The article above also says "The defence also pointed out that Cuthbert had not attempted to defraud the site." What it should have said is that Cuthbert DID attempt to defraud the police. Very unprofessional behavior from a supposed "security professional."
But he wasn't found guilty of "trying to defraud the police".
For example, if you are arrested for murder, and, in the adrenaline-filled fear of the moment, lie about where you were, should you be found guilty of murder just for lying, even if all parties agree you, in fact, are not guilty of murder?
Would you still buy the cheese if you could take as much of it as you wanted, whenever you wanted, for free?
If the cost of duplicating and distributed cheese was essentially free, it shouldn't follow the same business model as the old cheese, which if one is "stolen" (no one has *ever* stolen the show Rome, although many have infringed on HBO's copyright) does not cost the producer or distributer anything.
HBO still needs to make money in order to produce a show, but many people aren't willing to, and many people can't, pay $100/month or more just to watch it.
If HBO truly understands that the market has changed (I think they do, but that's not certain), they should offer direct downloads, and those direct downloads should be cheap. At $1/show, Rome alone will net $4/month/viewer. And a flat subsription should be less than $10/month.
That would have a two-fold effect of:
1. increasing HBO's revenue. 2. dissuading a significant number of pirates.
Just look at the RIAA's mistake in dealing with the Internet. iTunes showed them there's actually a way to protect the interests of the labels, while giving the consumer what they really want. Now, the RIAA members are reaping the rewards, but have also locked themselves to a middleman (Apple) that they could have avoided had they not so completely misunderstood the unavoidable implications of the Internet.
possibly does some processing on the server (although I can't really imagine what
The server-side part is you can save your documents to your gmail account, and access them from any OO.o, StarOffice, and Google Toolbar having web browser (ie: at the office, at home, at the cybercafe).
I could imagine the new Google Toolbar would have a list of documents on your office.google.com storage, and launch them in OO.o, and that File->Open and File->Save would have "Google Office" as a location.
You could share documents in read-only, r/w and collaborative modes, as well as have some sort of revision control system. And make a virtual page for a project (all your documents are really just saved in a flat system, like gmail emails) that is similar to the labels in gmail.
Anyway, it's logical, and if anyone can do it, it's Google and/or Microsoft, and if anyone can do it for free (text ads ~ free), it's Google.
>Do you really want the future of web processing to be entirely web based and saved on somebody else's machine?
That would be word processing and the reason that preview exists. Oh well;)
And here I was, thinking, "woah, 'web processing'... that's exactly what it is, isn't it? Office apps, email, and whatever else, all on the web. In other words, web processing. Plus, it's got a nice ring to it. This person is clever."
But, since it was a mistake on your part, you get no props, and I'm going to steal the term right now <zoink!>. Oh well;)
If I drive my car in to a telephone-pole would BMW (assuming I had a BMW) fix my car for free for me? Or better yet: give me a new car? No?
Maybe because cars costs tens of thousands of dollars to replace, while a song only costs a fraction of a cent? Ever think of that?
Some companies do replace broken and worn out products. Craftsman is a good example.
So if I trash my car because of my own stupidity
Stupidity isn't the only way you'll lose your files.
I could demand that my mechanic fixes the car for free
You could demand that all day, but you won't get it. Fixing a car != buying a song. Many companies let you redownload a purchased program. No mechanic will generally fix your car for free.
Although even that analogy breaks down, because most tire shops will repair your flat tire, for free, even if the flat is due to your own stupidity, and even if the tire isn't sold at that shop.
I understand it just fine. But I also understand that protection of users data is the USERS responsibility.
Who said it wasn't? Doesn't change the fact that it'd be a nice feature to have, that it would not cost much for Apple to provide, and I've already outlined reasonable restrictions Apple could apply to mitigate problems and abuses of the system.
And last, but definitely not least, there is absolutely nothing wrong or unreasonable about a customer asking for such a service.
I never said Apple should be forced to provide this service (although in this case, I could see logic in a law or regulation requiring such access), just that it's a really good idea. You, on the other hand, hold the irrational, selfish, and borderline sociopathic notion that not only would this be an absurd service to offer, but that even asking for such a service is an affront to common sense and right-thinking people everywhere.
It's his data, not mine. It's his HD, not mine. If he loses his data because he didn't bother to make backups, I fail to see how it's MY problem. Expecting people to take proper care of their data is not an out
But he's your customer. (well, Apple's customer, but you're taking their POV when you say "MY", because no one's saying that you, some random third party, should back up other people's music for them).
It's called customer service, look into it.
Because their requests are not realistic?
What? Are you serious? How is it not realistic for Apple to let you redownload a song? They let you redownload QuickTime. They let you redownload movie trailers and music videos. Most online software purchases allow you to redownload later. In what significant way is the iTunes Music Store different?
