You're not going to do something silly like imply that the majority or even a third of SUV owners drive them because they're actually pulling boats or off-roading now, are you?
Public transportation sucks in the US, and this is a very suburbia-oriented country. Gas prices of what you're talking about over here would effectively shut much of this country down because of those two facts. So yes, while I have no pity for the soccer moms or yuppies with SUVs that are now paying eighty bucks to fill up, those that aren't making over $20 an hour and have decent commutes are really getting railed.
Personally, I think this is all a good thing as it will finally force us onto hybrids/alternative energy sources. It just sucks because we're the people who have to take it up the ass first.
I know some copyright law, but am not a lawyer nor am I an armchair lawyer who is going to pretend to know that something like this is absolutely or absolutely not legal. I'm also familiar with some international law (something you perhaps haven't taken in to account and where my explanation to your question would lie) and am armed with the common sense knowledge that it should be an extremely simple thing to look up a hot topic such as AllOfMP3's legality and get a firm answer from a reputable source that the service is illegal if it indeed is illegal, yet noone can find anything. I'd love to hear how you account for that?
Then post a link that definitively says that AllOfMP3 is illegal and explains why it is illegal. And no, I'm not talking about the editorial pages using words like "probably" and "maybe," I've been through those.
If you have a link, post it. I'm not defending their site, I am only attempting to get a hard answer.
AllOfMp3 is a load of crap. What is the point? I don't care if the site is technically within the law or not, you're still getting the music and giving money to some random third party who gives none of it to the people who actually own it.
The point is to get songs for cheap legally(?). The end.
Does using AllOfMp3 make you feel better? Do you now get to gloat at how cheap you stole something? Are you special now that you paid someone to steal a song for you rather than just going out and stealing it yourself?
That's irrelevant and has absolutely nothing to do with why I brought up the company. It also assumes that I use the service, which I never indicated. It's interesting how many posters have turned this into some form of personal attack. Please get the context by re-reading the original post, as it was not the "I'm on the moral high ground because I use AllOfMP3" garbage you apparently think it is.
The point was, quite simply, that if we assume that AllOfMP3 is legal, becomes well known, and if iTunes is forced to raise its prices, then the bottom line, (regardless of ethics or whatever derivative topics you'd like to bring into it) is that people will flock over to services where they can get their DRM-less MP3s easily and MUCH more cheaply. The legality(?) is the icing on the cake. It doesn't have to specifically be the company AllOfMP3, they simply serve as a good example of a business model that can provide music at a much lower cost than what the music labels want iTunes to charge.
Obviously I do not expect AllOfMP3 themselves to say that they're an illegal service if they are, which is why I was searching on the internet in general and not specifically on their site (I suppose my usage of "search" was ambiguous, which I apologize for).
which they put mainly as a disclaimer, but it serves for our purposes... Combine it with US copyright law, and presto, there's your answer.
You would think so, but then why do none of the sites that have reviewed it/been asked about the legality come to the conclusion that it is simply an illegal service?
"Probably not legal" != "illegal." If you're going to be a smartass, you should probably have at least read my post. And no, this isn't a morality play nor do I have some sort of stake in AllOfMp3, I was merely pointing out that their business, which noone has actually shown is illegal yet, will be made that much more attractive by price hikes such as these to the casual user once/if the sites existence becomes common knowledge.
If someone can actually pull up a site that actually says that the site is illegal and why it is illegal instead of "could-be" or "probably" (since there are about twice as many sites that say that it is "probably" legal and quite a few that say it is definitively legal) then please share, as I haven't been able to find anything despite the general consensus that the service is absolutely illegal. This is more a matter of interest rather than trying to prove that AllOfMp3 is legal by asserting there is no real evidence that says it is not. Pretty simple, yes?
And your assumption would be completely wrong, but I'm sure you were just trying to be cocky. I live in the US and have yet to find out a site that definitively comes out and clearly says that AllOfMp3.com is illegal for me to download from, just a lot of sites saying "it appears legal" and "it looks too good to be true." I would have to believe that if downloading from their site was indeed illegal, that information would be simple to find with a simple search.
I'm interested if you have read something I didn't, which I assume you have readily available judging by the arrogant tone of your post?
Let them do it. Sites like AllOfMp3.com will just get more business (which appears to be totally legal). Why would anyone buy a crappy compressed song for $1.50? At that price it costs as much (or more!) as a regular CD with artwork and no compression!
