I have been tempted to respond to this thread and you have drawn me in with a spirited "hear hear!".
I used to use Norton products before I knew better. Now, I have to talk people out of installing anti-virus, FileSaver and all that other crud. I have spent a lot of time on problems caused by these programs, but no time on viruses.
I say run a hardware firewall if you can, software firewall if you can't, choose a good password, don't turn shit on for no reason, apply Apple and 3rd party security updates, and read the Mac news regularly for anything that comes up like the Quicktime Autoplay vulnerability.
I have had zero problems with viruses and the like on the Mac, buut I feel like I need a shower after surfing the Net on Windows.
I do believe that corporations have a tendency to skew evil by virtue of their servitude to quarterly profits, but just because a company becomes successful does not necessarily make them evil. This reminds me of people who quit listening to bands like REM because they started doing well. "REM sucks ever since they sold out", Whatever.
To compare Apple to Microsoft and ponder "what if" scenarios is just ridiculous. I haven't seen anything remotely on the level of MS evil on the part of Apple. Apple gets special scrutiny because they're Apple. Believe me, Apple will get away with a lot less than IBM, Sun, or Microsoft.
As I understand the suit against "Think Secret", Apple wants to uncover who leaked genuine trade secrets to the media. Whoever that person is has broken the law by violating a non-disclosure agreement of some sort or another. Apple has a legitimate business interest in stopping the illegal flow of business intelligence out of their company.
As for their songs not working on other players - please. Anyone with a pulse and the most basic knowledge of computing history knows what's at stake here. If Microsoft ever overtakes Apple in the DRM space, god help us. Besides Apple has spent millions of dollars developing a kick-ass music store and portable player that work in perfect harmony. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The idea that Apple is being unethical by not helping Dell and Creative sell their inferior solutions is just bizarre.
Now, if Apple ends up with a long-term monopoly in this space, than they should be held to the highest standards regarding laws regulating monopolistic behavior. However, it's a little early to be thinking along those lines as the whole thing could flip-flop at a moment's notice. Besides, the whole game is moving away from iPods and Mp3 players and into cell phones. DRM and distribution are the new prizes and Apple knows this as well as Microsoft. Most of the whining you hear about iTMS not working with other players comes from the companies who make the other players and from MS and MS apologists who want the MS' DRM to be the de facto standard.
My personal vision of the future of computing involves a mixture of open source and for-profit software and industry standards wherever possible to promote competition. Looking at the history of Microsoft and Apple, and looking at what makes them tick, I find it hard to do anything but root for Apple right now.
If you were Google, you would actually buy Winternals, which is the for-profit side. But, I don't think Google wants to buy a Windows utilities company.
The pre-fab metal shack IS hideous and not seeing the rocket when I drive down Saturn Lane is a huge bummer.
It probably has to be enclosed due to the salt content of the air (it's right by the water), but how about some big windows so we can see the damn thing?
Unlike PCs, Macs are have not been commoditized because Apple adds value. They will, hopefully, always sell Macs.
But, the dicussion is about the iPod and why Apple would object to losing music sales when their obstensible plan is to use the music store to sell iPods. I am saying they are happy to make money off of iPods while they last, but that they have bigger plans.
Because the iPod's life-span is limited. Apple knows they can make good profits off of it for a few years - perhaps 6 or 7. But, eventually, components will be so inexpensive and readily available that the HD-based music player will become a commodity - like PCs. Also, cell phones may very well replace dedicated music players as the way to carry and listen to music. (Hence Apple's deal with Motorola).
Apple is playing for a bigger prize than the iPod profits. They are playing the end game to be the one who calls the shots and sets the standards for audio and video distribution for decades to come. Real just wants to stay relevant.
Leave the tree hugger alone
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 1
I am so bored with these kind of alpha-male wannabee reactions. The guy might sound like a whiner, but rather than debunk the guy's point with science and reasoned debate, Slashdotter's show their herd mentality.
I think nuclear power is a possible and attractive path towards providing clean, sustainable energy. I also think Biotech is part of our future. The problem is, rather than having a civilized debate, we polarize into "tree huggers" and "fascists". Personally, I want to be on the other side of folks like Monsanto and Haliburton.
