People will always pirate, and piracy will always be possible.
But there is a market-force balance in play here - when you "steal" something, there is still a certain amount of effort and time that goes into the stealing. If the product's price is so low, that stealing it takes more effort than it's worth, then the balance has been achieved. I think we're there, now, with VHS video cassettes. The price of your average movie, $24.99, is low enough that every American can afford it. It's much cheaper than buying two VCR's, gold-plated monster cables, and a Macrovision-defeating filter, and blank tape.
25 cents a song, that's still a bit high in my estimate. More like 5 or 10 cents a song. All we need is a functional micropayments infrastructure, and you'll see Piracy drop off the radar screen faster than a passenger-laden 747 flying over a US Navy anti-aircraft test range. Unfortunately, the figures I'm hearing coming out of the record companies, (Sony), are in the 3-5 US Dollar per song range.
So of course, to command that kind of price, they're going to have to enact some kind of copy protection technology. The point of that isn't to make it impossible to copy. We've beaten that horse, and it smells really, really bad. The point of copy protection technology is to bring the "cost of piracy" up to the level equivalent to what the music companies want to be able to charge.
But as long as music is provided on CD's, in the format it's in today - there will always be people ripping MP3's, and sharing them on the net. Which is why the RIAA is whining to the government for protection. A few MP3 traderz get busted, go to jail, and suddenly, the "cost of piracy" goes up. This covers their ass while the music industry migrates to a format that's technically easier for them to protect, like whatever evil spawn results from SMDI. I wouldn't buy any new CD-players if I were you, I think they're going the way of the do-do. Some DVD-derived technology will probably take it's place on PC's. And playing music CD's on unlicensed/unsecured hardware will be a thing of the past.
If folks hack that, then there's the DCMA. Raise the "cost of piracy", raise "value of commodity".
It IS after all a Rumors site. I find it rather entertaining, right or wrong. About the only thing I disagree with was the smear campaign that came out against MOSR, particularly the personal attacks against their staff (check out www.mosr.net), and the perception that AppleInsider is somehow more accurate than MOSR. AppleInsider is pretending to be a news outlet, and they post inaccurate shit, because they're a rumors site. At least MOSR doesn't pretend they're not a rumors site. I agree that some of the technical mistakes they've made were gigantic, mistakes AppleInsider has not made. Some of their stuff has been outright whoring lies to get hits when real information was dry. But at least they know what and who they are, and at least they aren't making personal attacks against the staff of AppleInsider.
The same machine basically, Pro, is also the same as an iMac. Only this one, you can choose your monitor. If you want, you can choose an expansion chassis, or two (hopefully, they interlock or stack well - physically).
Think of the Beowulf possibilities. Especially if these things can ship in 2, 4, or 8-way configurations. Run 'em headless, etc. If you are a Pro, but don't need expansion capabilities right off, you don't need the bulk and expense of the expansion chassis. Apple saves money by having a product line that scales very smoothly, yet utilizes more common components.
Frankly, this gets my 'nads pumping. I can see why Apple doesn't want this idea out in the public yet, because every cheezy PC manufacturer is going to try to beat them to market. They didn't get the chance with the iMac - and Apple sued their asses, but this concept is too good to pass up.
When AppleInsider came on the scene, they ran a whole lot of material through their page attempting to discredit MOSR. Including some viscious personal attacks. It's like they had some kind of personal vendetta against MOSR. Naturally, the people who frequent AppleInsider are going to have an anti-MOSR viewpoint. From an editorial standpoint, AppleInsider HAS toned down their anti-MOSR rhetoric, but the vitriol remains in their "following" (or maybe some of it is incited by AI staff posing as visitors).
The fact is, AppleInsider is wrong more frequently than MOSR. When AppleInsider IS correct, there is also the ethical choice to be made to sit on a story, if it's going to harm Apple. MOSR makes that choice, time and time again. If you carefully follow their page, and read some of the things that they hint at, and much later reveal, or when Apple reveals them, you see that they had the info far in advance. Much of their information is also corroborated by other Rumors sites, like AppleRecon, which is really less of a rumors site, and more of an investor's reseach site. Sitting on a story is called responsibility. AppleInsider has never, as far as I remember, ever sat on a story. They blab everything. So while they might be a good source for the latest gossip, - I still occasionally come off of that site feeling dirty.