I'm still waiting for the day when the general population knows about sites like AllOfMp3, where you can download an entire album in just about every popular format for around a dollar. You can even preview an entire album before purchasing, and the selection is pretty decent. Not as good as iTunes, but probably enough to satisfy a good chuck of iTMS users.
And given all this, the record companies want to make themselves look worse? Hilarious! Let them!
Programming languages are a mere subset of what you learn with an actual computer science degree. Shifting technologies aren't a big deal, since they generally adhere to some basic principles.
A decent computer scientist can look at a new programming language, generally figure out which principles it works off of that he/she is most likely all ready familiar with, and be laying down code within hours. Obviously it could take years to truly master, but given the small amount of time needed to become familiar with a new language, this isn't really a good reason to not get into the field. That's one of the things you learn how to do quickly with a CS degree since you're familiar with what actually makes a programming language tick.
A CS degree will also be "good" in 20 years because a good CS program teaches you abstract ideas and concepts, not one or two programming languages.
There is measurable value in seeing a ".xxx" address and knowing instantly that it's probably porn-related. I'm sure the other sites won't be giving up their current domains, but I still view this as a positive step to bringing some meaning to domains.
Thing is it doesn't mean that it changes the relevance of the results.
Yes, absolutely - I'm merely saying that Yahoo! has topped Google in something, where as in the past few years they've basically been left in the dust. I applaud their efforts at improving and I'm glad that now Google will probably have to/want to do something about their number of sites to shut Yahoo! up, thus improving their service.
Yes, you and I and the grandparent poster all know that throwing more sites at their search engine doesn't make it a better search engine. But Google doesn't care about what I think; they know as well as we do that Yahoo! is marketing their product and are going to flaunt this in Google's face. Yahoo! coming out with an ad campaign bragging about how they have more sites could possibly raise a few non-techy eyebrows. For all they know, "more sites" = better search.
This isn't like Intel with clock speeds, they're not trying to use this to convince the general public - yet. If they do, will people really see the benefit in the extra indexing?
If Yahoo! knows how to market it right, there's a good possibility, yes. That's the point.
Either way, I hope Google doesn't retaliate, unless it means more relevant results and less time browsing through junk.
Google already obviously has a great search algorithm. I would love to see them make an extra effort to spider more sites hiding out in the dark corners of the web (assuming that this would NOT degrade the quality of the search results as you said), wouldn't you?
Can you please explain why exactly it is a bad thing that Yahoo! is attempting to improve their searches, and do you have some sort of explanation/proof of your implied correlation that Yahoo! results gets worse as it indexes more websites?
Adding more potential hits is nothing but A Good Thing. The actual search itself might not be up to snuff with Google yet, however, adding more potential search hits it is nothing but an improvement. We should be excited that Yahoo! is upping the ante in any form. Just because they're competing with/. favorite Google shouldn't mean that the Google fans have to laugh at competitors' efforts to beat Google.
Competition is good. Yahoo! should be given a given a positive nod for attempting to outdo Google on any front (which they've done here) instead of attempting to spin their efforts at improving their free search into a negative. Even as a huge Google fan that hasn't touched Yahoo! in a while, this just makes me think "Cool, now Google is going to retaliate."
Before you tell the parent to read the article, it would probably be good of you to actually read his post where he already acknowledges what you said.
"Yet I can't drive my car across the sidewalk, over your yard, or for that matter through your house."
Driving your car is a privilege, not a right. Driving your car across the sidewalk endangers the lives of others. Driving your car through my house invades on my privacy, would probably prove destructive, and would again be endangering lives.
you must be one of those naive tools who traded away some of your Essential Liberty (to drive anywhere you want) in exchange for Temporary Safety (ie. not having you or your family driven over).
Driving is a dangerous thing that kills lots of people. Putting regulations and laws into it that keep people from doing what you were trying to use as some sort of related example directly saves lives, which is a benefit for citizens. This is what a democratic government should be doing, it serves for the overall benefit of the people. To re-iterate, the government's job is to serve the will of the people, for the overall good of the people. If terrorists really do hate us for our freedom, they're doing an excellent job taking it away. Every time they blow up a bomb somewhere, our government is showing them they will respond by diminishing our freedoms. No amount of cheerleading for the government and calling it patriotism will change this.
The Patriot Act does clearly not serve the people, it does them a disservice by allowing the government to snoop on, arrest, or detain American citizens for however long they see fit. This sort of thing will not stop terrorism. It serves no purpose that benefits you or I.
But hey, just keep repeating aphorisms, it's a pretty good disguise for real thought.