To put the question differently, IS there any danger of nuclear contamination? In the very unlikely even that there are some kind of Jovian cetaceans swimming around down there, do we really want to introduce ourselves by dumping some kind of nuclear reactor into their ocean? Personally, I think the risks are probably acceptable, however, I don't think the guys down here at Johnson Space Center would cotton to some green skinned fucker dumping a nuclear reactor into the Galveston Bay.
I don't have time to look it up, but I don't think it turned out NOT to be true. I think the consensus at NASA and elsewhere is that what they found is only produced by bacteria (at least on earth). However, there is no way to prove it without further evidence and some people dispute the findings.
More cost effective at the time, yes, but what does overheating have to do with it? The G4 dissipates much less heat than a Xeon per unit of computation. At least, that's my understanding.
Please know that I enjoy reading Slashdot comments and I feel richer for my time spent in this "community". However, I have to say that the reactions in this thread seem like a typical Slashdot response to anything that:
a) Makes technology more accessible b) is elegantly designed AND c) costs more than fifty cents
While it's true that these are costly toys who's functions could be duplicated with a computer, a monitor, and a WiFi connection, that misses the point. The technology here is not revolutionary, but the idea is interesting and hints at an entire area of Internet applications that is still in its infancy.
The value of information is largely dependent on it's context and it's accessibility. As the Internet slowly but surely insinuates itself into all facets of our lives, I predict that these simple, yet elegant, gadgets are only the first glimmerings of the Internet's "Flesh Made Real".
I think 129 - 150 sounds about right. Several people here, and elsewhere, have mentioned that the first iPods sold for about the retail price of the hard drive alone. I think that Apple is less concerned about profit margin initially with these little iPods, and more concerned about cementing the iPod/iTunes/AAC position against the proliferation of Web-based sites and players using the WIndows media format. This little guy will produce fewer profits at first, but will expand the overall iPod market to those folks who might never have purchased an iPod. This also increases mindshare, makes Apple an even bigger gorilla in this space, and allows for upsells.
I think programmers and Slashdot readers may "know" that java is a little clunky by comparison to c++, for example, but I don't think your average consumer does and I didn't RTFA, but I think that's the market here.
To my mind, the problem that these computers were meant to solve was the production of legible, non-ambiguous, easily tallied ballots that accurately reflect the voter's intentions in the booth.
I see a computer terminal that is very straightforward and relatively low tech. All this terminal does is display the choices, record the user's input, and spit out a chit with the voter's choices displayed in human and machine readable form. These votes could easily be placed through a bubble reader or cross-checked by humans.
This is tech people can understand and verify on the spot before they cast their ballot into the box. Is there really any reason to have that terminal record the votes, tally the votes, and wire the totals to centralized servers? How many points of failure/corruption do we really want here?
When Opti-grab came out, I thought it was the greatest thing ever, and I bought a pair. And this is the result. (Mr. Reiner removes his pair of dark glasses to reveal...) This little handle is like a magnet, your eyes are constantly drawn to it and you end up cock-eyed. Now as a director I am constantly using my eyes and this Opti-grab device has caused irreparable harm to my career. Let me show you a clip from my latest film where my faulty depth perception kept me from yelling cut at the proper time. (scene of a little red sportscar speeding off a cliff. Reiner yells "Cut!" just after the car goes over the edge) If I had yelled cut on time, those actors would be alive today. That's why I am spearheading the ten million dollar class action suit against Mr. Johnson and his irresponsible selling of a product he didn't even test on prisoners. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been tempted to respond to this thread and you have drawn me in with a spirited "hear hear!".
I used to use Norton products before I knew better. Now, I have to talk people out of installing anti-virus, FileSaver and all that other crud. I have spent a lot of time on problems caused by these programs, but no time on viruses.
I say run a hardware firewall if you can, software firewall if you can't, choose a good password, don't turn shit on for no reason, apply Apple and 3rd party security updates, and read the Mac news regularly for anything that comes up like the Quicktime Autoplay vulnerability.