I think AppleInsider's comeuppance will happen within 6 months or so, when the new Apple mouse ships, and I'm 100% confident that it's going to look nothing like that ridiculous picture posted on AppleInsider. Hook. Line. Sinker.
That's not exactly how it happened. The Contract, said that the licensees could use everything up to OS 8. OS 8, at the time, was Copeland. What eventually came out was OS 7.7 or something like that - renamed to OS 8. Steve didn't renew the contracts - so the cloners couldn't sell the new OS.
The cloners were certainly kicking Apple's ass on the price/performance front. Worse, they were beginning to dictate the direction engineering of the Mac platform would take. That was simply unacceptable to Apple, as was the fact that they didn't have enough cash left to close out the year. It was a brutal survival move. I would very much like to see the resurgance of cloning, because I still believe that Macs are way overpriced, and I'd like to see the Power PC platform be open, so people can buy components, and build their own systems, buy whatever OS they want (Be, Linux, Mac, NT PPC) and run it. Since the demise of the cloners, Be, and NT PPC have gone away. Mac won't, and Linux can't. But the future of the platform, and the only real decent challenge to the Intel hegemony, is gone, gone, gone. Sorry to say. Things were looking soooooo good a few years ago, IA-64 was beginning to look like a train wreck, DEC was kicking ass with the Alpha, and CHIRP was perpetually 6 months from market reality. Now, I *do* want to buy one of these cool new block Macs, with an expansion chassis, multi CPU, OS X, etc. goodies! in perhaps a year when it hits the streets? But it would be a whole lot nicer if I could buy components, munge together a non-Intel tainted system, and run BeOS, or Linux, or Darwin, or OS X, whatever. ..
yeah, well I can't use my OS 8.6-based machine to listen to MP3's while I work, because, frankly, the multi-tasking sucks. If I dial the internet, read a floppy, or launch a program (these are the three worst places that share almost no CPU at all), the music skips and chops.
I've been waiting for OS X since 1994. Soon? Please?
Well, the actual rumor itself, was kind of tasty. Apple is not worried about it's fans getting juicy tidbits, getting our saliva up over cool stuff. What Apple IS justifiably worried about, is that other manufacturers are going to steal their ideas and eat their lunch (likely that other manufacturers could take the idea to market much more quickly too).
The proof is all the iMac clones that came out over the last two years. This new idea is actually very, very cool, if it's real.
It's been a well-known fact in the Mac Rumors circles, that ever since Steve Jobs came back, that not only was misinformation being purposely leaked by Apple, it was leaked for two reasons: to fuck with the rumors sites, and to identify leaks. (which version of the misinfo got out? who did we give that to?) Fortunately, most of the non-essential leakers, internally, have been gotten rid of. From what I understand now, they can't internally give out false info to anyone who needs to know the right info to do his or her job. That's all that's left. But beta testers, etc. are still fertile ground for this.
I follow both of these sites, and I see the same things happen again and again. AppleInsider occasionally is spot-on with a juicy one, and MacOSRumors sometimes just doesn't say anything, but they talk alot about holding-back. But Apple rarely tells AppleInsider to pull content (like that goofy graphic of the new mouse) - although they do seem to raise Adobe's ire quite regularly.
MacOSRumors must have touched a nerve to get their story pulled. That's all I'm saying. And when it comes to actual stories that could potentially harm the "mother ship", MacOSRumors usually keeps their mouth shut. Unlike AppleInsider, who are usually harmful when they catch it right, and when they're wrong, they're wrong big-time.
I think that with the AOL/TW thing, Disney has a lot more to worry about than slapping a pair of mouse ears on each iMac.
Apple does not have an internet strategy, like Microsoft does in MSN. Apple probably doesn't need one. But to compete against other content providers, Disney sure as heck DOES need an internet strategy. (a Disney-branded proprietary ISP). We can all breathe easy here, because a Disney/AOL merger would have been very nasty. But AOL/TW is what Disney is going to have to compete with, and they're going to be given a run for their money, and don't need to branch out into making computers. That would be a horrible error.
He's also into classic VW's and Porsches big-time. Coincidence?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Re:Couple Points about a Couple of points
on
Walk-By DNA Testing
·
· Score: 1
1. - well, what if every time you went through this detector, it registered even a trace amount of THC. That result goes into a database, and is part of your permanent record. The inferred result would be; this guy either smokes dope, or hangs around people who do, but he's too smart or lucky to get caught with any significant amount - data mining, profiling, check against the guy's income, known associations, ideologies, what he checks out from the library, video store, what he buys, how much he makes, how much he legitimately spends - risk analysis: is he worth investigating to see whether he might get caught (or entrapped) with a legally significant quantity?