Alternatively, feel free to continue to make ridiculous comparisons that carry no weight and attempt to pass that off as some form of real, rational thought.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -Adolph Hitler
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " -Benjamin Franklin
The worst thing about an action like this it is CLEARLY against the will of the people. The Do Not Call list is opt-in, it only applies to those who go out of their way to sign up. The only "victims" of something like this are the CORPORATIONS who are being denied the right to directly attack those who don't want to have their houses invaded by direct advertising. The people gain nothing from this sort of action, they only lose out.
How is it possible that a democratic governing body, which is supposed to be looking out for the people, is taking a direct stance against them? Which American citizens are rallying against the DNC list?
Yet more sad evidence that the government is more concerned with corporate interests than those of the people.
1. I learned a lot about responsibility and learned some really abstract and helpful concepts. The toughness of the degree made it that more exhilirating to get it. I also have a degree in business administration, but my CS degree was far more rewarding. Many employers also recognize the difficulty in getting a CS degree. I regard my CS degree with pride.
2. You do not have to work at Microsoft. There are TONS of companies out there. I've had no experience with this, and neither does anyone else who asks flat out in an interview if there's mandatory overtime.
3. Damn fine point... plus, it rots your teeth and gives you kidney stones. Again though, see #2.
4. At the age of 28 and with a CS degree, you should have more than five years of real-world experience. Another few more and you're a senior engineer, of which there are a healthy amount of positions that pay well. There's also the choice to move up to doing some management work or project leading. Software design is incredibly interesting, if not simply from a puzzle-solving stance. I'd say you're only in trouble at 28 if you have no ambition to move up.
The job market really isn't as bad as folks are saying. When I was a junior in college I landed an internship that paid me 15 bucks an hour and gave me a totally flexible schedule. I learned a ridiculous amount and was thus one (or even two) up on all of the other graduates, since I had two years of actual experience under my belt. Finding a job is not difficult if you're into it enough that you're a cut above the rest, and no, this does not require you to do nothing but program on your off-time. Don't get me wrong, this isn't exactly the tech bubble, but there are very few job markets that see that sort of activity.
Basically, I just want to address the folks who want to get CS degrees: If you want it, go get it. It's a great looking degree, will teach you the art of hard work, and despite what others might say, will still land you a decent job if you want it. I still highly recommend trying for a minor in business or another field as it expands your skillset greatly on top of that, but not because a CS degree on its own is weak. It's also a nice reprieve from CS classes, as they will be nicely easier than what you would be used to.
My point was that by using a seven year old spare machine, with a low end processor, with an inexpensive video card, I was able to output video to a standard definition TV and sound to a stereo receiver.
In that case, your point had nothing to do with the original discussion, which was why Apple should or should not create and market a Video iPod (storing a library of video as it does audio) even though a miniscule percentage of users can already store movies on their iPods and view them on their TVs.
The target market for a similar "set top" device is huge.
And once again, the target market for a device that has the advantage of portability and has the good name of "iPod" backing it up is even huger.
A Mac Mini class machine, optimized for video playback, priced intially under $1000 would sell, especially if coupled with a "iMovie" video store. Tivo like functionality would be a plus.
Or, to the average consumer, you could buy a portable device for hundreds less that has the name "iPod" on it, which gives you warm and fuzzy feelings.
Apple's strategy is to sell Apple's hardware devices that play content from Apple's content store. This is exactly the same strategy.
Ah, you neglect to point out that the hardware has been under 500 to get into it and has served as a portable library, both things that are lost under your vision.
Your point that a Mac Mini is mandatory is spurious, as an Apple branded device was manadatory when the iTunes Music Store went live (iPod or Mac), it should be expected that an Apple device will be needed to play content from the Apple video store.
How is this relevant? I said absolutely nothing about downloading Apple movies and putting them on non-Apple branded hardware. Of course it shouldn't be a big surprise that Apple hardware is needed to play media purchased from their store.
Big assumption, that there is a portable video market and that it is large enough to warrent going after. I don't see it, but I've been wrong before.
It is not a big assumption to assume that consumers would be interesting in taking their entire library of movies (eventually) with them on a portable device. It's a logical progression.
Personally, I think the first company out of the gate with an on demand "Netflix" type service service will clean up. An "iMovie" video store and an Apple $500-$1000 Mac Mini/video iPod class device would do that nicely.
At that price, not at a mainstream level, and it's certainly doubtful if you're depending on a Mac computer to do it instead of an iPod, which has wild brand recognition and would be the ideal candidate to receive that sort of technology.
And your access to Apple's development labs lets you know this? Tell me, what is Apple doing right now with respect to a consumer level video device?