People don't expect car-mechanics to fix their cars for free while they sleep.
And no one expects Apple to send them music for free while they sleep (although, amazingly, Apple does exactly this with their Podcast directory, and with their "Free Music" downloads).
People do expect their mechanic to provide a certain level of service for free, though. For example, doughnuts and coffee in the lobby, fixing flat tires, advice, etc. And if you pay to have something done to your car, you expect them to cover any reasonable side-effects of their work, etc.
How can you possibly not understand that it's in Apple's best interest to keep their customers happy?
Why should I pay my TV licence, so people around the world can download the content for free?
Because you're not a dick?
In fact, you already do this. I regularly visit bbcnews.com, which has no advertisements and which you paid for, not me.
And you know what? I appreciate it very much. Thank you, even if are angry over your 3 pence share of the cost.
I pay for services you get for free as well, and I really don't mind because it makes for a better world. Sure, I could wish my money went to some things more than others, and some times I think certain fees and taxes are too high, while others, were I to be honest, too low, but in the end it all seems to work out pretty good when run by the right people.
And yes, you are very welcome for the cool pictures from Hubble. I have no desire to charge you for the cost of invading Normandy. I hope you get plenty of use out of the Internet, and feel no need to recoup the cost of creating it.
I really think the demand and the potential market are there. Look at the PSP and video podcasts for clues.
If I had to bet on any company getting it right, it'd be Apple. I can believe TV show downloads would make for a viable market. I can also believe people will be willing to watch TV shows on the bus to school/work, in dentist waiting rooms, etc.
iTunes has support for watching video and can save where you are in a video, why not use it to start watching the current Stargate Atlantis at home, then sync your iPod and finish on the way to school? Why not watch Cringely's NerdTV in snippets at home and during lunch?
Some things, like movies, don't work so well, because it's not as satisfying watching a movie in pieces separated by long periods of time, but other types of video don't suffer from that so much.
Then, of course, there's short videos, like animated shorts, music videos, trailers, and snippets like Jon Stewart on Crossfire, as well as video clips from your digicam.
The larger screen would make the photo part of the iPod photo more useful, and even mp3 playing would be easier (although not dramatically so) with a larger screen, and if it doesn't drain the battery too much, a nice visualizer would be cool.
It doesn't make sense to move the entire iPod line to video, as many people won't want that feature, won't want to pay the extra price it will require, nor want the extra size it will require. But there will certainly be some who would want it, myself included.
None of which were part of the review. It's not irrational to say that, of the stores reviewed, if you have an iPod, you are stuck with iTunes.
Actually, I'm wrong on that point. It is irrational, as eMusic is on the list.
I still stand by the rest of my post, but accept that this weakens my claim that it's correct to say that if you have an iPod, you're essentially stuck with iTunes (music store). That's still true for most people, but since the reviewer included eMusic, and not only that, claims to write reviews for eMusic, he really should have known better and been a little more precise.
Sure there is. It costs money. And everyone would start claiming that "uh, my dog ate my HD, can I re-download the songs?". The key to safekeep your data is in YOUR hands. If you choose not to take the necessary precautions, it's your decision, and your problem.
The cost really isn't that high, and I'm sure most people would happily pay a couple bucks a gig to redownload their purchases if need be.
What I think would be a logical and equitable solution would be to allow people to redownload their tracks, any and all tracks, only once a year. That way, if you lose your HD, the first time you'll have not done it yet, so you're good and Apple will let you do it. It will also come with a warning that you won't be able to do it again for a year. That way, if you lose all your music again in less than a year (how often does that really happen?) you'll at least know all is not lost, and that you'll just have to wait.
From the point of view of the RIAA and the labels, they really want to have you buy the same song as many times as possible, so they aren't going to help you. But from the point of view of copyright infringement, I don't see how it's a legitimate concern. You can already copy the songs you downloaded and send them to anyone you want. They are locked with DRM, so it really makes no difference, does it?
Seriously, what is this "I want others to take responsibility of my data, and back it up for me, because I'm too lazy to do it myself!"-mentality?
What's with the "Screw you, you idiot. When bad luck befalls you, don't look at me for help!" mentality? This isn't an unreasonable request.
Why, exactly, shouldn't a person request quality service? I really just don't get it. It's like when the airliner crash-landed recently and people were upset that the CNN feed was cut/went out during landing so they couldn't watch it live. A lot of people responded to complaints with, "Hey, it's not your airline, they can do whatever they want. You don't like it, fly someone else!" Aside from the fact that you don't know ahead of time all the little details you might want for all sort of contigencies, nor do you really have any way to verify that you'll get them, I don't see how it's wrong, at all for the customer to request such service. How it's wrong to be upset or displeased when the service doesn't match their wishes.