With private corps running prisons, and prison labor becoming more in vogue, it's starting to look like a new slave-trade, and a wonderful instrument for creating slaves.
um- Mac user for 7+ years, feeling silly, feeling thankful for this info. Although navigation with tab and arrow keys is much more univerally accepted in the industry, and much more intuitive. this other stuff isn't even documented.
Saying something is true, and proving it are two different things.
What if Microsoft went up against every/.-er who said that Microsoft uses "secret API" to give the MS Office team an unfair competitive advantage.
MS would sue you for slander, and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it, because as far as the law is concerned, the "secret API" do not exist. It has never been proven, and I wish you luck in your slander/libel case. Of course, I believe there are "secret API", and I've read a lot of compelling anecdotes here on/. that support the "secret API" theory. But it's not empirically proven.
In theory, you are right. But in practice, we are all doomed.
My company is a parter of Microsoft. I criticize Microsoft vigorously here, and elsewhere, on a daily basis.
If I was "found out", all it would take is for some marketroid at MS to send an email to the right person, and I guarantee you I would be fired within the hour. There is no doubt in my mind.
Okay, then, how about connected to this device, is a mind-control unit, which prevents the user from desiring to share the music with someone else, so they won't even try to reverse-engineer it or circumvent it. (beginning to sound more and more like the DMCA)
Slashdot Mirror
People will always pirate, and piracy will always be possible.
But there is a market-force balance in play here - when you "steal" something, there is still a certain amount of effort and time that goes into the stealing. If the product's price is so low, that stealing it takes more effort than it's worth, then the balance has been achieved. I think we're there, now, with VHS video cassettes. The price of your average movie, $24.99, is low enough that every American can afford it. It's much cheaper than buying two VCR's, gold-plated monster cables, and a Macrovision-defeating filter, and blank tape.
25 cents a song, that's still a bit high in my estimate. More like 5 or 10 cents a song. All we need is a functional micropayments infrastructure, and you'll see Piracy drop off the radar screen faster than a passenger-laden 747 flying over a US Navy anti-aircraft test range. Unfortunately, the figures I'm hearing coming out of the record companies, (Sony), are in the 3-5 US Dollar per song range.
So of course, to command that kind of price, they're going to have to enact some kind of copy protection technology. The point of that isn't to make it impossible to copy. We've beaten that horse, and it smells really, really bad. The point of copy protection technology is to bring the "cost of piracy" up to the level equivalent to what the music companies want to be able to charge.
But as long as music is provided on CD's, in the format it's in today - there will always be people ripping MP3's, and sharing them on the net. Which is why the RIAA is whining to the government for protection. A few MP3 traderz get busted, go to jail, and suddenly, the "cost of piracy" goes up.
This covers their ass while the music industry migrates to a format that's technically easier for them to protect, like whatever evil spawn results from SMDI. I wouldn't buy any new CD-players if I were you, I think they're going the way of the do-do. Some DVD-derived technology will probably take it's place on PC's. And playing music CD's on unlicensed/unsecured hardware will be a thing of the past.
If folks hack that, then there's the DCMA. Raise the "cost of piracy", raise "value of commodity".
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Pegasus launches happen from Vandenburg AFB all the time. They launch from a modified L-1011.
http://mocc.vafb.af.mil/launchsched.asp
Of course, there are none currently lined up, but I think one just went up about two months ago.
http://www.vafb.af.mil/news_flash/index.html
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
I didn't say that MOSR was never wrong.
It IS after all a Rumors site. I find it rather entertaining, right or wrong. About the only thing I disagree with was the smear campaign that came out against MOSR, particularly the personal attacks against their staff (check out www.mosr.net), and the perception that AppleInsider is somehow more accurate than MOSR. AppleInsider is pretending to be a news outlet, and they post inaccurate shit, because they're a rumors site. At least MOSR doesn't pretend they're not a rumors site. I agree that some of the technical mistakes they've made were gigantic, mistakes AppleInsider has not made. Some of their stuff has been outright whoring lies to get hits when real information was dry. But at least they know what and who they are, and at least they aren't making personal attacks against the staff of AppleInsider.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
I'm using some new thingie, MacMP3 or something like that. I'll try Sound Jam.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Okay, let's fantasize.