I don't claim to have access to Apple's development labs, I do claim to know the fundamental basics of pursuing target markets and building upon proven strategies.
What partners is Apple lining up to support HD? What new pro, enthusisat, and entry products will be announced in the future that are under development RIGHT NOW?
You're thrashing now, but I'll show you the context of your own comments. You said: And Apple is a big time proponent of hi def video. Take note of your use of the present tense. Now granted, whether they are big time proponents or not wasn't even relevant to my original post, and I even clarified that, so I'm not sure where that came from. HD has nothing to do with what I was talking about, nor does it have anything to do with it now. Anyhow, all I said was right now, no, they're not a "big time proponent." They're not marketing HD towards consumers at a mainstream level right now. If you're going to say a company is a big time proponent of a technology, then don't you think they should have some consumer-level produc
That wasn't the question. The question was, how many target users have that setup? Anecdotal proof is worthless when we're talking about a pool of millions of consumers.
And, oh by the way, Apple is in the business of selling Macs.
Moreso, Apple is in the business of selling Apple products.
So requiring a Mac, from Apple's perspective, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
It is when your potential userbase is that low. What's the Mac percentage of computers owned? Of that, how many are equipped with DVI/HDMI? What's the percentage of those users who have iPods? What's the percentage of those who also have a HDTV? What's the percentage of those who have a very short run to their TV? And finally, what's the percentage of people who would find this solution even remotely graceful?
Now, what's the percentage of people with an iPod who also have standard TV connections PERIOD? Gee, which target market should Apple pursue? Come on. This is common sense marketing and economics. It would be ridiculous to try and use a 300 dollar iPod to DIRECTLY (and no, the iPod halo effect is not direct) drive sales of a computer that starts at 499. It makes no sense.
And Apple is a big time proponent of hi def video.
HD has nothing to do with what I was talking about, so I'm not sure where that came in. I mentioned HD because the parent poster's requirements included a HDMI or DVI, and the vast majority of TVs that have that are HD only. But as an aside, besides Steve Jobs saying that this is the year of HD, he is currently not doing too much with his company RIGHT NOW to reflect that. As of right now, They have one and only one product that can actually display a true hi def signal, and if I recall correctly that piece of hardware goes for 3000 dollars PLUS the cost of the hardware that can actually drive it. Not exactly consumer level. Perhaps you're talking about Final Cut HD, which is also a professional application.
"And if by relatively new you mean seven years old then we agree on that."
I'm talking about when even just half of the already-low percentage of Macs sold were shipped with DVI capabilities out of the box.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is developing an "iMovie" video store, but I expect that it will be to download movies to a Mac Mini like video server more than a moblie video device.
This would be a very large surprise for three reasons. Firstly, Apple would be making a drastic change in their business strategy, secondly they'd be targetting a very small market (ie, a Mac Mini is mandatory) when Jobs has said that he's going for the large one, and thirdly, it allows Apple's competitors to snatch the portable video market from underneath them and allow them to eat iPod share.
While I don't plug my iPod into a stereo at work, I do plug it into external speakers. The difference is that I can listen to music and work. I would find it very hard to watch video and work.
I was retorting to the original parent post who apparently found it strange that iPod owners use their iPods as portable music libraries by giving him a counterexample. It had nothing to do with the video iPod.
On the other hand, I do take DVDs to friends and they bring them to my place, so having my movie collection portable does have some appeal.
Exactly. And there are lots of people like you and I who have the same thoughts on that, but only a ridiciulously small percentage of them would want to stream it through a necessary mac through all of that other crap as opposed to simply plugging it into a TV and hitting "play." That's all I'm getting at.
In my main menu, "Music" is an item that if selected then divides into Artist/Album/etc.
To put audio onto my iPod, I need only drag and drop it ionto my iPod icon in iTunes. The end. iTunes then takes care of the rest of the work, and the new audio is now visible on my iPod.
Assuming that Apple isn't stupid enough to not make adding movies to an iPod as simple as adding audio files and then adds a "Movies" category on the main menu, I'm not too sure what would be confusing to a user besides codec support. However, even that could be taken care of for most folks by simply having iTunes offer to convert the codec into h.264 (or whatever it is) automatically.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not going to do something silly like imply that the majority or even a third of SUV owners drive them because they're actually pulling boats or off-roading now, are you?
