Shutting up about whether or not they plan to implement DRM is NOT the same thing as being in opposition to DRM.
Did he say it was? And yes, there is a big difference between being possibly being dragged into DRM, and advocating (and developing tech for it) from the get-go a la Microsoft.
Anyhow, unless you're running on a truly humongous monitor, high definition video is largely wasted on the computer platform.
Hardly. High definition monitors were common long before HDTV reached the mass market, and a high res computer monitor is far cheaper today than a large HDTV set. Of course the HDTV is going to be much larger in size, but you're going to be sitting far closer to the computer than the TV.
Firely might have been able to build an audience if it hadn't been fucked over by Fox. You had to watch the episodes in order for the show to make sense, and Fox showed them out of order from the get-go (the pilot episode was the third one aired, IIRC).
My theory is that Fox doesn't care about creating long running, successful shows like the Simpsons and X-Files anymore because of reality TV. My favorite example (though it doesn't involve Fox) is that Survivor pulled in the same kind of ratings as Friends, but only paid $1 million to one person at the end of the season, as opposed to $1 million dollars each for six people for every episode of the season. Which makes me wonder why they bother getting shows like Firefly and Dark Angel (which was ironically canceled to free up money for Firefly) in the first place if they aren't going to support the shows.
I understand, I've succesfully removed IE and it's active x components from windows, I don't have the registry keys for you off hand. I've deleted IE completely from windows, it really can be done in a few simple steps.
Did you have instructions? How easy would it be to remove IE and Active X without them? How about the average lay person? Now compare that to dragging Safari to the trash and emptying it. No contest.
Now, trying to remove Safari completely from MacOSX... That includes the webkit.
Um, no. Safari uses Webkit, but so do other applications such as the help system. That does not make webkit part of the browser. But if "being used by" Safari makes it part of Safari, why don't you apply the same standard to IE, and remove all dll's called by the browser and see how well you computer boots next time.
Yes, it is that bad. Impeachment hearings should have been launched as soon as this raping of the Bill of Rights was uncovered, just as Bush, Cheney and Rummsfeild should have resigned as soon as we found out that no, there really were no WMD's in Iraq. But with a right wing majority in Congress and the press willing to roll over and play dead on command, nothing has happened.
What entity creates red tape? Government. And that is why monopolies cannot exist without government intervention/regulation supporting the propping up of the monopoly. Therefore in a truly free market without regulation there are no monopolies; there is only what the consumer chooses.
Horsehockey. Microsoft gained a monopoly in operating systems by a combination of luck, timing, and good business decisions. The government had nothing to do with it.
Hugo Chavez has done something like this in Venezuela. The government is providing loans for businesses, with the provision that the employees own part of the company. Calls it the "new socialism".
I don't want to enable them to pursue liberal agendas, but maybe at least they'll have the balls to keep the President under the rule of law via impeachment.
For a liberal agenda, they'd have to elect a bunch of liberal Democrats, as the party establishment is pretty conservative. And unfortunatly, they are mostly ball-less as well, as long as they continually allow the neocons to set the terms of the debate.
Obviously, that if allofmp3.com is morally if not legally wrong because the bands don't get a cut, then so is buying used cds. Either way, you're paying for music they created without giving them any money.
It's not necessarily "bungling," either. Apple simply did not spend enough money with IBM for it to be worth it to IBM to spend R&D on Apple products.
Then maybe IBM shouldn't have promised 3 ghz 970's within a year, three years ago.
IBM can expect Microsoft to buy as many as 50 million XBox360 CPU's over the next five years.
And Apple ships about 4 million machines a year, some with multiple processors. So we'll say 25 million for the same time period. And everyone who keeps throwing around the "50 million cell processors" assumes that both a Cell and a 970 have the same profit margin for IBM. I don't know what they are either, but I doubt IBM makes more per Cell because it's going in a game console, and console parts have to be cheap. If a 970 nets twice as much money, Macs and the Xbox are now on even footing, profit wise. And there's no reason IBM couldn't do what Nvidia does - crank out crazy fast chips and charge crazy prices and make a tidy profit. Apple's pro market would happily plunk down ten grand on a machine with dual quad core 970's running over 3 ghz in speed. Finally, IBM uses the 970 in blade servers, so slacking off on the production of the chip is hurting them, too.