In fact, it seems the opposite of wrong. It seems like exactly what the customer should do. They should demand better service. They should request features they don't currently have.
iTunes is an excellent store which provides a great service. Still, it can be better, and this is exactly one of the many ways it could be improved.
The most annoying thing I find is that it's not even true.
You're splitting hairs. The iPod is, for all intents and purposes, tied to iTunes. Steve Jobs himself calls "The iTunes Music Store" iTunes. That's because iTunes is a brand, which includes both a jukebox and an online store.
It's sort of like Coke and Cherry Coke. Both are Coke (brand), but only one is simply Coke (product name).
You can of course use music from stores with the iPod.
None of which were part of the review. It's not irrational to say that, of the stores reviewed, if you have an iPod, you are stuck with iTunes.
NOT that the iPod is somehow 'locked in' to the iTMS, which it isn't.
Literally, it isn't. Effectively, it is.
For example, literally, you can play songs from the Real music store on the iPod. In fact, literally, you can load songs from Napster. You just have to encode them into an iPod supported format, perhaps via line-in or some tricky software.
But for all intents and purposes, it's more proper to say you can't use those other stores.
This is a premise that a 10 year old should be able to grasp
The problem is that what was said was essentially true, and for all intents and purposes true, even if it's not absolutely literally true.
Bringing up a 10-year old is illuminating. How many phrases do we use that aren't literally true, which throw 10-year olds for a loop? "Why don't you clean your room?" means "go clean your room," even if it is literally a question.
I don't think you're really clarifying the issue at all. You're just picking nits which really don't change the truth of the review, which is that if you want to download songs from a music service (which implies it has songs you want, which implies a good selection of popular music, which implies permission from the labels, which implies DRM), and you have an iPod, you go through iTunes.
Almost any simple statement about a sufficiently complex subject will be literally false. What's important is to understand that such statements involve assumptions and implications. For example, technically speaking, *any* proper computer can, given enough RAM and emulating software, run *any* operating system and *any* program, because they are all turing machines. But it's not wrong to say you can't play Counter-Strike on a Mac, or that Windows users can't run iMovie. If people had to annotate and provide caveats, assumptions, and implications for every statement they made, a simple product review would go from an easily readable and accessible three or four paragraphs to many pages, and would do more to confuse the average reader than enlighten them.
This isn't a scientific paper, or a mathematical proof, it's a review meant to help people choose a music service, and if you're an iPod owner, you basically just go with iTunes.
It is ILLEGAL to use allofmp3.com from the United States
Are you sure? On what grounds?
Copyright is all about copying and giving out copies of things, not so much about receiving copies of things, and the law that applies is copyright law, not theft laws, because what's happening is not theft (regardless of what anyone would have you believe), but copyright laws.
So, perhaps you can clarify which copyright law makes this illegal and how?
For example, if I'm in an establishement that hasn't paid its ASCAP fees, I'm pretty sure I haven't violated the law. This is doubly so if that establishment isn't even required to pay the fees, as allofmp3.com is not required to pay royalties or license fees for the mp3s they distribute.
Of course, I have absolutely no desire to encourage people to break the law, so if it is illegal, please clarify.
What does MS stand to gain by giving away the bulk of its profits?
Control. MS makes their billions only if they control the markets. Right now, Apple owns the online music market and the portable player market.
That's two places where MS doesn't make money on each mp3 player sold, and each song downloaded. It's also a market that MS can't leverage to promote other products, like the Xbox and PocketPC.
Plus, it leads to embarassing situations, like having to show an iPod connected to an Xbox 360. And there's the fact that this promotes Apple in the minds of the consumer, and if the Mac market share increases even a few percent, it makes it just that much harder and that that much more expensive to promote MS-only techonlogies like those in Office and Vista.
Sure, it might seem like only a billion here, and a few hundred million there, but MS is a company that really fights to keep every advantage they can. That's why they are where they are today. In a world where Apple isn't laughed at, in a world where Linux isn't considered a hobby OS, in a world where OpenOffice.org is seen as legitimate, MS has to actually work to keep the lead.
So yeah, MS really wants to own that market, they want to own all markets. Anything less, and MS risks becoming just another company, like all the rest.
That's a myth. Copying music against the wishes of the owners if "IP" is not "just wrong." The consumer should have a certain set of rights and the artists should have a certain level of income, both of which are very limited for the sole purpose of filling the coffers of the music executives.
There's nothing wrong with making money. I just think the artists should also make money commensurate with the value they provide to the labels.
There's nothing wrong with enforcing a system which protects the rights and desires of the participants, but copyprotected CD's and unfair punishments for copying a song go too far, and serve only to strengthen the control the labels have, and that *is* wrong.
I wouldn't like it if you did that to me regardless of how noble your intentions are.