Say this rumor is true.
The same machine basically, Pro, is also the same as an iMac. Only this one, you can choose your monitor. If you want, you can choose an expansion chassis, or two (hopefully, they interlock or stack well - physically).
Think of the Beowulf possibilities. Especially if these things can ship in 2, 4, or 8-way configurations. Run 'em headless, etc. If you are a Pro, but don't need expansion capabilities right off, you don't need the bulk and expense of the expansion chassis. Apple saves money by having a product line that scales very smoothly, yet utilizes more common components.
Frankly, this gets my 'nads pumping. I can see why Apple doesn't want this idea out in the public yet, because every cheezy PC manufacturer is going to try to beat them to market. They didn't get the chance with the iMac - and Apple sued their asses, but this concept is too good to pass up.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
That's simply not true.
When AppleInsider came on the scene, they ran a whole lot of material through their page attempting to discredit MOSR. Including some viscious personal attacks. It's like they had some kind of personal vendetta against MOSR. Naturally, the people who frequent AppleInsider are going to have an anti-MOSR viewpoint. From an editorial standpoint, AppleInsider HAS toned down their anti-MOSR rhetoric, but the vitriol remains in their "following" (or maybe some of it is incited by AI staff posing as visitors).
The fact is, AppleInsider is wrong more frequently than MOSR. When AppleInsider IS correct, there is also the ethical choice to be made to sit on a story, if it's going to harm Apple. MOSR makes that choice, time and time again. If you carefully follow their page, and read some of the things that they hint at, and much later reveal, or when Apple reveals them, you see that they had the info far in advance. Much of their information is also corroborated by other Rumors sites, like AppleRecon, which is really less of a rumors site, and more of an investor's reseach site. Sitting on a story is called responsibility. AppleInsider has never, as far as I remember, ever sat on a story. They blab everything. So while they might be a good source for the latest gossip, - I still occasionally come off of that site feeling dirty.
I think AppleInsider's comeuppance will happen within 6 months or so, when the new Apple mouse ships, and I'm 100% confident that it's going to look nothing like that ridiculous picture posted on AppleInsider. Hook. Line. Sinker.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
That's not exactly how it happened. The Contract, said that the licensees could use everything up to OS 8. OS 8, at the time, was Copeland. What eventually came out was OS 7.7 or something like that - renamed to OS 8. Steve didn't renew the contracts - so the cloners couldn't sell the new OS.
.
The cloners were certainly kicking Apple's ass on the price/performance front. Worse, they were beginning to dictate the direction engineering of the Mac platform would take. That was simply unacceptable to Apple, as was the fact that they didn't have enough cash left to close out the year. It was a brutal survival move. I would very much like to see the resurgance of cloning, because I still believe that Macs are way overpriced, and I'd like to see the Power PC platform be open, so people can buy components, and build their own systems, buy whatever OS they want (Be, Linux, Mac, NT PPC) and run it. Since the demise of the cloners, Be, and NT PPC have gone away. Mac won't, and Linux can't. But the future of the platform, and the only real decent challenge to the Intel hegemony, is gone, gone, gone. Sorry to say. Things were looking soooooo good a few years ago, IA-64 was beginning to look like a train wreck, DEC was kicking ass with the Alpha, and CHIRP was perpetually 6 months from market reality.
Now, I *do* want to buy one of these cool new block Macs, with an expansion chassis, multi CPU, OS X, etc. goodies! in perhaps a year when it hits the streets? But it would be a whole lot nicer if I could buy components, munge together a non-Intel tainted system, and run BeOS, or Linux, or Darwin, or OS X, whatever. .
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
This is the analog watch vs. digital watch argument.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
eh? all that stuff is well and good. But I mourn the passing of standard SCSI for the IDE crap they're shipping now.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
yeah, well I can't use my OS 8.6-based machine to listen to MP3's while I work, because, frankly, the multi-tasking sucks. If I dial the internet, read a floppy, or launch a program (these are the three worst places that share almost no CPU at all), the music skips and chops.
I've been waiting for OS X since 1994. Soon? Please?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Well, the actual rumor itself, was kind of tasty. Apple is not worried about it's fans getting juicy tidbits, getting our saliva up over cool stuff. What Apple IS justifiably worried about, is that other manufacturers are going to steal their ideas and eat their lunch (likely that other manufacturers could take the idea to market much more quickly too).
