I recall an old article in a magazine about the new "JPEG 2000" that was going to revolutionize everything; it uses wavelets, IIRC...
However, I have yet to actually use a program that can read (I won't worry about writing) JPEG 2000.
Some technologies are only licensed under such high fees that people just wait out the patent instead -- Smart Cards is an example that comes to mind... But there's Fractal and wavelet image compression, all sorts of things.
I'm personally wondering how many people read TFA, and noted the choice quote:
Ms Moss believes money should be no object when it comes to dressing well.
Ms. Moss was the event's host. She's a "Corporate Stylist" -- corporate clothing is her business.
News Flash! Salesdriod sees a demographic that generally doesn't wear (their) expensive clothes, tries to make those people feel ashamed that they're not spending their money on her wares. More at 11!
They don't make clothing that works out equally well when running cable through walls, poking around above suspension ceilings, crawling under subfloors, and inside the corporate boardroom. What's next? Construction workers the most poorly dressed in the world!
II see plenty of construction workers in offices; but nobody expects them to dress in a way that is anything but utilitarian. Guess what? Plenty of IT workers aren't doing work that is any less hard on clothing.
You're forgetting something: iTunes is the store; Apple sets the price.
It's quite similar to how Wall-Mart forces large companies to change their products specifically for Wall-Mart because if they don't, Wall-Mart will stop selling that company's goods.
It's not easy to keep your job after you tell the stockholders how you pissed away 5% of your total profits in one move, decreasing the value of their stock. iTunes is their fastest growing source of revenue for the music labels; let's toss that away too, shall we?
Jobs has already said (quite publicly) if a label tries to force the price up, iTunes will drop the label. This move will not hurt anybody's bottom line but the music label's; iTunes is at best a break-even operation for Apple.
Unlike a record store, whose income depends on selling music, Apple can quite comfortably afford to tell the music labels to piss off; Apple won't be missing any profits.
It's a similar situation to Wall-Mart: Wall Mart can do just fine without selling Coca-Cola. But Coca-Cola can't tolerate the loss of sales they get from Wall-Mart; their stockholders won't stand for it.
Frankly, Jobs has the music labels by the balls, and the labels know it.
You know, most of the problems mentioned here also apply to the United States, to some degree or another.
In the SouthWest US there is a sizeable number of immigrants from Mexico (whether leagally documented or not). It shouldn't come as a shock to anybody that there is a large (but far from majority) number of 'native' Americans who are angry that the immigrants aren't trying to move from Mexico to the US, but are trying to move Mexico itself to the US. That a large number of the immigrants are not interested in learning/adopting the native language, culture, or politics -- but rather expect the natives to learn and adopt Mexican cultural norms.
(Which is similar to what your post stated).
This large cultural and economic gap (from both sides) could easily turn into a riot, given the proper levels of prejudice and ignorance; toss in a language barrier and watch the fireworks.
There have been more than a few riots in the US over nearly the same issues that France is seeing. In my view, the riots in France have very similar causes to the riots that have been hosted in the US in recent decades. If anything, it serves as an example of how similar the French and American societies are.
5) Nobody cares about the cows, you insensitive clods!
It's hard to care about the cow's feelings when most would sooner eat the cow than listen to it whine about how the grass is greener in the Johnson pasture.
"Ya do'n wanna go cow tippin'? Why fer Bubba-Joe?"
"Because, my good chum, I wouldn't want to hurt this bovine creature's emotional and mental state before I peel off its epidermal layer, butcher its flesh, and serve it to McCustomers."
I think you'll find communism is where everyone is equal.
The problem, of course, is that everyone is not equal. There are no two people on the planet that are 'equal'. Most of human society is centered around emphasizing those differences. (In fact, it's a nearly universal attribute of the male gender in humans is to compete with one another -- to prove that their rivals are not equal.
The fatal flaw of communism is that it attempts to force everyone to be equal -- rather than allowing an individual to rise (or sink) to his or her own level.
There's a difference between having 'equal rights' and being equal. One makes governing a populace considerably easier; the other is a physical impossibility.
Japan isn't communist either; they are one of the most capitalistic societies around. There is a degree of conformity, but that is also offset by a uniquely Japanese sort of individuality as well. (Or have you missed the nearly obscene diversity in their gadgets, clothes, food, cars, clothing, etc?)
One of the lessons I learned about 'uniformity': In cases where a school has a 'uniform' to wear to school, the people who must conform to this rule simply find other methods to express their individuality -- whether the decision is consious or not. In the end, even simple body language is as emotive and individualistic as the clothing one wears. (Which, to me, speaks of the futility of a 'school uniform', but that's just me...)
Seriously, I haven't consumed a more ignorant piece of media since the last time I watched the O'Reilly Factor.
You don't watch the O'Reilly Factor for information; personally, I see it as a dark sort of comedy... It's nowhere near as classy (or entertaining) as "The Daily Show With John Stewart" or "The Colbert Report", though.
But comments like Dvorak's are priceless. Photo editing isn't child's play; its techniques are far beyond the abilities of mere mortals.
We don't have brain surgery DIY kits at Wall-Mart either. Some things will always take a skilled artisan.
But, to someone with the hubris and arrogance of Dvorak, it's just too much to admit you don't have the necessary knowledge or skill.
Pportable video players have never really 'caught on'.
I doubt the new video capabilities in the iPod will be very different in this respect; there have been portable TV's for years, but they have never captured the public's fascination like portable audio.
I doubt Apple believes that the newly-added feature of the iPod will somehow change that market fact. Few people watch portable TV's now; Portable DVD players are largely a novelty.
A decent set of headphones can give you 'big' sound. But nothing is going to change the fact that the screen is going to be small. Glasses with built-in LCD's (that give a 'big' screen in a small package) are quite far from being ready for the same market as the iPod.
I've never seen a TV that brags that it's display is smaller than its competition. Even in the Portable TV market, a larger screen is desirable. One of the things that PSP owners tout as a big advantage over the DS is that the screen is larger.
No, the new video in the iPod is largely because it can be done; it's another bullet-point for consumers to see when making a decision to buy a portable music player. The iPod won't be seen as lagging behind its competition.
The problem is that you keep seeing only the immediate use of the language. However leaning a foreign language is not useful because the immediate need (if you have such need you'll learn the language, like people living in a foreign country) but the possibility of having another tool to communicate when the situation arises.
Americans see the immediate use of the language as being pragmatic; for the vast majority of Americans, the situation will likely never arise in their entire lifetime. Most Americans will never be able to afford to travel outside their own country, and their home isn't of particular interest to foreign tourists to come and visit.
About not being welcome in foreign countries, that's not true. You wouldn't be welcome with the "I care about my culture, screw yours" attitude lots of Americans have.