I, and most people, don't care at all whether the record labels "like it" or not. If the labels respected my rights, my needs, my wishes. If the labels promoted a system which benefits the artists. Then, and *only* then, should I care if they are happy.
If someone is a bully, screw him. I'm not going to lose sleep if I make him feel bad.
Fix the system, and I'll respect it. Systems aren't due respect just because they exist. Like all things, they must earn respect, and the music industry has no desire to earn it. So why, exactly, should I grant respect to such a contemptable system?
The four noble(sic) truths: 1. Life means suffering. 2. The origin of suffering is attachment. 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. 4. The path to the cessation of suffering (aka the eightfold way).
If item 1 is true, then not suffering means not life. Item 3 states that the cessation of suffering is attainable. In other words, it states that not living is attainable. What a morbid "truth"!
I disagree with item 1. Life includes suffering, but it does not mean suffering.
Item 2 ignores the fact that "the origin" of happiness is also attachment.
Item 3 implies the equivalent of being dead.
Item 4 is an incomplete sentence, but I think you mean the "eightfold way" is... not suffering. Is not being alive?
The solution therefore, is to follow a middle path practising detachment from all wordly desires, so as to walk along the middle path - neither be swayed emotionally toward too much towards happiness, nor being overly susceptible to sadness.
Sounds like a living death to me.
That's why I hate Taoism. It states (correctly) that you must understand the "way" of things, but then it says you must subject yourself to them (go with the flow, bend like a reed).
Here's the truth of the world: we all have will, and the universe doesn't really care one way or the other about it. Happiness is achieving our will (or making progress), and suffering is to have our will frustrated.
Hinduism exists in the form it does because the Persians wanted a docile populace in India, and telling people to be happy with their station in life is one way to keep some frustrated lower-classmember from challenging your status over them.
The "no attachments" philosophies are only suitable, IMO, for people who will never attain any sort of lasting happiness in life. For example, slaves would feel better with such a philosophy since, it's assumed, they'll never be truly happy (not being free to persue happiness). In other words, they have little chance of having their will fullfilled, so they will have to (sadly) shrink their ambitions dramatically.
But if you have the means to assert your will over the universe, then why give up all that potential happiness?
The truth of those philosophies is not to give up materialism, but to sync your desires with your ability to attain them. Don't believe the myth, for example, that just because you are born in America, that all you have to do is work hard and you too can be a millionaire. But don't go to the opposite extreme and give up the potential of owning an iPod, a nice TV, and a quality car (or whatever material object are within your means). Such things are not only possible for a large number of Americans (for example), but can also bring very real happiness.
So what should a rational philosophy be? I think something along the lines of, "live within your means, but don't be afraid to take the opportunity to increase your means if you can."
Now, now... anti-depressants don't actually make you happy...
They most certainly can (and do). Happiness is a state-of-mind. The state of one's mind is highly dependent on chemicals and drugs.
It doesn't fix the problem, but it will keep you afloat until you can get to a safe harbour and repair the damage.
You're thinking of drugs like alcohol and heroine, which make people feel better but also degrade that person's ability to interface with reality, and manage their life.
Anti-depressants are the exact opposite. Not onl to they make the depressed person normal, but they do so without crippling the person's ability to cope with real-life. In other words, for some people, these drugs do, in fact, "plug the hole".
Who knows what their criteria were? Gather up 100 things they've reviewed in the last year or whenever and recycle them into an article that people will link to and argue about, perhaps.
That's just it, you moron. You're the one claiming to know what the criteria were, and that they applied the same criteria as for the Academy Awards.
The one requirement that you a promoting--that the product had to be introduced in 2005--is clearly not one they used. This is clear because there are many products that were not introduced in 2005 that made the list, including the bloody item in question.
I didn't see the word "novel" in the slashdot summary, or in the Harvey Danger press release, so I'm unclear why you should berate them for not being something they didn't say they were.
Unfortunately in this case, "priceless" literally means they wont make a dime!
Generally speaking, advertising campaigns (if you want to call it one) cost money and don't, directly, make money.
My esteem of Harvey Danger has increased far more than any 15 second TV commercial ever would have (well, unless the commercial said that they were releasing the album for free, and that the RIAA is a bunch of greedy pricks).
And I assure you, you are quite wrong. Harvey Danger will make money as a result of this. Whether more or less than they would have otherwise is debatable, but they seem to like the idea of embracing (and not fighting) technology.
Slashdot Mirror
*flips over a DVD (from the future)* "Made in China"
Unlikely
HIGHLY Unlikely
I think you may be right. It'll definitely say "Made in USA".
Of course, it'll be written in Chinese. And we'll all be able to read it. Fluently.
