Apple put a new spin on existing technology, and they found success with it. The iPod was just a better implementation of the MP3 players that had been on the market for years beforehand. iTunes is just Apple's flavor of a media player, like WinAmp or WMP.
Apple once again found the sweet spot with iTunes, but they didn't really break any new ground.
Are we reading the same article? I don't see anything pro-Apple in this submission.
That's his point. The submission was very neutral. No bias towards or against Apple. Had it been Micro$oft, it wouldn't have been a neutral submission.
I agree with him, but I also think that MS is much more potentially dangerous to the rest of us than Apple is.
It's hard to come up with a reasoned argument that doesn't sound like you're endorsing piracy.
Persoanlly, I don't care how much you pirate, there should be no excuse to send you to jail for it. If they can prove infringement, I can completely agree with fines or restitution, but JAIL TIME? Get F'ing serious!
If this thing becomes law (it probably will), someone will actually go to Federal PITA prison because they hurt Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti's bottom line. That is lunacy.
"Pardon us, senores, but the government that committed those troops to fight with you in Iraq? It's no longer here... we're bringing them home!"
If a government were to fall and the country were split up amongst many different factions, each of those factions would be new countries. Not bound by the agreements of the former government.
I have always wondered if one party stating this fact makes it legal for the other party, in this case the consumer, to also record the conversation.
That's a good question. When I worked for DishNetwork we were instructed to stop talking if the customer said that the were recording the conversation. We were instructed to tell them that we didn't give our permission for them to record us, right before we stopped talking. We were also instructed that legally they HAD to stop recording us once we said that...
But that never made sense to me, we're all aware that any given call COULD be recorded and monitored. I would guess it varies from state to state, but it didn't sound right to me. If we get the right to monitor the call by making the announcement, all parties are aware of the possibility, and consent to US monitoring the call, then how in the hell can that same right not extend to the other party of the call?
So, this guy was pirating moves in Australia and then selling the pirated movies in America, I assume with the help of others. He is guilty of selling them here, even if he hasn't come here personally.
I concede that I could be wrong on this point, but...It's my understanding that he wasn't "selling" his warez. He was making them available for download. There is a bit of difference. Putting it out there so that people can download it, isn't the same as conducting "virtual commerce" in the US.
Bar codes and their scanners hasn't made life worse for anybody.
The difference is that bar codes can't be used from several feet away. A surveillance van can't drive down your street and catalod the contents of your home with bar codes.
RFID isn't there yet, but I stress YET. I have been threatened by the police, I have first hand knowledge that the police are perfectly willing to threaten to frame you for a crime. If they'll threaten it, it's not a far leap to doing it. I DON'T want them to have access to what products I have in my home. If someone is assaulted with a baseball bat that was purchased at Wal Mart, and I happen to have also bought a baseball bat from Wal Mart, that gives them the perfect "in" to frame me.
That is my concern about RFID. Barcodes don't present that problem.
I'm thinking about things like the illegally recorded phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky.
We have all heard that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but in Maryland there was an exception to the law IF you didn't know it was illegal to record the conversation.
In some other states you can record a conversation if at least one of the parties is aware that the monitoring is taking place.
In some other states it's illegal unless BOTH parties are aware of the monitoring.
Have you ever called a customer service telephone number? "This call may be monitored and recorded...." That's all they need to make it legal to record your conversation.
take it you're not a parent. Find one who wouldn't be concerned that we offered filter free, non-monitored use of the internet.
I'm not a "parent", but I am helping to raise my GF's 3 children. I don't feel the need to resort to spying or filtering the internet access in our home. I have told the children that they will NOT be getting internet access in their rooms, they will use the computers in either the living room or the kitchen where we can see them. I don't care if they're going to cartoon network or nickelodeon, or whatever, but if I see a naked ass on the monitor; someone's in trouble.
In one case it's free political speach, and in the other case it's illegal theft of intellectual property
No matter how many times you repeat it, it will never be true. Copyright infringement is NOT theft. This is about Copyright infringement. He may have infringed on their copyrights, but he didn't steal anything from them.