Well, I think I said in my first post about most of the Americans that visit countries other than their own are the more wealthy Americans - people who generally expect people to bow to their unreasonable demands, and have opinions along those lines. The same demographic also wants to cut off funding for public schools because they don't want to pay for "some poor kid's education."
I'm not too proud of the fact that the only Americans much of the world ever sees is the richest and most arrogant portion of our population. It's only of small comfort that those wealthy snobs won't be causing me any direct grief until they return.
I have considered (formally) learning Spanish; I've done so with what is possible by immersion into the language for about four hours a day for about six months. The first month was the hardest: I wasn't accustomed to hearing the language, how the voice would rise and fall in a sentence, how the conversation would change in pitch and tone; it all seemed rather like a melody of sorts-- so much so that it was like a lullaby much of the time.
And lullaby is about right; it was like a song putting me to sleep. Staying awake and paying attention was hard because it almost seemed more like an abstract kind of music than a language. But as the weeks progressed, I learned an increasing number of the ways that the language was spoken- not the words, or actual data; quite literally as if it were a set of musical rules.
As I became more adept at the different 'music' of the language, I started to rapidly pick up words and their meanings. But all things end, and I had to move away. I now live in the southwest US, where there is a larger population of spanish-speaking people; many of the billboards around my house are even in spanish, as are many of my neighbors. At my last job, I was the only native-born American. In general, I can understand the main concepts of what is being said in Spanish (although not the precice meaning); don't ever ask me to read or write in spanish though...
I didn't learn more spanish at my last job for the exact same reason I learned sign language: The environment was so noisy spoken language was useless; however sign language killed two birds with one stone: Even though we couldn't speak the same language, we could communicate shockingly well with sign language.
The neat part was when we hired a couple of guys who are stone deaf; they were kind enough to teach us proper/standard ways to sign words. I soon found that my biggest problem was that I was trying to hard; most of the signs are embarassingly easy, once you connect them to the meaning.
To this day, whenever I'm in a noisy environment, I find myself signing almost everything I say.
That's something that happens with Argentinians too. It's not that you have the words "American" tatooed on you forehead.
No, but we do have mannerisims that typically give us away... we aren't noted for being quiet or particularly discreet when we speak, (giving the impression we are angry when we thought we were being quiet).
It's a classical trap of using censorship to abolish censorhip. "If we censor the software makers, we'll get rid of censorship in these regimes."
It comes down to this: Many a hacker consider code as a form of free speech, and that they have the right to excersize their right of free speech how they choose.
If these companies aren't forbidden to write (and sell) their wares and views as they choose, how is it any different from censoring inflammatory political speech and propaganda?
It's not illegal for somebody to use their right of free speech to make a case for censorship. Sure, its paradoxical, but it's not illegal.
Yeah; I agree entirely on the free speech zones being sickening. It's a great case where Lawyers have been successful in creating a situation in which it's impossible to avoid lawsuits. Sure, its good for the lawyer's job security, but it sucks for the rest of us.
OTOH, there are a few people who take their right to free speech a bit too far; it's rather uncivilized to scream '@#$% whore' at a new bride the instant she leaves the chapel. (Sure, in a single case it could be a disgruntled ex; but doing this indiscriminately to everybody, for weeks on end?)
Radio spectrum is largely considered as public as the city hall, and is held to the same standards; police can and will arrest and/or fine somebody who walks around a city naked ('free speech' or no). I doubt there are many countries that differ in this behavior.
There is also little distinction drawn between a live person expressing nudity on a city street, or a public advertisement doing the same. (in the US, I mean)
As for commercial and public pressure -- it's still quite true. There is absolutely nothing (legally) from keeping a cable TV network from using hardcore porn to advertise on its network; the cable network is not a public property. But you can be sure that the cable company would lose more customers (and money) than they could hope to gain by doing so.
It's also cheaper to go with the status quo than it is to challenge what little (content) regulation exists. Gradual change is almost always cheaper than sudden change, and companies are in the business of profit.
As I just said -- stores are known to pull magazines (and other goods) from their shelves to avoid customer backlash; that's not censorship -- the store is a private entity, and is free to choose not to sell something.
Government censorship isn't really the issue; it's the censorship of the public at large (whom write letters of 'outrage' to public officials, who feel they have to act in order to improve their approval rating) that is the issue. Then the courts strike down the cowtowing of the elected officials. It's all part of the great circle of life...
By the way -- the Internet is not considered a publically owned resource in the U.S.; it's owned by the various companies that own the networks and have laid the cable, and by the companies that own the servers. As such, it doesn't have to meet the standards of 'public decency' that broadcast TV has to meet.
But If the US airwaves are censored by self controlling corporate interests obeying free market principles, then why did the FCC (a govt agency IIRC) issue fines for the Janet Jackson thing
Primarily because (at least here) the radio spectrum is considered a public property (much like a city street). Broadcasters are merely leasing the space for commercial use. As a public property, the radio spectrum is still governed by a similar set of laws; ie. 'public indecency' still applies.
There's also the issue of 'due dilligence' on the part of the broadcasters -- it's quite possible now to have a 3-4 second delay for a 'live' TV feed to make a 'panic' button possible should something happen on 'live' TV that wouldn't make it past regulations for the public airwaves.
There's also the matter of Supreme Court decisions stating that 'Free Speech' doesn't extend into certain areas (ie. shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater as the classic example; 'pornography' is one of them).
For an excellent review of the rulings (espescially what constitutes pornography), I suggest "America: The Book. A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction."
It's also true that many grocery stores and supermarkets pull magazines from their stores, as well as hide the magazine's cover (so as to not offend their customers with a picture of an unnaturally disproportionate woman).
I've seen boycotts of stores who refused to do buckle to customer pressure in this way, so it's not a hollow argument by any stretch of the imagination.
I've also seen posts complaining about 'free speech zones', and rightly so. It's mostly an artifact of local (ie. city) governments trying to avoid legal expenses: they're literally in a position of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" in most cases where 'free speech zones' are created.
They're damned if they do because, well, it's obviously freedom of speech thing.
They're damned if they don't because they can't guarantee the safety of everyone excersizing their right to free speech; the city gets sued when some hothead with a different viewpoint (and far less tact) throws a rotten tomato at the guy speaking. (in other words, the city gets sued while the actual criminal goes entirely unpunished because the police weren't around to arrest him on the spot).
There are also cases where a speaker attempts to claim that free speech includes the 'right' to assault a passerby who ignores the speaker has to say. (Again, the city gets held responsible because the guilty party conveniently vanishes).