Public transportation sucks in the US, and this is a very suburbia-oriented country. Gas prices of what you're talking about over here would effectively shut much of this country down because of those two facts. So yes, while I have no pity for the soccer moms or yuppies with SUVs that are now paying eighty bucks to fill up, those that aren't making over $20 an hour and have decent commutes are really getting railed.
Personally, I think this is all a good thing as it will finally force us onto hybrids/alternative energy sources. It just sucks because we're the people who have to take it up the ass first.
Which copyright laws? The US ones?
The reason I want a link or some source is so that I'm not reading armchair lawyer posts such as yours. I'm not interested in that useless crap.
I know some copyright law, but am not a lawyer nor am I an armchair lawyer who is going to pretend to know that something like this is absolutely or absolutely not legal. I'm also familiar with some international law (something you perhaps haven't taken in to account and where my explanation to your question would lie) and am armed with the common sense knowledge that it should be an extremely simple thing to look up a hot topic such as AllOfMP3's legality and get a firm answer from a reputable source that the service is illegal if it indeed is illegal, yet noone can find anything. I'd love to hear how you account for that?
Then post a link that definitively says that AllOfMP3 is illegal and explains why it is illegal. And no, I'm not talking about the editorial pages using words like "probably" and "maybe," I've been through those.
If you have a link, post it. I'm not defending their site, I am only attempting to get a hard answer.
AllOfMp3 is a load of crap. What is the point? I don't care if the site is technically within the law or not, you're still getting the music and giving money to some random third party who gives none of it to the people who actually own it.
The point is to get songs for cheap legally(?). The end.
Does using AllOfMp3 make you feel better? Do you now get to gloat at how cheap you stole something? Are you special now that you paid someone to steal a song for you rather than just going out and stealing it yourself?
That's irrelevant and has absolutely nothing to do with why I brought up the company. It also assumes that I use the service, which I never indicated. It's interesting how many posters have turned this into some form of personal attack. Please get the context by re-reading the original post, as it was not the "I'm on the moral high ground because I use AllOfMP3" garbage you apparently think it is.
The point was, quite simply, that if we assume that AllOfMP3 is legal, becomes well known, and if iTunes is forced to raise its prices, then the bottom line, (regardless of ethics or whatever derivative topics you'd like to bring into it) is that people will flock over to services where they can get their DRM-less MP3s easily and MUCH more cheaply. The legality(?) is the icing on the cake. It doesn't have to specifically be the company AllOfMP3, they simply serve as a good example of a business model that can provide music at a much lower cost than what the music labels want iTunes to charge.
Obviously I do not expect AllOfMP3 themselves to say that they're an illegal service if they are, which is why I was searching on the internet in general and not specifically on their site (I suppose my usage of "search" was ambiguous, which I apologize for).
which they put mainly as a disclaimer, but it serves for our purposes... Combine it with US copyright law, and presto, there's your answer.
You would think so, but then why do none of the sites that have reviewed it/been asked about the legality come to the conclusion that it is simply an illegal service?
"Probably not legal" != "illegal." If you're going to be a smartass, you should probably have at least read my post. And no, this isn't a morality play nor do I have some sort of stake in AllOfMp3, I was merely pointing out that their business, which noone has actually shown is illegal yet, will be made that much more attractive by price hikes such as these to the casual user once/if the sites existence becomes common knowledge.
If someone can actually pull up a site that actually says that the site is illegal and why it is illegal instead of "could-be" or "probably" (since there are about twice as many sites that say that it is "probably" legal and quite a few that say it is definitively legal) then please share, as I haven't been able to find anything despite the general consensus that the service is absolutely illegal. This is more a matter of interest rather than trying to prove that AllOfMp3 is legal by asserting there is no real evidence that says it is not. Pretty simple, yes?
And your assumption would be completely wrong, but I'm sure you were just trying to be cocky. I live in the US and have yet to find out a site that definitively comes out and clearly says that AllOfMp3.com is illegal for me to download from, just a lot of sites saying "it appears legal" and "it looks too good to be true." I would have to believe that if downloading from their site was indeed illegal, that information would be simple to find with a simple search.
I'm interested if you have read something I didn't, which I assume you have readily available judging by the arrogant tone of your post?
Let them do it. Sites like AllOfMp3.com will just get more business (which appears to be totally legal). Why would anyone buy a crappy compressed song for $1.50? At that price it costs as much (or more!) as a regular CD with artwork and no compression!
I'm still waiting for the day when the general population knows about sites like AllOfMp3, where you can download an entire album in just about every popular format for around a dollar. You can even preview an entire album before purchasing, and the selection is pretty decent. Not as good as iTunes, but probably enough to satisfy a good chuck of iTMS users.