Theft is illegal in most countries. Expressing ones thoughts happens to be a protected right in free countries.
Then take the case of Yoshi Hattori and Rodney Peairs. Yoshi (A Japanese exchange student)was going to a party and transposed two of the digits in the address. Frightened homeowner Rodney Peairs thought that Yoshi was trying to break into his house and fatally shot Yoshi. Here in the US he did not commit a crime, but in Japan that would have been a serious crime.
No extradition in that case either, but, to be fair, I don't believe Japan ever asked for it.
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.
Then "one" hasn't read enough on the subject.
When asked about possibly extraditing Neo Nazi webmasters to Germany where it's illegal to do things like...Deny the Holocaust or glorify Hitler; John Russell, a U.S. justice department spokesman said "In order to have extradition, you have to have dual criminality in both countries, and this doesn't meet that standard,"
Google for "Fred Leuchter german extradition" and you'll get a few links.
The US Government wouldn't do it, so how can they expect Australia to?
Rob Glaser of RealNetworks, though, claims that not opening the iPod (big or small) to other formats is a real mistake; he wants to see iPod support other proprietary formats (like, say, Real's).
Even though I have personally resolved not to buy any new Apple hardware ever again, I think that they finally have a real winner with the iPod. As long as the iPod supports MP3, it's fine. Even though I don't use it, I'd like to see Ogg Vorbis support. The more formats that are in use the harder it will be for them to force DRM on us.
The only problem is, we have found that most of the time the AOL users are reporting our email as spam on accident!
My personal opinion is that since AOL caters to the lowest element, that's what their users tend to be. If you're in a situation where you have to send business emails to someone using an AOL address, perhaps you should try to persuade them to get a yahoo address as well.
Unless you're willing/able to hire someone to work full time on dealing with the idiots who requested your emails and them reported them as spam, I don't see an end to your problems.
From Windows XP back to Windows 95, gurus have suggested a fixed size of 2 or 2.5 times the size of your RAM.
That advice goes back to the days of Win 3.1, probably even further back, and it's bullshit. Any "guru" who makes such a blanked suggestion is talking out of his ass. He read it once ten years ago and is just parroting it.
The point of having so much RAM is so that you don't need as much virtual memory. I have 512 MB in my current machine, it would be idiocy to use 1.25 GB of my HD for swap that I don't need. If I was running bigger programs, or needed to run more programs at once, I'd buy more RAM.
Currently I'm letting Windows handle the swap on its own, it has allocated 768 MB for my swap. The task manager shows that I'm currently using 167 MB of that swap file.
I couldn't agree more with the benefits of swapping to a different drive, but as for the swap/page/virtual memory. Don't believe the hype.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple put a new spin on existing technology, and they found success with it. The iPod was just a better implementation of the MP3 players that had been on the market for years beforehand. iTunes is just Apple's flavor of a media player, like WinAmp or WMP.
Apple once again found the sweet spot with iTunes, but they didn't really break any new ground.
LK
Are we reading the same article? I don't see anything pro-Apple in this submission.
That's his point. The submission was very neutral. No bias towards or against Apple. Had it been Micro$oft, it wouldn't have been a neutral submission.
I agree with him, but I also think that MS is much more potentially dangerous to the rest of us than Apple is.
LK
It is cmomon knweldoge taht hmuan biengs prceoss informiotan in shuc a way that mkaes yuor conuifsion undstanedrable.
If you read that in under 10 seconds, you just proved my ponit.
LK
Binary Digit.
Jackass.
LK
It's hard to come up with a reasoned argument that doesn't sound like you're endorsing piracy.
Persoanlly, I don't care how much you pirate, there should be no excuse to send you to jail for it. If they can prove infringement, I can completely agree with fines or restitution, but JAIL TIME? Get F'ing serious!
If this thing becomes law (it probably will), someone will actually go to Federal PITA prison because they hurt Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti's bottom line. That is lunacy.