So the cities try to reach a compromise: Create 'free speech zones' in known, defined areas, and keep a police force nearby to at least attempt to keep the peace; it still allows the people to speak their minds, and attempts to keep them safe from each other's indescretions.
Yes, it sucks, but the police can't be everywhere all the time; and so long as the city can be sued for the absence of the police, it's going to be a problem.
But honestly: Read "America: The book" It's quite difficult to tell where fact ends and comedy begins, but that's the entire point of the book.
In that case nobody in Argentina would speak English, since you could travel a couple thousands of kilometers and not find an English speaking country
The problem is you imply that there are no Americans that speak any language other than English; something that is about as laughable as saying Argentines can't speak anything but Spanish.
I already stated that most Americans do study a language other than their own.
I also stated the reason most don't speak them is because we forget it -- because there isn't any practice and/or need. I studied German for a number of years, but haven't met many in my travels -- and I'll probably never have enough money to visit Germany. In fact, most of the Germans I have met insist on speaking in English; which pretty much sucks for me, since I wanted to learn German.
True, we don't need to leave our country to write letters to other places in the world -- but we do need somebody to write to. I've only done business (directly) with 2 or 3 companies that aren't in the U.S. What am I supposed to do? Write a letter to 'Fraulein in Deutschland' and expect a reply?
Americans have no problems learning other languages -- in my state it was a requirement to have studied a foreign language for a few years in order to be admitted to a state university.
One of my brothers lived in Japan for a few years; another in Russia. Both spoke the local language fluently. Both have nearly forgotten the respective languages entirely, simply because they've had no real opprotunities to use the language since then. Hell, my grandmother is German, and she's nearly forgotten her native language -- because she doesn't use it.
Don't believe that Americans don't speak languages because we don't want to, or don't have the ability. It quite literally is because there is no practical day-to-day use of the knowledge. And if you don't use it, you lose it.
I honestly know more sign-language than German now, because I actually use sign language; it has a practical value to me. German, while interesting, hasn't provided me with any practical value; it has given me no utility. Even the Spanish I've picked up over the years is more useful to me than the language I studied in school.
I'd be grateful in your place -- that learning a language that is not your native tongue has become truly useful for you. I felt no small amount of jealosy towards some of the people I went to college with -- whom spoke eight or more languages. But I would never be welcomed into their home countries; not for any personal attributes, but simply because of where I was born.
But the simple fact is that there is no utility for me to learn a new language. I don't need to, there's nothing I need to do in life that would require it. It has nothing to do with desire; it has to do with futility.
(and remember, the US might be big, but it's small compared to south america). You might want to check your facts: South America is a continent; not a country. It would be like comparing North America to South America (Considering most Canadians speak English as well). And IIRC, all of South America doesn't speak the same language either (Although Portugese and Spanish are somewhat similar) Try cracking open an Atlas: (Encarta googled up first:) Land mass: North America: 23.7 million sq km. South America: 17.8 million sq km Population: North America: 515 million South America: 371 million The population of the U.S alone is 296 million, or roughly 80% of the population of all of South America.
If you want to make an assertation, do it with real facts, not with a 'fact' you just made up.
Don't worry; I won't hold your actions as stereotypical for Argentina; I know better. That and I'm still feeling quite respectful of the way they stomach mate; the stuff just makes me feel ill (and I'm willing to try just about any food).
English is commonly used in places like France and Germany.
One of the reasons Americans typically speak only English: There isn't a need. If I pick any horizontal direction and move 500 miles, I'm going to be speaking English.
Most of Canada speaks English. (although it may not be the primary language in some areas).
As you move closer to Mexico, an increasing number of Americans speak Spanish. (And I'm not talking about imigrants; just your average joe six-packs.) Unsuprisingly, the number of native-born americans who speak non-english languages only increases when that knowledge is of practical use.
A great many Americans have studied non-English languages; but since they have nearly no chances (or reason) to use that language, they eventually forget the language entirely. It's not a point of arrogance; but of pragmatism. To most Americans, if something is of no everyday, practical use, it's rarely seen as valuable.
It's easy to forget that the US has deserts larger than most European countries. That there are roads in which you can drive over 100 miles before seeing any kind of animal life (usually another human, in a car, moving the opposite direction). And in spite of this vast emptiness of space, at the other end, you'll be speaking English.
If that happens, some people will inevitably patch their DNS resolvers so that everything under ICANN's root will go under ".us" (e.g. google.com.us or google.de.us), and everything under the EU's root will go under ".eu").
Which of course brings the problem that a good many web sites will then be broken for no good reason (including slashdot).
Intentionally breaking large parts of the internet out of political spite isn't a good thing.
Which is traditionally an excuse used by those who would clamp down on freedom of speech.
No, it has to do with 'the almighty dollar'; simple economics.
Americans fully recognize that a company's freedom of speech includes how they choose to advertise. Americans also fully recognize that there's nothing wrong with excersizing our freedom of speech by modifying our buying habits in protest should we disagree with how a company decides to advertise. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from disagreement.
The companies make more money if they don't go about pissing off potential customers.
The other thing I dislike is the way advertisers insist upon per-click advertising.
I never click on ads. The best possible case is that I see and ad, think 'hmmm...' and then google for the company's website for more. (As well as dissenting opinions).
So pay-per-click is advertisers wanting 'proof' that people are listening; the company who contracts out to an ad agency doesn't get the info, so I have no qualms with them not getting it.
Back in the early '90s, we used to buy Computer Shopper magazine *specifically* *because* of the ads. That thing was at least 2 inches thick; not like today's version.
I recall a History Channel documentary; it mentioned the significance of the Sears Roebuck catalog in American History. Apparently, it was a common practice to use its pages to wipe one's backside after unloading. (This was pre-toilet paper). The Sears Catalog was kept near the commode, and one of its sheets was torn off whenever necessary. One of the big 'features' of the early Sears catalogs was the paper, which was non-glossy, softer, and more absorbant than the glossy paper that replaced it in later catalogs.
I also recall that the ad-laden Computer Shopper of old was made of sheet after sheet of non-glossy, absorbant paper.
I'm willing to pay for a good product that is also offered for free (but with ads).
Examples: Opera, before they gave out free beer Slashdot User Friendly
It's a sign that advertising has gotten out of hand when people are willing to fork over money so they don't get advertising inflicted upon them.
Lay off the animations, the garish colors, the annoying flashing, the pathetic attempts to make the ad look like a regular program. Don't EVER allow the ad to get in my way, don't EVER demand my attention. I can assure you, I make it a point to never buy a product from that manufacturer or make use of the service offered if an ad breaks these rules.