Sony may buy as many as 50 million Cell processors over the next five years.
Not if they don't stop tying to make the PS3 stillborn upon launch.
How many G5's has Apple bought? Three million?
Would have been a lot more if they had a mobile 970 to stick in their laptops and Mini's.
There's no 3GHz G5 because Apple's orders would not cover IBM's investment in creating it.
No, there is no 3 ghz G5 because IBM dropped the ball, period. Maybe in a couple years we'll be hearing the excuse that Sony was "too small a customer" for IBM to crank out as many Cell's as needed.
Wrong, Quark is/was too expensive, had too many problems and too many bad releases. People were almost afraid to upgrade from 4.1. OSX factor ment zilch here.
Hardly. Apple stopped supporting OS 9 on new Macs a long, long time ago. Sticking with increasingly antique hardware is generally not a good way to run a business dependant on computers and where time is money. And resting on your laurels while giving your compeditors all the time in the world to catch up is not a good business strategy.
Except that Apple forces you to update much more when you upgrae OS for example.
Really, is that why my 9 year old iMac was running Panther just fine until the power supply died.
Apples to stupid oranges. $10,000 will buy you a lot more in rural Africa than it will in the states. You need to make comparisons based on cost of living and median wages, not just dollar amounts.
There is a problem with this study: it measures shareholder return as a percentage, but compensation as a dollar value. If a CEO grows a $10B company by 1%, he generates $100M for shareholders. If a CEO grows a $100M company by 10%, he generates only $10M for shareholders. The study implies that the second CEO deserves to be paid more, because his company had a larger percentage return. But one could certainly make a good argument that the first CEO deserves to be paid more, because he generated a larger absolute return to shareholders.
Only if there are the same number of shareholders for the 100M company as the 10B company, which is hardly likely. If the larger company is 100 times bigger than the smaller one, there are probably 100 times as many investors as well.
So lets say each investor at each company has $1,000,000 worth in stock. The investor in the smaller company gains $100,000 as a return but the investor in the larger company gets only $10,000. So why does the CEO deserve a raise again?
That may be true for most things, but it is not true for software that includes an end user license agreement.
Yes, it is. EULA's are a joke because they try to enforce restrictions on you after the sale. And, usually you can't read the EULA until you've opened the box, at which point the store will refuse to accept a return. Note Microsoft's refusal to live up to their own stipulations in the Window's EULA for Windows Refund Day.
EULA's are worthless garbage, and shame on anyone who claims otherwise.
Yes, the patent itself is old news, but the press is talking about it again, presumably because of the upcoming launch of the PS3. The patent was on the front page of my paper yesterday morning.
Simple and user-friendly it's not as it seems. The controls on an non-Shuffle iPod can confuse some users, and the learning curve for the iTunes software is steeper than it should be. Also, there needs to be an easier way to "drag and drop" files in and out of an iPod under iTunes.
If the clickwheel and iTunes are hard for you to use, maybe you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place.
Users did not come up with Active X, turn services and file sharing on and the firewall off by default, did not write Outlook so you can get a virus by merely previewing and email, and did not come up with Microsoft's piss poor security and priveldge separation systems.
Windows is a cesspool because of poor design, not because of clueless users.
Slashdot Mirror
Shutting up about whether or not they plan to implement DRM is NOT the same thing as being in opposition to DRM.
Did he say it was? And yes, there is a big difference between being possibly being dragged into DRM, and advocating (and developing tech for it) from the get-go a la Microsoft.
Anyhow, unless you're running on a truly humongous monitor, high definition video is largely wasted on the computer platform.
Hardly. High definition monitors were common long before HDTV reached the mass market, and a high res computer monitor is far cheaper today than a large HDTV set. Of course the HDTV is going to be much larger in size, but you're going to be sitting far closer to the computer than the TV.
Firely might have been able to build an audience if it hadn't been fucked over by Fox. You had to watch the episodes in order for the show to make sense, and Fox showed them out of order from the get-go (the pilot episode was the third one aired, IIRC).