LK
"Pardon us, senores, but the government that committed those troops to fight with you in Iraq? It's no longer here... we're bringing them home!"
If a government were to fall and the country were split up amongst many different factions, each of those factions would be new countries. Not bound by the agreements of the former government.
LK
Must be why we pursued a pie-in-the-sky missle defense sheild, which violates treaties we've signed.
You mean that treaty between the US and the USSR (That country that doesn't exist any more)?
LK
I have always wondered if one party stating this fact makes it legal for the other party, in this case the consumer, to also record the conversation.
That's a good question. When I worked for DishNetwork we were instructed to stop talking if the customer said that the were recording the conversation. We were instructed to tell them that we didn't give our permission for them to record us, right before we stopped talking. We were also instructed that legally they HAD to stop recording us once we said that...
But that never made sense to me, we're all aware that any given call COULD be recorded and monitored. I would guess it varies from state to state, but it didn't sound right to me. If we get the right to monitor the call by making the announcement, all parties are aware of the possibility, and consent to US monitoring the call, then how in the hell can that same right not extend to the other party of the call?
LK
So, this guy was pirating moves in Australia and then selling the pirated movies in America, I assume with the help of others. He is guilty of selling them here, even if he hasn't come here personally.
I concede that I could be wrong on this point, but...It's my understanding that he wasn't "selling" his warez. He was making them available for download. There is a bit of difference. Putting it out there so that people can download it, isn't the same as conducting "virtual commerce" in the US.
LK
Bar codes and their scanners hasn't made life worse for anybody.
The difference is that bar codes can't be used from several feet away. A surveillance van can't drive down your street and catalod the contents of your home with bar codes.
RFID isn't there yet, but I stress YET. I have been threatened by the police, I have first hand knowledge that the police are perfectly willing to threaten to frame you for a crime. If they'll threaten it, it's not a far leap to doing it. I DON'T want them to have access to what products I have in my home. If someone is assaulted with a baseball bat that was purchased at Wal Mart, and I happen to have also bought a baseball bat from Wal Mart, that gives them the perfect "in" to frame me.
That is my concern about RFID. Barcodes don't present that problem.
LK
I'm thinking about things like the illegally recorded phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky.
...." That's all they need to make it legal to record your conversation.
We have all heard that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but in Maryland there was an exception to the law IF you didn't know it was illegal to record the conversation.
In some other states you can record a conversation if at least one of the parties is aware that the monitoring is taking place.
In some other states it's illegal unless BOTH parties are aware of the monitoring.
Have you ever called a customer service telephone number? "This call may be monitored and recorded
LK
take it you're not a parent. Find one who wouldn't be concerned that we offered filter free, non-monitored use of the internet.
I'm not a "parent", but I am helping to raise my GF's 3 children. I don't feel the need to resort to spying or filtering the internet access in our home. I have told the children that they will NOT be getting internet access in their rooms, they will use the computers in either the living room or the kitchen where we can see them. I don't care if they're going to cartoon network or nickelodeon, or whatever, but if I see a naked ass on the monitor; someone's in trouble.
LK
Can America be referred to as Yankee? Can Britan be referred to as Brit? No for fuck's sake!
:D
Can France be referred to as Frog? Can Germany be referred to as Kraut? Can Canada be referred to as Canuck? Can Cuba be referred to as Elian?
We have some dumb asses in this world?
Well, then, you answered your own question.
I didn't ask a question.
In one case it's free political speach, and in the other case it's illegal theft of intellectual property
No matter how many times you repeat it, it will never be true. Copyright infringement is NOT theft. This is about Copyright infringement. He may have infringed on their copyrights, but he didn't steal anything from them.
Theft is illegal in most countries. Expressing ones thoughts happens to be a protected right in free countries.
Then take the case of Yoshi Hattori and Rodney Peairs. Yoshi (A Japanese exchange student)was going to a party and transposed two of the digits in the address. Frightened homeowner Rodney Peairs thought that Yoshi was trying to break into his house and fatally shot Yoshi. Here in the US he did not commit a crime, but in Japan that would have been a serious crime.