Magazines know better than to put an ad smack in the middle of an article. So do Newspapers. They put the ads at the edges of the page. They leave the article entirely unobstructed with advertisements. I don't have to find where the text continues because some nitwit put an ad in the middle of a sentence.
TV doesn't have a picture-in-picture (with audio!) showing ads continually during the program; advertising breaks cleanly from the content, like the separation of acts in a play. (Sure, they do 'product placement'; but I have yet to see the cast of CSI carry on about about the cool, refreshing taste of Coca-Cola).'
The web has the tools to help me find the products I'm looking for. If I'm interested, then I'll use them to learn more. Commercial products are quite a bit like restraunts: the best ones are all too frequently not well-known advertized shops; but rather from some crack in the wall I stumbled into while avoiding the rain.
Stop assuming that I even have the slightest interest in your product, because I most certainly don't. My suggestions:Offer your product for review in a trade publication, make it easier for me to get your crap should I decide to trade money for it.
And never, ever, for even a second, delude yourself that I actually believe any part of the contents of your advertisement.
Advertisements are merely fodder for laughs, allowing me to muse how insane some marketer's perception of a consumer is.
The way to get the music companies to charge less is to buy less, and let the marketplace force them to charge a price that consumers find more reasonable.
People have found music prices unbearable. They bought less music. Much less music. So much less music that the recording industry has spent millions to reinforce their own delusions. (Perhaps you've heard of a few?)
The music industry chose to believe that the quality and price of current music isn't the problem, rather choosing the belief that the fault lie not with the prices and product the industry produced.
The music industry chose to believe that the problem lie with the consumers, and with 'piracy'.
Apple computer comes along, and begins selling music online -- in an easy to use, relatively fair system. The music industry sings Apple's praises, temporarily dropping their obsession with 'subscription' based online music. Then they start their own music services; Napster, for example, is owned by the recording industry; Sony/BMG IIRC, but that was a while ago.
And the recording industry starts to try to hike up the prices and force a 'subscription' service on its customers. People leave Napster and join the Apple camp, and the Apple store dominates the industry. In spite of the massive amount of profits that iTunes generates for the recording industry (which is pure profit -- it costs them nothing to let Apple do all the work for them), they attack their 'savior', deciding that Apple's current prices are 'too low.'
All the while ignoring these simple facts: iTunes sells music:
* For a substantially lower cost than the recording industry.
* Music is $5-8 less per album.
* Customers aren't forced to buy an entire album for one song.
Essentially what the music industry wants to do is raise the price of buying music on iTunes to the price point that a CD has: $15-18 per album.
iTunes success isn't about the iPod. Most of the iTunes users I know of don't even have an iPod. They bought their music from iTunes because they got the music at a fair price, and could even burn the music to a CD (and re-rip it to another format) should they choose to. (Interestingly enough, the iPod did just fine before the iTunes Music Store; I'm convinced it would still dominate the industry even if the iTunes store never existed).
iTunes success stems from the fact that Apple offered the product for a price and condition consumers deemed was acceptable; something that is not true of buying CD's from a music store, or from the non-industry owned music services. (ie. Napster)
The music industry just wants to raise prices, and then blame everybody but themselves when consumers (literally) don't buy it. They persist in blaming everybody but themselves, their prices, their policies.
For its faults, the Motion Picture industry has at least admitted ticket sales have been sluggish recently because their product wasn't worth what they were charging for it. (Not that they think they were charging too much -- rather than their product sucked).
So no, the music industry does want more than they can get; when they don't get what they want, they come up with scapegoats and call their lawyers. They try to shut down everybody who disagrees with them. Which is silly, considering the entire American music industry is smaller than some of the companies they are offending (ie. Microsoft, Apple)
You know, I bought a mac mini about a week ago as well. Except that I didn't get the faster CPU, or more video memory, or the faster drive. I'm somewhat unhappy about it, but frankly, if I wanted a performance machine I wouldn't have gotten a Mac Mini to begin with.
It's perfectly adequate for the things I am using my Mini for: iTunes, iPhoto, and having fun with my first Macintosh. I never intended to use the thing to play the latest/greatest video games with -- the Mac Mini isn't supposed to fill that niche anyway.
But considering I'm starting to grow tired of video games in general (which is mainly scary in that I might be growing up or somethin'.), I haven't booted my 'PC' for days (and the only times I did was to transfer some data from it to my new Mini).
It's weird... When I was all about video games, the hottest hadware wasn't enough. Now a 'budget' computer like a Mac Mini is all I really have much need for.
While the transition from Linux and various other Unix-like OSes hasn't been painless, it is certainly more agreeable than booting back to a Wintendo environment, even if it is only to play the latest video game until the Wintendo manages to BSOD on me.
To be honest, the different behavior of the 'home' and 'end' keys on a Mac is of far greater annoyance to me than the fact that I bought a 'top of the line' Mini and found out that there are people who are buying the same specs as me, but getting a nicer system.
I had no idea how much the OS X behavior on the 'home' and 'end' keys would bother me (of course, I thought there wouldn't be a difference). I remember reading how to customize it so the keys do what I'm used to expecting them to do... just have to find it.
All in all, if my biggest gripe about my Mini experience (including the phantom 'upgrade' which I didn't benefit from) is the 'home' and 'end' keys acting differently than I'm accustomed to... I doubt many others would care either.
Seriously... a Mini isn't a performance rig; it performs quite well for what I ask of it; I didn't buy a high end system... more like the best from the bottom of the performance curve.
It's just hard to feel upset when I knowingly bought a less powerful system than the PC I already had... and haven't even used my PC much since.
I have no problem with Sony signing your favorite garage band. Their music is uninspired and uninteresting.
An attractive person that will do anything (including 'singing' until my ears bleed) for money -- that's something money just can't buy.
My personal favorite is when a record company thinks that any of their customers care about which label it is. "Our brand(tm) of music is what customers really want."
I don't recall ever deciding on whose music I would buy because of the record label attached; yet the 'brand name' is among the most important things to many of the big label's persona -- not the artists, or the music... the people who run the printing press... that's what's important in the eyes of the recording companies..
By changing one line of code, those four months can be expanded to a full year.
Versus until I either decide to sell a printed book, or until the paper decays to the point it crumbles when I open the book.
I still find myself using my college textbooks from time to time, and whenever I do, I silently thank the suggestion to hold on to my books every time I do; it was probably among the better bits of advice I've ever been given.
That's the problem with the entire line of thought: They want to force you to keep paying for the book. I have no illusions about the ebook costing much less either.
Slashdot Mirror
I recall an old article in a magazine about the new "JPEG 2000" that was going to revolutionize everything; it uses wavelets, IIRC...
However, I have yet to actually use a program that can read (I won't worry about writing) JPEG 2000.