And given all this, the record companies want to make themselves look worse? Hilarious! Let them!
Programming languages are a mere subset of what you learn with an actual computer science degree. Shifting technologies aren't a big deal, since they generally adhere to some basic principles.
A decent computer scientist can look at a new programming language, generally figure out which principles it works off of that he/she is most likely all ready familiar with, and be laying down code within hours. Obviously it could take years to truly master, but given the small amount of time needed to become familiar with a new language, this isn't really a good reason to not get into the field. That's one of the things you learn how to do quickly with a CS degree since you're familiar with what actually makes a programming language tick.
A CS degree will also be "good" in 20 years because a good CS program teaches you abstract ideas and concepts, not one or two programming languages.
There is measurable value in seeing a ".xxx" address and knowing instantly that it's probably porn-related. I'm sure the other sites won't be giving up their current domains, but I still view this as a positive step to bringing some meaning to domains.
Thing is it doesn't mean that it changes the relevance of the results.
Yes, absolutely - I'm merely saying that Yahoo! has topped Google in something, where as in the past few years they've basically been left in the dust. I applaud their efforts at improving and I'm glad that now Google will probably have to/want to do something about their number of sites to shut Yahoo! up, thus improving their service.
Yes, you and I and the grandparent poster all know that throwing more sites at their search engine doesn't make it a better search engine. But Google doesn't care about what I think; they know as well as we do that Yahoo! is marketing their product and are going to flaunt this in Google's face. Yahoo! coming out with an ad campaign bragging about how they have more sites could possibly raise a few non-techy eyebrows. For all they know, "more sites" = better search.
This isn't like Intel with clock speeds, they're not trying to use this to convince the general public - yet. If they do, will people really see the benefit in the extra indexing?
If Yahoo! knows how to market it right, there's a good possibility, yes. That's the point.
Either way, I hope Google doesn't retaliate, unless it means more relevant results and less time browsing through junk.
Google already obviously has a great search algorithm. I would love to see them make an extra effort to spider more sites hiding out in the dark corners of the web (assuming that this would NOT degrade the quality of the search results as you said), wouldn't you?
Can you please explain why exactly it is a bad thing that Yahoo! is attempting to improve their searches, and do you have some sort of explanation/proof of your implied correlation that Yahoo! results gets worse as it indexes more websites?
/. favorite Google shouldn't mean that the Google fans have to laugh at competitors' efforts to beat Google.
Adding more potential hits is nothing but A Good Thing. The actual search itself might not be up to snuff with Google yet, however, adding more potential search hits it is nothing but an improvement. We should be excited that Yahoo! is upping the ante in any form. Just because they're competing with
Competition is good. Yahoo! should be given a given a positive nod for attempting to outdo Google on any front (which they've done here) instead of attempting to spin their efforts at improving their free search into a negative. Even as a huge Google fan that hasn't touched Yahoo! in a while, this just makes me think "Cool, now Google is going to retaliate."
Absolutely. Macs are sort of the gaming consoles of the computer world.
technology can actually promote more responsible drinking because it allows people to be cut off from using the tap
It's both humorous and sad how the word "responsibility" has been used lately.
This does not promote responsibility.
Before you tell the parent to read the article, it would probably be good of you to actually read his post where he already acknowledges what you said.
"Yet I can't drive my car across the sidewalk, over your yard, or for that matter through your house."
Driving your car is a privilege, not a right. Driving your car across the sidewalk endangers the lives of others. Driving your car through my house invades on my privacy, would probably prove destructive, and would again be endangering lives.
you must be one of those naive tools who traded away some of your Essential Liberty (to drive anywhere you want) in exchange for Temporary Safety (ie. not having you or your family driven over).
Driving is a dangerous thing that kills lots of people. Putting regulations and laws into it that keep people from doing what you were trying to use as some sort of related example directly saves lives, which is a benefit for citizens. This is what a democratic government should be doing, it serves for the overall benefit of the people. To re-iterate, the government's job is to serve the will of the people, for the overall good of the people. If terrorists really do hate us for our freedom, they're doing an excellent job taking it away. Every time they blow up a bomb somewhere, our government is showing them they will respond by diminishing our freedoms. No amount of cheerleading for the government and calling it patriotism will change this.
The Patriot Act does clearly not serve the people, it does them a disservice by allowing the government to snoop on, arrest, or detain American citizens for however long they see fit. This sort of thing will not stop terrorism. It serves no purpose that benefits you or I.
But hey, just keep repeating aphorisms, it's a pretty good disguise for real thought.