No extradition in that case either, but, to be fair, I don't believe Japan ever asked for it.
LK
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.
Then "one" hasn't read enough on the subject.
When asked about possibly extraditing Neo Nazi webmasters to Germany where it's illegal to do things like...Deny the Holocaust or glorify Hitler; John Russell, a U.S. justice department spokesman said "In order to have extradition, you have to have dual criminality in both countries, and this doesn't meet that standard,"
Google for "Fred Leuchter german extradition" and you'll get a few links.
The US Government wouldn't do it, so how can they expect Australia to?
LK
All it needs now is frickin' laser beams, and it'll be the most EVIL contraption this side of Britney Spears.
If you think that big luscious bouncy titties are evil, we all know which team you must be batting for.
LK
So it doesn't store Ogg files at all? I'd think that when it's serving as a hard drive it would accept the files but refuse to play them.
I don't know, it might. But I don't own one. Have no plans to.
LK
If so, what do you care what format it is stored in on the iPod?
Portability. So if I got an iPod I could use to to move files faster than my network, and without wasting DVD+Rs.
I know that there are artifacts that come from the conversion, but I'm insufficiently well-trained to hear the difference.
It all depends on what you're listening to. If it's one of my favorite MP3s I can tell if someone has tampered with my graphic EQ settings.
Is it that Ogg takes up less space than AAC so you can cram more onto the iPod's hard disk?
Good question.
LK
I am also offended that Apple thinks they can get away with giving us less for our money because it is "pretty".
Since 1999 Apple has operated on this principle. It's been working fairly well too. iMac...iBook...Cube...
Less for more.
The G3, G4, and G5 Towers have retained a good bang to buck ratio, but their "consumer" and "eye-candy" machines have become cash sinks.
LK
Rob Glaser of RealNetworks, though, claims that not opening the iPod (big or small) to other formats is a real mistake; he wants to see iPod support other proprietary formats (like, say, Real's).
Even though I have personally resolved not to buy any new Apple hardware ever again, I think that they finally have a real winner with the iPod. As long as the iPod supports MP3, it's fine. Even though I don't use it, I'd like to see Ogg Vorbis support. The more formats that are in use the harder it will be for them to force DRM on us.
LK
That is why I have a chandelier hanging in my car.
You are the Duke of New York, you're A #1!
LK
The only problem is, we have found that most of the time the AOL users are reporting our email as spam on accident!
My personal opinion is that since AOL caters to the lowest element, that's what their users tend to be. If you're in a situation where you have to send business emails to someone using an AOL address, perhaps you should try to persuade them to get a yahoo address as well.
Unless you're willing/able to hire someone to work full time on dealing with the idiots who requested your emails and them reported them as spam, I don't see an end to your problems.
LK
From Windows XP back to Windows 95, gurus have suggested a fixed size of 2 or 2.5 times the size of your RAM.
That advice goes back to the days of Win 3.1, probably even further back, and it's bullshit. Any "guru" who makes such a blanked suggestion is talking out of his ass. He read it once ten years ago and is just parroting it.
The point of having so much RAM is so that you don't need as much virtual memory. I have 512 MB in my current machine, it would be idiocy to use 1.25 GB of my HD for swap that I don't need. If I was running bigger programs, or needed to run more programs at once, I'd buy more RAM.
Currently I'm letting Windows handle the swap on its own, it has allocated 768 MB for my swap. The task manager shows that I'm currently using 167 MB of that swap file.
I couldn't agree more with the benefits of swapping to a different drive, but as for the swap/page/virtual memory. Don't believe the hype.
LK
RAM disks are fast, Windows requires swap no matter your physical RAM size, so why not put it on a RAM disk?
Because it's a waste. The more RAM you have, the less swap you need.
Why in the FUCK would you use RAM for Swap? If you have the memory, use the memory.
LK