Some technologies are only licensed under such high fees that people just wait out the patent instead -- Smart Cards is an example that comes to mind... But there's Fractal and wavelet image compression, all sorts of things.
I'm personally wondering how many people read TFA, and noted the choice quote:
Ms Moss believes money should be no object when it comes to dressing well.
Ms. Moss was the event's host. She's a "Corporate Stylist" -- corporate clothing is her business.
News Flash! Salesdriod sees a demographic that generally doesn't wear (their) expensive clothes, tries to make those people feel ashamed that they're not spending their money on her wares. More at 11!
They don't make clothing that works out equally well when running cable through walls, poking around above suspension ceilings, crawling under subfloors, and inside the corporate boardroom. What's next? Construction workers the most poorly dressed in the world!
II see plenty of construction workers in offices; but nobody expects them to dress in a way that is anything but utilitarian. Guess what? Plenty of IT workers aren't doing work that is any less hard on clothing.
You're forgetting something:
iTunes is the store; Apple sets the price.
It's quite similar to how Wall-Mart forces large companies to change their products specifically for Wall-Mart because if they don't, Wall-Mart will stop selling that company's goods.
It's not easy to keep your job after you tell the stockholders how you pissed away 5% of your total profits in one move, decreasing the value of their stock. iTunes is their fastest growing source of revenue for the music labels; let's toss that away too, shall we?
Jobs has already said (quite publicly) if a label tries to force the price up, iTunes will drop the label. This move will not hurt anybody's bottom line but the music label's; iTunes is at best a break-even operation for Apple.
Unlike a record store, whose income depends on selling music, Apple can quite comfortably afford to tell the music labels to piss off; Apple won't be missing any profits.
It's a similar situation to Wall-Mart: Wall Mart can do just fine without selling Coca-Cola. But Coca-Cola can't tolerate the loss of sales they get from Wall-Mart; their stockholders won't stand for it.
Frankly, Jobs has the music labels by the balls, and the labels know it.
You know, most of the problems mentioned here also apply to the United States, to some degree or another.
In the SouthWest US there is a sizeable number of immigrants from Mexico (whether leagally documented or not). It shouldn't come as a shock to anybody that there is a large (but far from majority) number of 'native' Americans who are angry that the immigrants aren't trying to move from Mexico to the US, but are trying to move Mexico itself to the US. That a large number of the immigrants are not interested in learning/adopting the native language, culture, or politics -- but rather expect the natives to learn and adopt Mexican cultural norms.
(Which is similar to what your post stated).
This large cultural and economic gap (from both sides) could easily turn into a riot, given the proper levels of prejudice and ignorance; toss in a language barrier and watch the fireworks.
There have been more than a few riots in the US over nearly the same issues that France is seeing. In my view, the riots in France have very similar causes to the riots that have been hosted in the US in recent decades. If anything, it serves as an example of how similar the French and American societies are.
5) Nobody cares about the cows, you insensitive clods!
It's hard to care about the cow's feelings when most would sooner eat the cow than listen to it whine about how the grass is greener in the Johnson pasture.
"Ya do'n wanna go cow tippin'? Why fer Bubba-Joe?"
"Because, my good chum, I wouldn't want to hurt this bovine creature's emotional and mental state before I peel off its epidermal layer, butcher its flesh, and serve it to McCustomers."
I think you'll find communism is where everyone is equal.
The problem, of course, is that everyone is not equal. There are no two people on the planet that are 'equal'. Most of human society is centered around emphasizing those differences. (In fact, it's a nearly universal attribute of the male gender in humans is to compete with one another -- to prove that their rivals are not equal.
The fatal flaw of communism is that it attempts to force everyone to be equal -- rather than allowing an individual to rise (or sink) to his or her own level.
There's a difference between having 'equal rights' and being equal. One makes governing a populace considerably easier; the other is a physical impossibility.
Japan isn't communist either; they are one of the most capitalistic societies around. There is a degree of conformity, but that is also offset by a uniquely Japanese sort of individuality as well. (Or have you missed the nearly obscene diversity in their gadgets, clothes, food, cars, clothing, etc?)
One of the lessons I learned about 'uniformity': In cases where a school has a 'uniform' to wear to school, the people who must conform to this rule simply find other methods to express their individuality -- whether the decision is consious or not. In the end, even simple body language is as emotive and individualistic as the clothing one wears. (Which, to me, speaks of the futility of a 'school uniform', but that's just me...)
Seriously, I haven't consumed a more ignorant piece of media since the last time I watched the O'Reilly Factor.
You don't watch the O'Reilly Factor for information; personally, I see it as a dark sort of comedy... It's nowhere near as classy (or entertaining) as "The Daily Show With John Stewart" or "The Colbert Report", though.
But comments like Dvorak's are priceless. Photo editing isn't child's play; its techniques are far beyond the abilities of mere mortals.
We don't have brain surgery DIY kits at Wall-Mart either. Some things will always take a skilled artisan.
But, to someone with the hubris and arrogance of Dvorak, it's just too much to admit you don't have the necessary knowledge or skill.
"60 year old, gregarious, heavy smoker". Methinks nature will take him out soon enough.
That's what they said of George Burns.
Pportable video players have never really 'caught on'.
I doubt the new video capabilities in the iPod will be very different in this respect; there have been portable TV's for years, but they have never captured the public's fascination like portable audio.
I doubt Apple believes that the newly-added feature of the iPod will somehow change that market fact. Few people watch portable TV's now; Portable DVD players are largely a novelty.
A decent set of headphones can give you 'big' sound. But nothing is going to change the fact that the screen is going to be small. Glasses with built-in LCD's (that give a 'big' screen in a small package) are quite far from being ready for the same market as the iPod.
I've never seen a TV that brags that it's display is smaller than its competition. Even in the Portable TV market, a larger screen is desirable. One of the things that PSP owners tout as a big advantage over the DS is that the screen is larger.
No, the new video in the iPod is largely because it can be done; it's another bullet-point for consumers to see when making a decision to buy a portable music player. The iPod won't be seen as lagging behind its competition.
The problem is that you keep seeing only the immediate use of the language. However leaning a foreign language is not useful because the immediate need (if you have such need you'll learn the language, like people living in a foreign country) but the possibility of having another tool to communicate when the situation arises.
Americans see the immediate use of the language as being pragmatic; for the vast majority of Americans, the situation will likely never arise in their entire lifetime. Most Americans will never be able to afford to travel outside their own country, and their home isn't of particular interest to foreign tourists to come and visit.
About not being welcome in foreign countries, that's not true. You wouldn't be welcome with the "I care about my culture, screw yours" attitude lots of Americans have.