Alternatively, feel free to continue to make ridiculous comparisons that carry no weight and attempt to pass that off as some form of real, rational thought.
Thank you (and everyone else) for the correction. I could've sworn that one was from Hitler, but I apologize for my error!
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -Adolph Hitler
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " -Benjamin Franklin
The worst thing about an action like this it is CLEARLY against the will of the people. The Do Not Call list is opt-in, it only applies to those who go out of their way to sign up. The only "victims" of something like this are the CORPORATIONS who are being denied the right to directly attack those who don't want to have their houses invaded by direct advertising. The people gain nothing from this sort of action, they only lose out.
How is it possible that a democratic governing body, which is supposed to be looking out for the people, is taking a direct stance against them? Which American citizens are rallying against the DNC list?
Yet more sad evidence that the government is more concerned with corporate interests than those of the people.
1. I learned a lot about responsibility and learned some really abstract and helpful concepts. The toughness of the degree made it that more exhilirating to get it. I also have a degree in business administration, but my CS degree was far more rewarding. Many employers also recognize the difficulty in getting a CS degree. I regard my CS degree with pride.
2. You do not have to work at Microsoft. There are TONS of companies out there. I've had no experience with this, and neither does anyone else who asks flat out in an interview if there's mandatory overtime.
3. Damn fine point... plus, it rots your teeth and gives you kidney stones. Again though, see #2.
4. At the age of 28 and with a CS degree, you should have more than five years of real-world experience. Another few more and you're a senior engineer, of which there are a healthy amount of positions that pay well. There's also the choice to move up to doing some management work or project leading. Software design is incredibly interesting, if not simply from a puzzle-solving stance. I'd say you're only in trouble at 28 if you have no ambition to move up.
The job market really isn't as bad as folks are saying. When I was a junior in college I landed an internship that paid me 15 bucks an hour and gave me a totally flexible schedule. I learned a ridiculous amount and was thus one (or even two) up on all of the other graduates, since I had two years of actual experience under my belt. Finding a job is not difficult if you're into it enough that you're a cut above the rest, and no, this does not require you to do nothing but program on your off-time. Don't get me wrong, this isn't exactly the tech bubble, but there are very few job markets that see that sort of activity.
Basically, I just want to address the folks who want to get CS degrees: If you want it, go get it. It's a great looking degree, will teach you the art of hard work, and despite what others might say, will still land you a decent job if you want it. I still highly recommend trying for a minor in business or another field as it expands your skillset greatly on top of that, but not because a CS degree on its own is weak. It's also a nice reprieve from CS classes, as they will be nicely easier than what you would be used to.
Best of luck to any prospective CS students.
My point was that by using a seven year old spare machine, with a low end processor, with an inexpensive video card, I was able to output video to a standard definition TV and sound to a stereo receiver.
In that case, your point had nothing to do with the original discussion, which was why Apple should or should not create and market a Video iPod (storing a library of video as it does audio) even though a miniscule percentage of users can already store movies on their iPods and view them on their TVs.
The target market for a similar "set top" device is huge.
And once again, the target market for a device that has the advantage of portability and has the good name of "iPod" backing it up is even huger.
A Mac Mini class machine, optimized for video playback, priced intially under $1000 would sell, especially if coupled with a "iMovie" video store. Tivo like functionality would be a plus.
Or, to the average consumer, you could buy a portable device for hundreds less that has the name "iPod" on it, which gives you warm and fuzzy feelings.
Apple's strategy is to sell Apple's hardware devices that play content from Apple's content store. This is exactly the same strategy.
Ah, you neglect to point out that the hardware has been under 500 to get into it and has served as a portable library, both things that are lost under your vision.
Your point that a Mac Mini is mandatory is spurious, as an Apple branded device was manadatory when the iTunes Music Store went live (iPod or Mac), it should be expected that an Apple device will be needed to play content from the Apple video store.
How is this relevant? I said absolutely nothing about downloading Apple movies and putting them on non-Apple branded hardware. Of course it shouldn't be a big surprise that Apple hardware is needed to play media purchased from their store.
Big assumption, that there is a portable video market and that it is large enough to warrent going after. I don't see it, but I've been wrong before.
It is not a big assumption to assume that consumers would be interesting in taking their entire library of movies (eventually) with them on a portable device. It's a logical progression.
Personally, I think the first company out of the gate with an on demand "Netflix" type service service will clean up. An "iMovie" video store and an Apple $500-$1000 Mac Mini/video iPod class device would do that nicely.
