out deny obvious truths that have been shown to them first hand in their effort to blindly hate Microsoft and love Linux are not a benefit to our community.
I can't help but note the hypocrisy in this claim. You say we shouldn't criticize people who happen to agree with some of the zealots' claims. On the other hand, you seem to think it's fine to criticize people who happen to disagree with some of those claims. (rightly) naming zealots as extremists is no greater a crime than (rightly) agreeing OSS has advantages over proprietary software.I don't understand a thing in your first paragraph. Are you saying my post is similar to speeches given by Hitler? Are you saying Hitler's speeches were famebait? Are you saying if you were to compare my post to Hitler's speeches, the comparison would be flamebait? It looks as though you are saying comparing my post to Hitler's speeches would be wrong but not too bad because it wouldn't deny the existance of the OS agnostic. Who's comparing me to Hitler? Who's denying the existence of the OS Agnostic? You've lost me. Please rephrase.
As to your second paragraph, I don' think he's joking when he claims that linux zealotry will undermine the SCO case in court. And I think he's correct in his assessment. Zealots do not always have the greatest idea of what's going on because their blind faith doesn't require rigorous fact-checking. They do, therefore, say things that are untrue, and it is human nature (and the assumed nature of the court) to think someone who has been caught in a lie will lie again.
I'll give you an example. A linux zealot recently informed me that it was impossible to print to a network printer using only an ip address in Windows. "That's something only lpd can do" he claimed "windows doesn't support open standards like that" (by "that" I assume he meant tcp/ip??). Now I dislike Windows immensely, but the fact that this guy wouldn't even bother to check his wrong-headed claim annoys me more than MS's wrong-headed operating system. When I finally strapped the guy down in the chair and stepped him through setting up the printer, he said "Oh, that must be new, or you must have installed cygwin or something. Windows can't do that."
Those that flat-out deny obvious truths that have been shown to them first hand in their effort to blindly hate Microsoft and love Linux are not a benefit to our community. In fact, because they are extremists that are 50 times as vocal about views only 10% of our community holds, they are often times harmful to the outside world's perception of our community, and therefore harmful to us.
They exist, and they will always exist. But that is no excuse for us pretending like they are a good thing.
Those results are all so fashionable, it leads me to wonder why they had a poll at all.