Well, I think I said in my first post about most of the Americans that visit countries other than their own are the more wealthy Americans - people who generally expect people to bow to their unreasonable demands, and have opinions along those lines. The same demographic also wants to cut off funding for public schools because they don't want to pay for "some poor kid's education."
I'm not too proud of the fact that the only Americans much of the world ever sees is the richest and most arrogant portion of our population. It's only of small comfort that those wealthy snobs won't be causing me any direct grief until they return.
I have considered (formally) learning Spanish; I've done so with what is possible by immersion into the language for about four hours a day for about six months. The first month was the hardest: I wasn't accustomed to hearing the language, how the voice would rise and fall in a sentence, how the conversation would change in pitch and tone; it all seemed rather like a melody of sorts-- so much so that it was like a lullaby much of the time.
And lullaby is about right; it was like a song putting me to sleep. Staying awake and paying attention was hard because it almost seemed more like an abstract kind of music than a language. But as the weeks progressed, I learned an increasing number of the ways that the language was spoken- not the words, or actual data; quite literally as if it were a set of musical rules.
As I became more adept at the different 'music' of the language, I started to rapidly pick up words and their meanings. But all things end, and I had to move away. I now live in the southwest US, where there is a larger population of spanish-speaking people; many of the billboards around my house are even in spanish, as are many of my neighbors. At my last job, I was the only native-born American. In general, I can understand the main concepts of what is being said in Spanish (although not the precice meaning); don't ever ask me to read or write in spanish though...
I didn't learn more spanish at my last job for the exact same reason I learned sign language: The environment was so noisy spoken language was useless; however sign language killed two birds with one stone: Even though we couldn't speak the same language, we could communicate shockingly well with sign language.
The neat part was when we hired a couple of guys who are stone deaf; they were kind enough to teach us proper/standard ways to sign words. I soon found that my biggest problem was that I was trying to hard; most of the signs are embarassingly easy, once you connect them to the meaning.
To this day, whenever I'm in a noisy environment, I find myself signing almost everything I say.
That's something that happens with Argentinians too. It's not that you have the words "American" tatooed on you forehead.
No, but we do have mannerisims that typically give us away... we aren't noted for being quiet or particularly discreet when we speak, (giving the impression we are angry when we thought we were being quiet).
It's a classical trap of using censorship to abolish censorhip. "If we censor the software makers, we'll get rid of censorship in these regimes."
It comes down to this: Many a hacker consider code as a form of free speech, and that they have the right to excersize their right of free speech how they choose.
If these companies aren't forbidden to write (and sell) their wares and views as they choose, how is it any different from censoring inflammatory political speech and propaganda?
It's not illegal for somebody to use their right of free speech to make a case for censorship. Sure, its paradoxical, but it's not illegal.
Yeah; I agree entirely on the free speech zones being sickening. It's a great case where Lawyers have been successful in creating a situation in which it's impossible to avoid lawsuits. Sure, its good for the lawyer's job security, but it sucks for the rest of us.
OTOH, there are a few people who take their right to free speech a bit too far; it's rather uncivilized to scream '@#$% whore' at a new bride the instant she leaves the chapel. (Sure, in a single case it could be a disgruntled ex; but doing this indiscriminately to everybody, for weeks on end?)
Radio spectrum is largely considered as public as the city hall, and is held to the same standards; police can and will arrest and/or fine somebody who walks around a city naked ('free speech' or no). I doubt there are many countries that differ in this behavior.
There is also little distinction drawn between a live person expressing nudity on a city street, or a public advertisement doing the same. (in the US, I mean)
As for commercial and public pressure -- it's still quite true. There is absolutely nothing (legally) from keeping a cable TV network from using hardcore porn to advertise on its network; the cable network is not a public property. But you can be sure that the cable company would lose more customers (and money) than they could hope to gain by doing so.
It's also cheaper to go with the status quo than it is to challenge what little (content) regulation exists. Gradual change is almost always cheaper than sudden change, and companies are in the business of profit.
As I just said -- stores are known to pull magazines (and other goods) from their shelves to avoid customer backlash; that's not censorship -- the store is a private entity, and is free to choose not to sell something.
Government censorship isn't really the issue; it's the censorship of the public at large (whom write letters of 'outrage' to public officials, who feel they have to act in order to improve their approval rating) that is the issue. Then the courts strike down the cowtowing of the elected officials. It's all part of the great circle of life...
By the way -- the Internet is not considered a publically owned resource in the U.S.; it's owned by the various companies that own the networks and have laid the cable, and by the companies that own the servers. As such, it doesn't have to meet the standards of 'public decency' that broadcast TV has to meet.
But If the US airwaves are censored by self controlling corporate interests obeying free market principles, then why did the FCC (a govt agency IIRC) issue fines for the Janet Jackson thing
Primarily because (at least here) the radio spectrum is considered a public property (much like a city street). Broadcasters are merely leasing the space for commercial use. As a public property, the radio spectrum is still governed by a similar set of laws; ie. 'public indecency' still applies.
There's also the issue of 'due dilligence' on the part of the broadcasters -- it's quite possible now to have a 3-4 second delay for a 'live' TV feed to make a 'panic' button possible should something happen on 'live' TV that wouldn't make it past regulations for the public airwaves.
There's also the matter of Supreme Court decisions stating that 'Free Speech' doesn't extend into certain areas (ie. shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater as the classic example; 'pornography' is one of them).
For an excellent review of the rulings (espescially what constitutes pornography), I suggest "America: The Book. A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction."
It's also true that many grocery stores and supermarkets pull magazines from their stores, as well as hide the magazine's cover (so as to not offend their customers with a picture of an unnaturally disproportionate woman).
I've seen boycotts of stores who refused to do buckle to customer pressure in this way, so it's not a hollow argument by any stretch of the imagination.
I've also seen posts complaining about 'free speech zones', and rightly so. It's mostly an artifact of local (ie. city) governments trying to avoid legal expenses: they're literally in a position of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" in most cases where 'free speech zones' are created.
They're damned if they do because, well, it's obviously freedom of speech thing.
They're damned if they don't because they can't guarantee the safety of everyone excersizing their right to free speech; the city gets sued when some hothead with a different viewpoint (and far less tact) throws a rotten tomato at the guy speaking. (in other words, the city gets sued while the actual criminal goes entirely unpunished because the police weren't around to arrest him on the spot).
There are also cases where a speaker attempts to claim that free speech includes the 'right' to assault a passerby who ignores the speaker has to say. (Again, the city gets held responsible because the guilty party conveniently vanishes).
So the cities try to reach a compromise: Create 'free speech zones' in known, defined areas, and keep a police force nearby to at least attempt to keep the peace; it still allows the people to speak their minds, and attempts to keep them safe from each other's indescretions.