The article above also says "The defence also pointed out that Cuthbert had not attempted to defraud the site." What it should have said is that Cuthbert DID attempt to defraud the police. Very unprofessional behavior from a supposed "security professional."
But he wasn't found guilty of "trying to defraud the police".
For example, if you are arrested for murder, and, in the adrenaline-filled fear of the moment, lie about where you were, should you be found guilty of murder just for lying, even if all parties agree you, in fact, are not guilty of murder?
Would you still buy the cheese if you could take as much of it as you wanted, whenever you wanted, for free?
If the cost of duplicating and distributed cheese was essentially free, it shouldn't follow the same business model as the old cheese, which if one is "stolen" (no one has *ever* stolen the show Rome, although many have infringed on HBO's copyright) does not cost the producer or distributer anything.
HBO still needs to make money in order to produce a show, but many people aren't willing to, and many people can't, pay $100/month or more just to watch it.
If HBO truly understands that the market has changed (I think they do, but that's not certain), they should offer direct downloads, and those direct downloads should be cheap. At $1/show, Rome alone will net $4/month/viewer. And a flat subsription should be less than $10/month.
That would have a two-fold effect of:
1. increasing HBO's revenue.
2. dissuading a significant number of pirates.
Just look at the RIAA's mistake in dealing with the Internet. iTunes showed them there's actually a way to protect the interests of the labels, while giving the consumer what they really want. Now, the RIAA members are reaping the rewards, but have also locked themselves to a middleman (Apple) that they could have avoided had they not so completely misunderstood the unavoidable implications of the Internet.
possibly does some processing on the server (although I can't really imagine what
The server-side part is you can save your documents to your gmail account, and access them from any OO.o, StarOffice, and Google Toolbar having web browser (ie: at the office, at home, at the cybercafe).
I could imagine the new Google Toolbar would have a list of documents on your office.google.com storage, and launch them in OO.o, and that File->Open and File->Save would have "Google Office" as a location.
You could share documents in read-only, r/w and collaborative modes, as well as have some sort of revision control system. And make a virtual page for a project (all your documents are really just saved in a flat system, like gmail emails) that is similar to the labels in gmail.
Anyway, it's logical, and if anyone can do it, it's Google and/or Microsoft, and if anyone can do it for free (text ads ~ free), it's Google.
>Do you really want the future of web processing to be entirely web based and saved on somebody else's machine?
;)
;)
That would be word processing and the reason that preview exists. Oh well
And here I was, thinking, "woah, 'web processing'... that's exactly what it is, isn't it? Office apps, email, and whatever else, all on the web. In other words, web processing. Plus, it's got a nice ring to it. This person is clever."
But, since it was a mistake on your part, you get no props, and I'm going to steal the term right now <zoink!>. Oh well
If I drive my car in to a telephone-pole would BMW (assuming I had a BMW) fix my car for free for me? Or better yet: give me a new car? No?
Maybe because cars costs tens of thousands of dollars to replace, while a song only costs a fraction of a cent? Ever think of that?
Some companies do replace broken and worn out products. Craftsman is a good example.
So if I trash my car because of my own stupidity
Stupidity isn't the only way you'll lose your files.
I could demand that my mechanic fixes the car for free
You could demand that all day, but you won't get it. Fixing a car != buying a song. Many companies let you redownload a purchased program. No mechanic will generally fix your car for free.
Although even that analogy breaks down, because most tire shops will repair your flat tire, for free, even if the flat is due to your own stupidity, and even if the tire isn't sold at that shop.
I understand it just fine. But I also understand that protection of users data is the USERS responsibility.
Who said it wasn't? Doesn't change the fact that it'd be a nice feature to have, that it would not cost much for Apple to provide, and I've already outlined reasonable restrictions Apple could apply to mitigate problems and abuses of the system.
And last, but definitely not least, there is absolutely nothing wrong or unreasonable about a customer asking for such a service.
I never said Apple should be forced to provide this service (although in this case, I could see logic in a law or regulation requiring such access), just that it's a really good idea. You, on the other hand, hold the irrational, selfish, and borderline sociopathic notion that not only would this be an absurd service to offer, but that even asking for such a service is an affront to common sense and right-thinking people everywhere.
It's his data, not mine. It's his HD, not mine. If he loses his data because he didn't bother to make backups, I fail to see how it's MY problem. Expecting people to take proper care of their data is not an out
But he's your customer. (well, Apple's customer, but you're taking their POV when you say "MY", because no one's saying that you, some random third party, should back up other people's music for them).
It's called customer service, look into it.
Because their requests are not realistic?
What? Are you serious? How is it not realistic for Apple to let you redownload a song? They let you redownload QuickTime. They let you redownload movie trailers and music videos. Most online software purchases allow you to redownload later. In what significant way is the iTunes Music Store different?