I have had zero problems with viruses and the like on the Mac, buut I feel like I need a shower after surfing the Net on Windows.
I do believe that corporations have a tendency to skew evil by virtue of their servitude to quarterly profits, but just because a company becomes successful does not necessarily make them evil. This reminds me of people who quit listening to bands like REM because they started doing well. "REM sucks ever since they sold out", Whatever.
To compare Apple to Microsoft and ponder "what if" scenarios is just ridiculous. I haven't seen anything remotely on the level of MS evil on the part of Apple. Apple gets special scrutiny because they're Apple. Believe me, Apple will get away with a lot less than IBM, Sun, or Microsoft.
As I understand the suit against "Think Secret", Apple wants to uncover who leaked genuine trade secrets to the media. Whoever that person is has broken the law by violating a non-disclosure agreement of some sort or another. Apple has a legitimate business interest in stopping the illegal flow of business intelligence out of their company.
As for their songs not working on other players - please. Anyone with a pulse and the most basic knowledge of computing history knows what's at stake here. If Microsoft ever overtakes Apple in the DRM space, god help us. Besides Apple has spent millions of dollars developing a kick-ass music store and portable player that work in perfect harmony. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The idea that Apple is being unethical by not helping Dell and Creative sell their inferior solutions is just bizarre.
Now, if Apple ends up with a long-term monopoly in this space, than they should be held to the highest standards regarding laws regulating monopolistic behavior. However, it's a little early to be thinking along those lines as the whole thing could flip-flop at a moment's notice. Besides, the whole game is moving away from iPods and Mp3 players and into cell phones. DRM and distribution are the new prizes and Apple knows this as well as Microsoft. Most of the whining you hear about iTMS not working with other players comes from the companies who make the other players and from MS and MS apologists who want the MS' DRM to be the de facto standard.
My personal vision of the future of computing involves a mixture of open source and for-profit software and industry standards wherever possible to promote competition. Looking at the history of Microsoft and Apple, and looking at what makes them tick, I find it hard to do anything but root for Apple right now.
If you were Google, you would actually buy Winternals, which is the for-profit side. But, I don't think Google wants to buy a Windows utilities company.
otherwise iTunes will not let me write the song to CD
This is just false. iTunes makes no distinction between protected and non-protected music when it comes to CDs. You can burn to your heart's content.
Thanks god, I'm not alone.
The pre-fab metal shack IS hideous and not seeing the rocket when I drive down Saturn Lane is a huge bummer.
It probably has to be enclosed due to the salt content of the air (it's right by the water), but how about some big windows so we can see the damn thing?
I uss celll pholnmes alhll t he tiijme annd I ammm fiine m! no dnna dsanmmage!&
Google is just providing a needed API (Application Porn Interface).
How else am I supposed to find pictures of red-headed cheerleaders with lollipops?
My 3.5 and 6.5 year olds loved it. We went back the next night. It is a tad intense, and loud, but they loved it.
there is still the small matter of the porn that's ALREADY been downloaded.
Yeah, what's your point?
Unlike PCs, Macs are have not been commoditized because Apple adds value. They will, hopefully, always sell Macs.
But, the dicussion is about the iPod and why Apple would object to losing music sales when their obstensible plan is to use the music store to sell iPods. I am saying they are happy to make money off of iPods while they last, but that they have bigger plans.
Because the iPod's life-span is limited. Apple knows they can make good profits off of it for a few years - perhaps 6 or 7. But, eventually, components will be so inexpensive and readily available that the HD-based music player will become a commodity - like PCs. Also, cell phones may very well replace dedicated music players as the way to carry and listen to music. (Hence Apple's deal with Motorola).
Apple is playing for a bigger prize than the iPod profits. They are playing the end game to be the one who calls the shots and sets the standards for audio and video distribution for decades to come. Real just wants to stay relevant.
I am so bored with these kind of alpha-male wannabee reactions. The guy might sound like a whiner, but rather than debunk the guy's point with science and reasoned debate, Slashdotter's show their herd mentality.