Yes, it sucks, but the police can't be everywhere all the time; and so long as the city can be sued for the absence of the police, it's going to be a problem.
But honestly: Read "America: The book" It's quite difficult to tell where fact ends and comedy begins, but that's the entire point of the book.
In that case nobody in Argentina would speak English, since you could travel a couple thousands of kilometers and not find an English speaking country
The problem is you imply that there are no Americans that speak any language other than English; something that is about as laughable as saying Argentines can't speak anything but Spanish.
I already stated that most Americans do study a language other than their own.
I also stated the reason most don't speak them is because we forget it -- because there isn't any practice and/or need. I studied German for a number of years, but haven't met many in my travels -- and I'll probably never have enough money to visit Germany. In fact, most of the Germans I have met insist on speaking in English; which pretty much sucks for me, since I wanted to learn German.
True, we don't need to leave our country to write letters to other places in the world -- but we do need somebody to write to. I've only done business (directly) with 2 or 3 companies that aren't in the U.S. What am I supposed to do? Write a letter to 'Fraulein in Deutschland' and expect a reply?
Americans have no problems learning other languages -- in my state it was a requirement to have studied a foreign language for a few years in order to be admitted to a state university.
One of my brothers lived in Japan for a few years; another in Russia. Both spoke the local language fluently. Both have nearly forgotten the respective languages entirely, simply because they've had no real opprotunities to use the language since then. Hell, my grandmother is German, and she's nearly forgotten her native language -- because she doesn't use it.
Don't believe that Americans don't speak languages because we don't want to, or don't have the ability. It quite literally is because there is no practical day-to-day use of the knowledge. And if you don't use it, you lose it.
I honestly know more sign-language than German now, because I actually use sign language; it has a practical value to me. German, while interesting, hasn't provided me with any practical value; it has given me no utility. Even the Spanish I've picked up over the years is more useful to me than the language I studied in school.
I'd be grateful in your place -- that learning a language that is not your native tongue has become truly useful for you. I felt no small amount of jealosy towards some of the people I went to college with -- whom spoke eight or more languages. But I would never be welcomed into their home countries; not for any personal attributes, but simply because of where I was born.
But the simple fact is that there is no utility for me to learn a new language. I don't need to, there's nothing I need to do in life that would require it. It has nothing to do with desire; it has to do with futility.
(and remember, the US might be big, but it's small compared to south america).
You might want to check your facts:
South America is a continent; not a country. It would be like comparing North America to South America (Considering most Canadians speak English as well). And IIRC, all of South America doesn't speak the same language either (Although Portugese and Spanish are somewhat similar)
Try cracking open an Atlas: (Encarta googled up first:)
Land mass: North America: 23.7 million sq km. South America: 17.8 million sq km
Population: North America: 515 million South America: 371 million
The population of the U.S alone is 296 million, or roughly 80% of the population of all of South America.
If you want to make an assertation, do it with real facts, not with a 'fact' you just made up.
Don't worry; I won't hold your actions as stereotypical for Argentina; I know better. That and I'm still feeling quite respectful of the way they stomach mate; the stuff just makes me feel ill (and I'm willing to try just about any food).
English is commonly used in places like France and Germany.
One of the reasons Americans typically speak only English: There isn't a need. If I pick any horizontal direction and move 500 miles, I'm going to be speaking English.
Most of Canada speaks English. (although it may not be the primary language in some areas).
As you move closer to Mexico, an increasing number of Americans speak Spanish. (And I'm not talking about imigrants; just your average joe six-packs.) Unsuprisingly, the number of native-born americans who speak non-english languages only increases when that knowledge is of practical use.
A great many Americans have studied non-English languages; but since they have nearly no chances (or reason) to use that language, they eventually forget the language entirely. It's not a point of arrogance; but of pragmatism. To most Americans, if something is of no everyday, practical use, it's rarely seen as valuable.
It's easy to forget that the US has deserts larger than most European countries. That there are roads in which you can drive over 100 miles before seeing any kind of animal life (usually another human, in a car, moving the opposite direction). And in spite of this vast emptiness of space, at the other end, you'll be speaking English.
If that happens, some people will inevitably patch their DNS resolvers so that everything under ICANN's root will go under ".us" (e.g. google.com.us or google.de.us), and everything under the EU's root will go under ".eu").
Which of course brings the problem that a good many web sites will then be broken for no good reason (including slashdot).
Intentionally breaking large parts of the internet out of political spite isn't a good thing.
Which is traditionally an excuse used by those who would clamp down on freedom of speech.
No, it has to do with 'the almighty dollar'; simple economics.
Americans fully recognize that a company's freedom of speech includes how they choose to advertise. Americans also fully recognize that there's nothing wrong with excersizing our freedom of speech by modifying our buying habits in protest should we disagree with how a company decides to advertise. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from disagreement.
The companies make more money if they don't go about pissing off potential customers.
One of the key things is being unobtrusive.
The other thing I dislike is the way advertisers insist upon per-click advertising.
I never click on ads. The best possible case is that I see and ad, think 'hmmm...' and then google for the company's website for more. (As well as dissenting opinions).
So pay-per-click is advertisers wanting 'proof' that people are listening; the company who contracts out to an ad agency doesn't get the info, so I have no qualms with them not getting it.
Back in the early '90s, we used to buy Computer Shopper magazine *specifically* *because* of the ads. That thing was at least 2 inches thick; not like today's version.
I recall a History Channel documentary; it mentioned the significance of the Sears Roebuck catalog in American History. Apparently, it was a common practice to use its pages to wipe one's backside after unloading. (This was pre-toilet paper). The Sears Catalog was kept near the commode, and one of its sheets was torn off whenever necessary. One of the big 'features' of the early Sears catalogs was the paper, which was non-glossy, softer, and more absorbant than the glossy paper that replaced it in later catalogs.
I also recall that the ad-laden Computer Shopper of old was made of sheet after sheet of non-glossy, absorbant paper.
Coincidence?
Yay! Somebody who gets it!
I'm willing to pay for a good product that is also offered for free (but with ads).
Examples:
Opera, before they gave out free beer
Slashdot
User Friendly
It's a sign that advertising has gotten out of hand when people are willing to fork over money so they don't get advertising inflicted upon them.
Lay off the animations, the garish colors, the annoying flashing, the pathetic attempts to make the ad look like a regular program. Don't EVER allow the ad to get in my way, don't EVER demand my attention. I can assure you, I make it a point to never buy a product from that manufacturer or make use of the service offered if an ad breaks these rules.