People don't expect car-mechanics to fix their cars for free while they sleep.
And no one expects Apple to send them music for free while they sleep (although, amazingly, Apple does exactly this with their Podcast directory, and with their "Free Music" downloads).
People do expect their mechanic to provide a certain level of service for free, though. For example, doughnuts and coffee in the lobby, fixing flat tires, advice, etc. And if you pay to have something done to your car, you expect them to cover any reasonable side-effects of their work, etc.
How can you possibly not understand that it's in Apple's best interest to keep their customers happy?
Why should I pay my TV licence, so people around the world can download the content for free?
Because you're not a dick?
In fact, you already do this. I regularly visit bbcnews.com, which has no advertisements and which you paid for, not me.
And you know what? I appreciate it very much. Thank you, even if are angry over your 3 pence share of the cost.
I pay for services you get for free as well, and I really don't mind because it makes for a better world. Sure, I could wish my money went to some things more than others, and some times I think certain fees and taxes are too high, while others, were I to be honest, too low, but in the end it all seems to work out pretty good when run by the right people.
And yes, you are very welcome for the cool pictures from Hubble. I have no desire to charge you for the cost of invading Normandy. I hope you get plenty of use out of the Internet, and feel no need to recoup the cost of creating it.
I really think the demand and the potential market are there. Look at the PSP and video podcasts for clues.
If I had to bet on any company getting it right, it'd be Apple. I can believe TV show downloads would make for a viable market. I can also believe people will be willing to watch TV shows on the bus to school/work, in dentist waiting rooms, etc.
iTunes has support for watching video and can save where you are in a video, why not use it to start watching the current Stargate Atlantis at home, then sync your iPod and finish on the way to school? Why not watch Cringely's NerdTV in snippets at home and during lunch?
Some things, like movies, don't work so well, because it's not as satisfying watching a movie in pieces separated by long periods of time, but other types of video don't suffer from that so much.
Then, of course, there's short videos, like animated shorts, music videos, trailers, and snippets like Jon Stewart on Crossfire, as well as video clips from your digicam.
The larger screen would make the photo part of the iPod photo more useful, and even mp3 playing would be easier (although not dramatically so) with a larger screen, and if it doesn't drain the battery too much, a nice visualizer would be cool.
It doesn't make sense to move the entire iPod line to video, as many people won't want that feature, won't want to pay the extra price it will require, nor want the extra size it will require. But there will certainly be some who would want it, myself included.
None of which were part of the review. It's not irrational to say that, of the stores reviewed, if you have an iPod, you are stuck with iTunes.
Actually, I'm wrong on that point. It is irrational, as eMusic is on the list.
I still stand by the rest of my post, but accept that this weakens my claim that it's correct to say that if you have an iPod, you're essentially stuck with iTunes (music store). That's still true for most people, but since the reviewer included eMusic, and not only that, claims to write reviews for eMusic, he really should have known better and been a little more precise.
Sure there is. It costs money. And everyone would start claiming that "uh, my dog ate my HD, can I re-download the songs?". The key to safekeep your data is in YOUR hands. If you choose not to take the necessary precautions, it's your decision, and your problem.
The cost really isn't that high, and I'm sure most people would happily pay a couple bucks a gig to redownload their purchases if need be.
What I think would be a logical and equitable solution would be to allow people to redownload their tracks, any and all tracks, only once a year. That way, if you lose your HD, the first time you'll have not done it yet, so you're good and Apple will let you do it. It will also come with a warning that you won't be able to do it again for a year. That way, if you lose all your music again in less than a year (how often does that really happen?) you'll at least know all is not lost, and that you'll just have to wait.
From the point of view of the RIAA and the labels, they really want to have you buy the same song as many times as possible, so they aren't going to help you. But from the point of view of copyright infringement, I don't see how it's a legitimate concern. You can already copy the songs you downloaded and send them to anyone you want. They are locked with DRM, so it really makes no difference, does it?
Seriously, what is this "I want others to take responsibility of my data, and back it up for me, because I'm too lazy to do it myself!"-mentality?
What's with the "Screw you, you idiot. When bad luck befalls you, don't look at me for help!" mentality? This isn't an unreasonable request.
Why, exactly, shouldn't a person request quality service? I really just don't get it. It's like when the airliner crash-landed recently and people were upset that the CNN feed was cut/went out during landing so they couldn't watch it live. A lot of people responded to complaints with, "Hey, it's not your airline, they can do whatever they want. You don't like it, fly someone else!" Aside from the fact that you don't know ahead of time all the little details you might want for all sort of contigencies, nor do you really have any way to verify that you'll get them, I don't see how it's wrong, at all for the customer to request such service. How it's wrong to be upset or displeased when the service doesn't match their wishes.