The proof is all the iMac clones that came out over the last two years. This new idea is actually very, very cool, if it's real.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
It's been a well-known fact in the Mac Rumors circles, that ever since Steve Jobs came back, that not only was misinformation being purposely leaked by Apple, it was leaked for two reasons: to fuck with the rumors sites, and to identify leaks. (which version of the misinfo got out? who did we give that to?)
Fortunately, most of the non-essential leakers, internally, have been gotten rid of. From what I understand now, they can't internally give out false info to anyone who needs to know the right info to do his or her job. That's all that's left. But beta testers, etc. are still fertile ground for this.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
that is frequently the case.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Once again.
I follow both of these sites, and I see the same things happen again and again. AppleInsider occasionally is spot-on with a juicy one, and MacOSRumors sometimes just doesn't say anything, but they talk alot about holding-back. But Apple rarely tells AppleInsider to pull content (like that goofy graphic of the new mouse) - although they do seem to raise Adobe's ire quite regularly.
MacOSRumors must have touched a nerve to get their story pulled. That's all I'm saying. And when it comes to actual stories that could potentially harm the "mother ship", MacOSRumors usually keeps their mouth shut. Unlike AppleInsider, who are usually harmful when they catch it right, and when they're wrong, they're wrong big-time.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
I think that with the AOL/TW thing, Disney has a lot more to worry about than slapping a pair of mouse ears on each iMac.
Apple does not have an internet strategy, like Microsoft does in MSN. Apple probably doesn't need one. But to compete against other content providers, Disney sure as heck DOES need an internet strategy. (a Disney-branded proprietary ISP). We can all breathe easy here, because a Disney/AOL merger would have been very nasty. But AOL/TW is what Disney is going to have to compete with, and they're going to be given a run for their money, and don't need to branch out into making computers. That would be a horrible error.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Calling Microsoft a "predator" is like calling Jeffery Dahmer a gourmet.
Even lions don't kill and eat any and all other lions for the sake of competition and survival.
An animal that kills it's own kind is a murderer. An animal that will not tolerate the survival of ANY others of it's own kind is genocidal.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Seinfeld is a known big-time Mac-o-phile.
He's also into classic VW's and Porsches big-time. Coincidence?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
1. - well, what if every time you went through this detector, it registered even a trace amount of THC. That result goes into a database, and is part of your permanent record. The inferred result would be; this guy either smokes dope, or hangs around people who do, but he's too smart or lucky to get caught with any significant amount - data mining, profiling, check against the guy's income, known associations, ideologies, what he checks out from the library, video store, what he buys, how much he makes, how much he legitimately spends - risk analysis: is he worth investigating to see whether he might get caught (or entrapped) with a legally significant quantity?
With private corps running prisons, and prison labor becoming more in vogue, it's starting to look like a new slave-trade, and a wonderful instrument for creating slaves.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
duh! What do you think an "interview" is?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
excuse me while I laugh.
(-a cynical American, who realizes that this battle was lost, a long long time ago).
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
um- Mac user for 7+ years, feeling silly, feeling thankful for this info. Although navigation with tab and arrow keys is much more univerally accepted in the industry, and much more intuitive. this other stuff isn't even documented.
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!
Saying something is true, and proving it are two different things.
/.-er who said that Microsoft uses "secret API" to give the MS Office team an unfair competitive advantage.
/. that support the "secret API" theory. But it's not empirically proven.
What if Microsoft went up against every
MS would sue you for slander, and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it, because as far as the law is concerned, the "secret API" do not exist. It has never been proven, and I wish you luck in your slander/libel case. Of course, I believe there are "secret API", and I've read a lot of compelling anecdotes here on
In theory, you are right. But in practice, we are all doomed.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
My company is a parter of Microsoft. I criticize Microsoft vigorously here, and elsewhere, on a daily basis.
If I was "found out", all it would take is for some marketroid at MS to send an email to the right person, and I guarantee you I would be fired within the hour. There is no doubt in my mind.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
hm - I was *wondering* why I supported Anonymous Posting.
This must be the reason.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Okay, then, how about connected to this device, is a mind-control unit, which prevents the user from desiring to share the music with someone else, so they won't even try to reverse-engineer it or circumvent it.
(beginning to sound more and more like the DMCA)
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!