Magazines know better than to put an ad smack in the middle of an article. So do Newspapers. They put the ads at the edges of the page. They leave the article entirely unobstructed with advertisements. I don't have to find where the text continues because some nitwit put an ad in the middle of a sentence.
TV doesn't have a picture-in-picture (with audio!) showing ads continually during the program; advertising breaks cleanly from the content, like the separation of acts in a play. (Sure, they do 'product placement'; but I have yet to see the cast of CSI carry on about about the cool, refreshing taste of Coca-Cola).'
The web has the tools to help me find the products I'm looking for. If I'm interested, then I'll use them to learn more. Commercial products are quite a bit like restraunts: the best ones are all too frequently not well-known advertized shops; but rather from some crack in the wall I stumbled into while avoiding the rain.
Stop assuming that I even have the slightest interest in your product, because I most certainly don't. My suggestions:Offer your product for review in a trade publication, make it easier for me to get your crap should I decide to trade money for it.
And never, ever, for even a second, delude yourself that I actually believe any part of the contents of your advertisement.
Advertisements are merely fodder for laughs, allowing me to muse how insane some marketer's perception of a consumer is.
The way to get the music companies to charge less is to buy less, and let the marketplace force them to charge a price that consumers find more reasonable.
People have found music prices unbearable. They bought less music. Much less music. So much less music that the recording industry has spent millions to reinforce their own delusions. (Perhaps you've heard of a few?)
The music industry chose to believe that the quality and price of current music isn't the problem, rather choosing the belief that the fault lie not with the prices and product the industry produced.
The music industry chose to believe that the problem lie with the consumers, and with 'piracy'.
Apple computer comes along, and begins selling music online -- in an easy to use, relatively fair system. The music industry sings Apple's praises, temporarily dropping their obsession with 'subscription' based online music. Then they start their own music services; Napster, for example, is owned by the recording industry; Sony/BMG IIRC, but that was a while ago.
And the recording industry starts to try to hike up the prices and force a 'subscription' service on its customers. People leave Napster and join the Apple camp, and the Apple store dominates the industry. In spite of the massive amount of profits that iTunes generates for the recording industry (which is pure profit -- it costs them nothing to let Apple do all the work for them), they attack their 'savior', deciding that Apple's current prices are 'too low.'
All the while ignoring these simple facts:
iTunes sells music:
* For a substantially lower cost than the recording industry.
* Music is $5-8 less per album.
* Customers aren't forced to buy an entire album for one song.
Essentially what the music industry wants to do is raise the price of buying music on iTunes to the price point that a CD has: $15-18 per album.
iTunes success isn't about the iPod. Most of the iTunes users I know of don't even have an iPod. They bought their music from iTunes because they got the music at a fair price, and could even burn the music to a CD (and re-rip it to another format) should they choose to. (Interestingly enough, the iPod did just fine before the iTunes Music Store; I'm convinced it would still dominate the industry even if the iTunes store never existed).
iTunes success stems from the fact that Apple offered the product for a price and condition consumers deemed was acceptable; something that is not true of buying CD's from a music store, or from the non-industry owned music services. (ie. Napster)
The music industry just wants to raise prices, and then blame everybody but themselves when consumers (literally) don't buy it. They persist in blaming everybody but themselves, their prices, their policies.
For its faults, the Motion Picture industry has at least admitted ticket sales have been sluggish recently because their product wasn't worth what they were charging for it. (Not that they think they were charging too much -- rather than their product sucked).
So no, the music industry does want more than they can get; when they don't get what they want, they come up with scapegoats and call their lawyers. They try to shut down everybody who disagrees with them. Which is silly, considering the entire American music industry is smaller than some of the companies they are offending (ie. Microsoft, Apple)
You know, I bought a mac mini about a week ago as well. Except that I didn't get the faster CPU, or more video memory, or the faster drive. I'm somewhat unhappy about it, but frankly, if I wanted a performance machine I wouldn't have gotten a Mac Mini to begin with.
It's perfectly adequate for the things I am using my Mini for: iTunes, iPhoto, and having fun with my first Macintosh. I never intended to use the thing to play the latest/greatest video games with -- the Mac Mini isn't supposed to fill that niche anyway.
But considering I'm starting to grow tired of video games in general (which is mainly scary in that I might be growing up or somethin'.), I haven't booted my 'PC' for days (and the only times I did was to transfer some data from it to my new Mini).
It's weird... When I was all about video games, the hottest hadware wasn't enough. Now a 'budget' computer like a Mac Mini is all I really have much need for.
While the transition from Linux and various other Unix-like OSes hasn't been painless, it is certainly more agreeable than booting back to a Wintendo environment, even if it is only to play the latest video game until the Wintendo manages to BSOD on me.
To be honest, the different behavior of the 'home' and 'end' keys on a Mac is of far greater annoyance to me than the fact that I bought a 'top of the line' Mini and found out that there are people who are buying the same specs as me, but getting a nicer system.
I had no idea how much the OS X behavior on the 'home' and 'end' keys would bother me (of course, I thought there wouldn't be a difference). I remember reading how to customize it so the keys do what I'm used to expecting them to do... just have to find it.
All in all, if my biggest gripe about my Mini experience (including the phantom 'upgrade' which I didn't benefit from) is the 'home' and 'end' keys acting differently than I'm accustomed to... I doubt many others would care either.
Seriously... a Mini isn't a performance rig; it performs quite well for what I ask of it; I didn't buy a high end system... more like the best from the bottom of the performance curve.
It's just hard to feel upset when I knowingly bought a less powerful system than the PC I already had... and haven't even used my PC much since.
I have no problem with Sony signing your favorite garage band. Their music is uninspired and uninteresting.
An attractive person that will do anything (including 'singing' until my ears bleed) for money -- that's something money just can't buy.
My personal favorite is when a record company thinks that any of their customers care about which label it is. "Our brand(tm) of music is what customers really want."
I don't recall ever deciding on whose music I would buy because of the record label attached; yet the 'brand name' is among the most important things to many of the big label's persona -- not the artists, or the music... the people who run the printing press... that's what's important in the eyes of the recording companies..
By changing one line of code, those four months can be expanded to a full year.
Versus until I either decide to sell a printed book, or until the paper decays to the point it crumbles when I open the book.
I still find myself using my college textbooks from time to time, and whenever I do, I silently thank the suggestion to hold on to my books every time I do; it was probably among the better bits of advice I've ever been given.
That's the problem with the entire line of thought: They want to force you to keep paying for the book. I have no illusions about the ebook costing much less either.
I'll take paper, thanks.
No worries there; the closest I can attribute it to is Alexander Hamilton.
Except that I know that he didn't say it either. (Only something with the same general idea, but without the humor)