In fact, it seems the opposite of wrong. It seems like exactly what the customer should do. They should demand better service. They should request features they don't currently have.
iTunes is an excellent store which provides a great service. Still, it can be better, and this is exactly one of the many ways it could be improved.
The most annoying thing I find is that it's not even true.
You're splitting hairs. The iPod is, for all intents and purposes, tied to iTunes. Steve Jobs himself calls "The iTunes Music Store" iTunes. That's because iTunes is a brand, which includes both a jukebox and an online store.
It's sort of like Coke and Cherry Coke. Both are Coke (brand), but only one is simply Coke (product name).
You can of course use music from stores with the iPod.
None of which were part of the review. It's not irrational to say that, of the stores reviewed, if you have an iPod, you are stuck with iTunes.
NOT that the iPod is somehow 'locked in' to the iTMS, which it isn't.
Literally, it isn't. Effectively, it is.
For example, literally, you can play songs from the Real music store on the iPod. In fact, literally, you can load songs from Napster. You just have to encode them into an iPod supported format, perhaps via line-in or some tricky software.
But for all intents and purposes, it's more proper to say you can't use those other stores.
This is a premise that a 10 year old should be able to grasp
The problem is that what was said was essentially true, and for all intents and purposes true, even if it's not absolutely literally true.
Bringing up a 10-year old is illuminating. How many phrases do we use that aren't literally true, which throw 10-year olds for a loop? "Why don't you clean your room?" means "go clean your room," even if it is literally a question.
I don't think you're really clarifying the issue at all. You're just picking nits which really don't change the truth of the review, which is that if you want to download songs from a music service (which implies it has songs you want, which implies a good selection of popular music, which implies permission from the labels, which implies DRM), and you have an iPod, you go through iTunes.
Almost any simple statement about a sufficiently complex subject will be literally false. What's important is to understand that such statements involve assumptions and implications. For example, technically speaking, *any* proper computer can, given enough RAM and emulating software, run *any* operating system and *any* program, because they are all turing machines. But it's not wrong to say you can't play Counter-Strike on a Mac, or that Windows users can't run iMovie. If people had to annotate and provide caveats, assumptions, and implications for every statement they made, a simple product review would go from an easily readable and accessible three or four paragraphs to many pages, and would do more to confuse the average reader than enlighten them.
This isn't a scientific paper, or a mathematical proof, it's a review meant to help people choose a music service, and if you're an iPod owner, you basically just go with iTunes.
It is ILLEGAL to use allofmp3.com from the United States
Are you sure? On what grounds?
Copyright is all about copying and giving out copies of things, not so much about receiving copies of things, and the law that applies is copyright law, not theft laws, because what's happening is not theft (regardless of what anyone would have you believe), but copyright laws.
So, perhaps you can clarify which copyright law makes this illegal and how?
For example, if I'm in an establishement that hasn't paid its ASCAP fees, I'm pretty sure I haven't violated the law. This is doubly so if that establishment isn't even required to pay the fees, as allofmp3.com is not required to pay royalties or license fees for the mp3s they distribute.
Of course, I have absolutely no desire to encourage people to break the law, so if it is illegal, please clarify.
Are you kidding? I have no problem choosing who to root for in this...
:-)
Apple.
What does MS stand to gain by giving away the bulk of its profits?
Control. MS makes their billions only if they control the markets. Right now, Apple owns the online music market and the portable player market.
That's two places where MS doesn't make money on each mp3 player sold, and each song downloaded. It's also a market that MS can't leverage to promote other products, like the Xbox and PocketPC.
Plus, it leads to embarassing situations, like having to show an iPod connected to an Xbox 360. And there's the fact that this promotes Apple in the minds of the consumer, and if the Mac market share increases even a few percent, it makes it just that much harder and that that much more expensive to promote MS-only techonlogies like those in Office and Vista.
Sure, it might seem like only a billion here, and a few hundred million there, but MS is a company that really fights to keep every advantage they can. That's why they are where they are today. In a world where Apple isn't laughed at, in a world where Linux isn't considered a hobby OS, in a world where OpenOffice.org is seen as legitimate, MS has to actually work to keep the lead.
So yeah, MS really wants to own that market, they want to own all markets. Anything less, and MS risks becoming just another company, like all the rest.
Lastly, it's just wrong.
That's a myth. Copying music against the wishes of the owners if "IP" is not "just wrong." The consumer should have a certain set of rights and the artists should have a certain level of income, both of which are very limited for the sole purpose of filling the coffers of the music executives.
There's nothing wrong with making money. I just think the artists should also make money commensurate with the value they provide to the labels.
There's nothing wrong with enforcing a system which protects the rights and desires of the participants, but copyprotected CD's and unfair punishments for copying a song go too far, and serve only to strengthen the control the labels have, and that *is* wrong.