At that price, not at a mainstream level, and it's certainly doubtful if you're depending on a Mac computer to do it instead of an iPod, which has wild brand recognition and would be the ideal candidate to receive that sort of technology.
And your access to Apple's development labs lets you know this? Tell me, what is Apple doing right now with respect to a consumer level video device?
I don't claim to have access to Apple's development labs, I do claim to know the fundamental basics of pursuing target markets and building upon proven strategies.
What partners is Apple lining up to support HD? What new pro, enthusisat, and entry products will be announced in the future that are under development RIGHT NOW?
You're thrashing now, but I'll show you the context of your own comments. You said: And Apple is a big time proponent of hi def video. Take note of your use of the present tense. Now granted, whether they are big time proponents or not wasn't even relevant to my original post, and I even clarified that, so I'm not sure where that came from. HD has nothing to do with what I was talking about, nor does it have anything to do with it now. Anyhow, all I said was right now, no, they're not a "big time proponent." They're not marketing HD towards consumers at a mainstream level right now. If you're going to say a company is a big time proponent of a technology, then don't you think they should have some consumer-level produc
I'd bet at least one, me.
That wasn't the question. The question was, how many target users have that setup? Anecdotal proof is worthless when we're talking about a pool of millions of consumers.
And, oh by the way, Apple is in the business of selling Macs.
Moreso, Apple is in the business of selling Apple products.
So requiring a Mac, from Apple's perspective, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
It is when your potential userbase is that low. What's the Mac percentage of computers owned? Of that, how many are equipped with DVI/HDMI? What's the percentage of those users who have iPods? What's the percentage of those who also have a HDTV? What's the percentage of those who have a very short run to their TV? And finally, what's the percentage of people who would find this solution even remotely graceful?
Now, what's the percentage of people with an iPod who also have standard TV connections PERIOD? Gee, which target market should Apple pursue? Come on. This is common sense marketing and economics. It would be ridiculous to try and use a 300 dollar iPod to DIRECTLY (and no, the iPod halo effect is not direct) drive sales of a computer that starts at 499. It makes no sense.
And Apple is a big time proponent of hi def video.
HD has nothing to do with what I was talking about, so I'm not sure where that came in. I mentioned HD because the parent poster's requirements included a HDMI or DVI, and the vast majority of TVs that have that are HD only. But as an aside, besides Steve Jobs saying that this is the year of HD, he is currently not doing too much with his company RIGHT NOW to reflect that. As of right now, They have one and only one product that can actually display a true hi def signal, and if I recall correctly that piece of hardware goes for 3000 dollars PLUS the cost of the hardware that can actually drive it. Not exactly consumer level. Perhaps you're talking about Final Cut HD, which is also a professional application.
"And if by relatively new you mean seven years old then we agree on that."
I'm talking about when even just half of the already-low percentage of Macs sold were shipped with DVI capabilities out of the box.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is developing an "iMovie" video store, but I expect that it will be to download movies to a Mac Mini like video server more than a moblie video device.
This would be a very large surprise for three reasons. Firstly, Apple would be making a drastic change in their business strategy, secondly they'd be targetting a very small market (ie, a Mac Mini is mandatory) when Jobs has said that he's going for the large one, and thirdly, it allows Apple's competitors to snatch the portable video market from underneath them and allow them to eat iPod share.
While I don't plug my iPod into a stereo at work, I do plug it into external speakers. The difference is that I can listen to music and work. I would find it very hard to watch video and work.
I was retorting to the original parent post who apparently found it strange that iPod owners use their iPods as portable music libraries by giving him a counterexample. It had nothing to do with the video iPod.
On the other hand, I do take DVDs to friends and they bring them to my place, so having my movie collection portable does have some appeal.
Exactly. And there are lots of people like you and I who have the same thoughts on that, but only a ridiciulously small percentage of them would want to stream it through a necessary mac through all of that other crap as opposed to simply plugging it into a TV and hitting "play." That's all I'm getting at.
In my main menu, "Music" is an item that if selected then divides into Artist/Album/etc.
To put audio onto my iPod, I need only drag and drop it ionto my iPod icon in iTunes. The end. iTunes then takes care of the rest of the work, and the new audio is now visible on my iPod.
Assuming that Apple isn't stupid enough to not make adding movies to an iPod as simple as adding audio files and then adds a "Movies" category on the main menu, I'm not too sure what would be confusing to a user besides codec support. However, even that could be taken care of for most folks by simply having iTunes offer to convert the codec into h.264 (or whatever it is) automatically.