I think nuclear power is a possible and attractive path towards providing clean, sustainable energy. I also think Biotech is part of our future. The problem is, rather than having a civilized debate, we polarize into "tree huggers" and "fascists". Personally, I want to be on the other side of folks like Monsanto and Haliburton.
To put the question differently, IS there any danger of nuclear contamination? In the very unlikely even that there are some kind of Jovian cetaceans swimming around down there, do we really want to introduce ourselves by dumping some kind of nuclear reactor into their ocean? Personally, I think the risks are probably acceptable, however, I don't think the guys down here at Johnson Space Center would cotton to some green skinned fucker dumping a nuclear reactor into the Galveston Bay.
I don't have time to look it up, but I don't think it turned out NOT to be true. I think the consensus at NASA and elsewhere is that what they found is only produced by bacteria (at least on earth). However, there is no way to prove it without further evidence and some people dispute the findings.
"Well, you might be right, but I heard nasty stories"
:}
Ohhh, I see, you're trolling!
More cost effective at the time, yes, but what does overheating have to do with it? The G4 dissipates much less heat than a Xeon per unit of computation. At least, that's my understanding.
Please know that I enjoy reading Slashdot comments and I feel richer for my time spent in this "community". However, I have to say that the reactions in this thread seem like a typical Slashdot response to anything that:
a) Makes technology more accessible
b) is elegantly designed
AND
c) costs more than fifty cents
While it's true that these are costly toys who's functions could be duplicated with a computer, a monitor, and a WiFi connection, that misses the point. The technology here is not revolutionary, but the idea is interesting and hints at an entire area of Internet applications that is still in its infancy.
The value of information is largely dependent on it's context and it's accessibility. As the Internet slowly but surely insinuates itself into all facets of our lives, I predict that these simple, yet elegant, gadgets are only the first glimmerings of the Internet's "Flesh Made Real".
That's not why I call Bush a moron.
In the US, we don't have to download the highlights, we can watch the while game - live.
Some people may also be reticent about spending three or four hundred bucks on something so easily lost, stolen, or dropped.
I think 129 - 150 sounds about right. Several people here, and elsewhere, have mentioned that the first iPods sold for about the retail price of the hard drive alone. I think that Apple is less concerned about profit margin initially with these little iPods, and more concerned about cementing the iPod/iTunes/AAC position against the proliferation of Web-based sites and players using the WIndows media format. This little guy will produce fewer profits at first, but will expand the overall iPod market to those folks who might never have purchased an iPod. This also increases mindshare, makes Apple an even bigger gorilla in this space, and allows for upsells.
Can a tunneling microscope see prions?
I think programmers and Slashdot readers may "know" that java is a little clunky by comparison to c++, for example, but I don't think your average consumer does and I didn't RTFA, but I think that's the market here.
To my mind, the problem that these computers were meant to solve was the production of legible, non-ambiguous, easily tallied ballots that accurately reflect the voter's intentions in the booth.
I see a computer terminal that is very straightforward and relatively low tech. All this terminal does is display the choices, record the user's input, and spit out a chit with the voter's choices displayed in human and machine readable form. These votes could easily be placed through a bubble reader or cross-checked by humans.
This is tech people can understand and verify on the spot before they cast their ballot into the box. Is there really any reason to have that terminal record the votes, tally the votes, and wire the totals to centralized servers? How many points of failure/corruption do we really want here?
When Opti-grab came out, I thought it was the greatest thing ever, and I bought a pair. And this is the result. (Mr. Reiner removes his pair of dark glasses to reveal...) This little handle is like a magnet, your eyes are constantly drawn to it and you end up cock-eyed. Now as a director I am constantly using my eyes and this Opti-grab device has caused irreparable harm to my career. Let me show you a clip from my latest film where my faulty depth perception kept me from yelling cut at the proper time. (scene of a little red sportscar speeding off a cliff. Reiner yells "Cut!" just after the car goes over the edge) If I had yelled cut on time, those actors would be alive today. That's why I am spearheading the ten million dollar class action suit against Mr. Johnson and his irresponsible selling of a product he didn't even test on prisoners. Thank you.
That struck me as odd as well. However, I think they are talking about the total electricity usage, including the cooling system - they must be.