I wouldn't like it if you did that to me regardless of how noble your intentions are.
I, and most people, don't care at all whether the record labels "like it" or not. If the labels respected my rights, my needs, my wishes. If the labels promoted a system which benefits the artists. Then, and *only* then, should I care if they are happy.
If someone is a bully, screw him. I'm not going to lose sleep if I make him feel bad.
Fix the system, and I'll respect it. Systems aren't due respect just because they exist. Like all things, they must earn respect, and the music industry has no desire to earn it. So why, exactly, should I grant respect to such a contemptable system?
Microsoft doesn't understand the hoopla around AJAX.
Aside from, you know, inventing it.
God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.
I'm happy and I didn't solicit it from god (or satan or any other "non-human" being).
The four noble(sic) truths:
1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering (aka the eightfold way).
If item 1 is true, then not suffering means not life. Item 3 states that the cessation of suffering is attainable. In other words, it states that not living is attainable. What a morbid "truth"!
I disagree with item 1. Life includes suffering, but it does not mean suffering.
Item 2 ignores the fact that "the origin" of happiness is also attachment.
Item 3 implies the equivalent of being dead.
Item 4 is an incomplete sentence, but I think you mean the "eightfold way" is... not suffering. Is not being alive?
The solution therefore, is to follow a middle path practising detachment from all wordly desires, so as to walk along the middle path - neither be swayed emotionally toward too much towards happiness, nor being overly susceptible to sadness.
Sounds like a living death to me.
That's why I hate Taoism. It states (correctly) that you must understand the "way" of things, but then it says you must subject yourself to them (go with the flow, bend like a reed).
Here's the truth of the world: we all have will, and the universe doesn't really care one way or the other about it. Happiness is achieving our will (or making progress), and suffering is to have our will frustrated.
Hinduism exists in the form it does because the Persians wanted a docile populace in India, and telling people to be happy with their station in life is one way to keep some frustrated lower-classmember from challenging your status over them.
The "no attachments" philosophies are only suitable, IMO, for people who will never attain any sort of lasting happiness in life. For example, slaves would feel better with such a philosophy since, it's assumed, they'll never be truly happy (not being free to persue happiness). In other words, they have little chance of having their will fullfilled, so they will have to (sadly) shrink their ambitions dramatically.
But if you have the means to assert your will over the universe, then why give up all that potential happiness?
The truth of those philosophies is not to give up materialism, but to sync your desires with your ability to attain them. Don't believe the myth, for example, that just because you are born in America, that all you have to do is work hard and you too can be a millionaire. But don't go to the opposite extreme and give up the potential of owning an iPod, a nice TV, and a quality car (or whatever material object are within your means). Such things are not only possible for a large number of Americans (for example), but can also bring very real happiness.
So what should a rational philosophy be? I think something along the lines of, "live within your means, but don't be afraid to take the opportunity to increase your means if you can."
Now, now... anti-depressants don't actually make you happy...
They most certainly can (and do). Happiness is a state-of-mind. The state of one's mind is highly dependent on chemicals and drugs.
It doesn't fix the problem, but it will keep you afloat until you can get to a safe harbour and repair the damage.
You're thinking of drugs like alcohol and heroine, which make people feel better but also degrade that person's ability to interface with reality, and manage their life.
Anti-depressants are the exact opposite. Not onl to they make the depressed person normal, but they do so without crippling the person's ability to cope with real-life. In other words, for some people, these drugs do, in fact, "plug the hole".
Sadly, my original moronic post seems to have been modded "+5 insightful".
Does that change the fact that the iPod *is* on the list, and was *not* released in 2005? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Who knows what their criteria were? Gather up 100 things they've reviewed in the last year or whenever and recycle them into an article that people will link to and argue about, perhaps.
That's just it, you moron. You're the one claiming to know what the criteria were, and that they applied the same criteria as for the Academy Awards.
The one requirement that you a promoting--that the product had to be introduced in 2005--is clearly not one they used. This is clear because there are many products that were not introduced in 2005 that made the list, including the bloody item in question.
I didn't see the word "novel" in the slashdot summary, or in the Harvey Danger press release, so I'm unclear why you should berate them for not being something they didn't say they were.
Unfortunately in this case, "priceless" literally means they wont make a dime!
Generally speaking, advertising campaigns (if you want to call it one) cost money and don't, directly, make money.
My esteem of Harvey Danger has increased far more than any 15 second TV commercial ever would have (well, unless the commercial said that they were releasing the album for free, and that the RIAA is a bunch of greedy pricks).
And I assure you, you are quite wrong. Harvey Danger will make money as a result of this. Whether more or less than they would have otherwise is debatable, but they seem to like the idea of embracing (and not fighting) technology.
The band deserves +5 Insightful.