My theory is that Fox doesn't care about creating long running, successful shows like the Simpsons and X-Files anymore because of reality TV. My favorite example (though it doesn't involve Fox) is that Survivor pulled in the same kind of ratings as Friends, but only paid $1 million to one person at the end of the season, as opposed to $1 million dollars each for six people for every episode of the season. Which makes me wonder why they bother getting shows like Firefly and Dark Angel (which was ironically canceled to free up money for Firefly) in the first place if they aren't going to support the shows.
I understand, I've succesfully removed IE and it's active x components from windows, I don't have the registry keys for you off hand. I've deleted IE completely from windows, it really can be done in a few simple steps.
Did you have instructions? How easy would it be to remove IE and Active X without them? How about the average lay person? Now compare that to dragging Safari to the trash and emptying it. No contest.
Now, trying to remove Safari completely from MacOSX... That includes the webkit.
Um, no. Safari uses Webkit, but so do other applications such as the help system. That does not make webkit part of the browser. But if "being used by" Safari makes it part of Safari, why don't you apply the same standard to IE, and remove all dll's called by the browser and see how well you computer boots next time.
It's a well known fact that getting a blowjob from someone who is not your wife is dishonorable and undignified.
Unless your name is McCain or Guiliani. But of course, the press and the GOP only care about the affairs of Democrats.
Oh, come on now... it's not that bad.
Yes, it is that bad. Impeachment hearings should have been launched as soon as this raping of the Bill of Rights was uncovered, just as Bush, Cheney and Rummsfeild should have resigned as soon as we found out that no, there really were no WMD's in Iraq. But with a right wing majority in Congress and the press willing to roll over and play dead on command, nothing has happened.
What entity creates red tape? Government. And that is why monopolies cannot exist without government intervention/regulation supporting the propping up of the monopoly. Therefore in a truly free market without regulation there are no monopolies; there is only what the consumer chooses.
Horsehockey. Microsoft gained a monopoly in operating systems by a combination of luck, timing, and good business decisions. The government had nothing to do with it.
Hugo Chavez has done something like this in Venezuela. The government is providing loans for businesses, with the provision that the employees own part of the company. Calls it the "new socialism".
Remaining wary of the left wing isn't political prejudice
Problem: "not ultra-conservative" does not mean "left wing". By that standard, Nixon would be a flaming liberal hippie in today's GOP.
I agree with your sentiment, especially the spinlessness of our current batch of elected Democrats, but I have a couple of nits to pick.
Has it escaped your notice that most of the Democratic party opposes withdrawal from Iraq?
No, the vast majority of elected Democrats are in favor of withdrawing, the only disagreement is to when that withdrawl should occur.
Did you miss the part where I said I was frightened by Ruby Ridge and Waco?
Ruby Ridge happened before Clinton took office. You know, when George Herbert Walker Bush was President.
I don't want to enable them to pursue liberal agendas, but maybe at least they'll have the balls to keep the President under the rule of law via impeachment.
For a liberal agenda, they'd have to elect a bunch of liberal Democrats, as the party establishment is pretty conservative. And unfortunatly, they are mostly ball-less as well, as long as they continually allow the neocons to set the terms of the debate.
It is not, I suppose. Your point?
Obviously, that if allofmp3.com is morally if not legally wrong because the bands don't get a cut, then so is buying used cds. Either way, you're paying for music they created without giving them any money.
It's not necessarily "bungling," either. Apple simply did not spend enough money with IBM for it to be worth it to IBM to spend R&D on Apple products.
Then maybe IBM shouldn't have promised 3 ghz 970's within a year, three years ago.
IBM can expect Microsoft to buy as many as 50 million XBox360 CPU's over the next five years.
And Apple ships about 4 million machines a year, some with multiple processors. So we'll say 25 million for the same time period. And everyone who keeps throwing around the "50 million cell processors" assumes that both a Cell and a 970 have the same profit margin for IBM. I don't know what they are either, but I doubt IBM makes more per Cell because it's going in a game console, and console parts have to be cheap. If a 970 nets twice as much money, Macs and the Xbox are now on even footing, profit wise. And there's no reason IBM couldn't do what Nvidia does - crank out crazy fast chips and charge crazy prices and make a tidy profit. Apple's pro market would happily plunk down ten grand on a machine with dual quad core 970's running over 3 ghz in speed. Finally, IBM uses the 970 in blade servers, so slacking off on the production of the chip is hurting them, too.
Sony may buy as many as 50 million Cell processors over the next five years.
Not if they don't stop tying to make the PS3 stillborn upon launch.
How many G5's has Apple bought? Three million?
Would have been a lot more if they had a mobile 970 to stick in their laptops and Mini's.
There's no 3GHz G5 because Apple's orders would not cover IBM's investment in creating it.
No, there is no 3 ghz G5 because IBM dropped the ball, period. Maybe in a couple years we'll be hearing the excuse that Sony was "too small a customer" for IBM to crank out as many Cell's as needed.
Wrong, Quark is/was too expensive, had too many problems and too many bad releases. People were almost afraid to upgrade from 4.1. OSX factor ment zilch here.
Hardly. Apple stopped supporting OS 9 on new Macs a long, long time ago. Sticking with increasingly antique hardware is generally not a good way to run a business dependant on computers and where time is money. And resting on your laurels while giving your compeditors all the time in the world to catch up is not a good business strategy.
Except that Apple forces you to update much more when you upgrae OS for example.
Really, is that why my 9 year old iMac was running Panther just fine until the power supply died.
So how is using P2P or allofmp3 any different, from the band's point of view, from buying a used cd?
Apples to stupid oranges. $10,000 will buy you a lot more in rural Africa than it will in the states. You need to make comparisons based on cost of living and median wages, not just dollar amounts.
There is a problem with this study: it measures shareholder return as a percentage, but compensation as a dollar value. If a CEO grows a $10B company by 1%, he generates $100M for shareholders. If a CEO grows a $100M company by 10%, he generates only $10M for shareholders. The study implies that the second CEO deserves to be paid more, because his company had a larger percentage return. But one could certainly make a good argument that the first CEO deserves to be paid more, because he generated a larger absolute return to shareholders.
Only if there are the same number of shareholders for the 100M company as the 10B company, which is hardly likely. If the larger company is 100 times bigger than the smaller one, there are probably 100 times as many investors as well.
So lets say each investor at each company has $1,000,000 worth in stock. The investor in the smaller company gains $100,000 as a return but the investor in the larger company gets only $10,000. So why does the CEO deserve a raise again?
Or it might not be intended for iPods at all, but rather Mac Mini's hooked up to TV's.
Having read court cases where such contracts were upheld.....yes.
And the judges in those cases were frikkin idiots. Maybe you should read some of the ones where they've been held unenforcable.
That may be true for most things, but it is not true for software that includes an end user license agreement.
Yes, it is. EULA's are a joke because they try to enforce restrictions on you after the sale. And, usually you can't read the EULA until you've opened the box, at which point the store will refuse to accept a return. Note Microsoft's refusal to live up to their own stipulations in the Window's EULA for Windows Refund Day.
EULA's are worthless garbage, and shame on anyone who claims otherwise.
Yes, the patent itself is old news, but the press is talking about it again, presumably because of the upcoming launch of the PS3. The patent was on the front page of my paper yesterday morning.
Were you so hyped up to write a condesending post that you missed that his page was marked private? As in not open to the public or searchable?
I think that statement hits the nail on the head. Most people buy the iPod because it is cool.
Or maybe because they don't subscribe to the view that a longer billeted list of features on a product automatically means it's better.
Now, if the nit-picking is done, you certainly will be locked into iTunes if you want to buy any music from the RIAA (legally)
So who's holding a gun to your head to prevent you from buying the CD at a retail outlet and ripping it yourself?
Simple and user-friendly it's not as it seems. The controls on an non-Shuffle iPod can confuse some users, and the learning curve for the iTunes software is steeper than it should be. Also, there needs to be an easier way to "drag and drop" files in and out of an iPod under iTunes.
If the clickwheel and iTunes are hard for you to use, maybe you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place.
Users did not come up with Active X, turn services and file sharing on and the firewall off by default, did not write Outlook so you can get a virus by merely previewing and email, and did not come up with Microsoft's piss poor security and priveldge separation systems.
Windows is a cesspool because of poor design, not because of clueless users.