If you think you -can't- hear the difference on a portable MP3 player with a set of headphones, you are kidding yourself (or need to get your hearing checked). Buy a decent set of headphones.
The original 128 kbps AAC is far from optimal to start. It's adequate for casual use, but still clearly inferior to a CD on anything but $20 computer speakers. Transcode, and you'll lose a lot. How sensitive you are to the loss is a personal thing.
I've done the transcoding with WMAs to MP3s. I find that keeping the MP3 bitrate up rediculously high (say 320kbps) helps quite a lot, but I'm still getting sound fidelity that's marginally worse than the original (and I'm producing files that are much larger than I'd need to if I was taking from CDDA and aiming for the same quality level).
But of course, none of that has anything to do with the DRM, per se. Any lossy-to-lossy conversion involves those problems.
Where the DRM does become an issue in this particular scenerio, though, is that the DRM is one of the key reasons why you NEED to transcode. Admittedly, there are few players other than the iPod that will handle even unencumbered MP4/AAC - but even those that do can't play ITMS tracks, because of the DRM. So you've got to circumvent the copy protection and transcode (you could even go AAC to AAC if your player accepts the format) to use the tracks with anything that's not an iPod.
Also, as another poster pointed out, the fact that the DRM is easily circumvented doesn't excuse it's presence. If no one was trying to stop us from copying the tracks (or from playing them under the circumstances in which we see fit), the DRM wouldn't be there in the first place. It's an insult and it's bad customer service that Apple and others are intentionally crippling their products to take freedom away from the consumer.
"So to get this straight, you run an operating system that has so many security problems that you need to run at least two other programs just to make sure that you aren't infected by anything. At least one of those programs is an intensive application that has to scan every potentially harmful file before it can be used."
First of all, neither of those applications is intensive or running all the time. I use a virus scan on executables before running them; I don't leave it doing live monitoring, because that's a waste.
Second of all, can you think of an operating system for which those types of precautions aren't a good idea? If I was using a Mac, I'd feel nice knowing that there've been no widespread viruses and little spyware, but I'd still check for them from time to time. It's just good practice.
It most certainly is possible. I won't go as far as the grandparent, but close. I've never been -harmfully- afflicted by being hacked, rooted, or infected with a virus or spyware. I've almost never run into any of those at all - but once every couple of years something crops up.
I've (very) occasionally caught a virus present on the machine before it was ever executed or did any harm. I've (very) rarely wound up with spyware - but nothing major, and nothing that couldn't either be uninstalled via its own well-behaved uninstaller or removed easily via something like adaware.
Why? Because I don't run or install software if common sense says the source might be shady. The one or two spyware incidents I've had were with semi-legit software - it probably told me in a Eula all about the nasty reporting it wanted to do, and I clicked through - that, as spyware goes, was relatively benign.
Now my old roommate's machine, with the same basic setup, was another story. It was amazing she could move the mouse with all the crap going on in the background from various malware. Different computing use habits, I suppose.
I have no idea whether it -is- trademarked, but it seems to me that it shouldn't be. After all, Nietze talked about his "superman" long before Clark Kent was Superman. And it's a pretty obvious hybrid of normal words - Super and Man. A man who is super. What's more plain than that?
I don't know about you, but I've got dozens if not hundreds of friends and friendly aquantances. Even within my core group of close friends, many of those people aren't very technically minded, and would be confused by a lesson in computer privacy. But even if they all understood - how am I going to instruct so many people, and be sure they're all following through? And what about friends of friends? PEople I see once at a party, people I meet in passing?
You really can't expect to control anything but your own actions.
Seems to me the better solution is to google for yourself once in a while, and if you see anyone posting anything troublesome that includes you, contact that person directly.
It's worth it if you or others willingly pay for it. And since most of the unwashed masses don't think in these terms and aren't tuned in to the great intellectual property debate, many of them will pay for it.
I really hate just about all this supposed consumer-protection regulation. Make a product. If it does what I want, and it's a reasonable price, I'll buy it. If it employs, say, a DRM scheme that's incompatible with how I choose to use it, I won't. If I'm the only one who wants what I want, so no one makes it, well, that's the free market and I'll have to suck it up.
I have no problem with device and media companies using DRM, ethically speaking. It makes their products less attractive to me personally, but they're betting that people like me are in the minority there. So be it. The only real problem with DRM is when laws like the DMCA in the USA prohibit you from circumventing it, because telling you what benign things you can do with a product you already own (short of redistribution) is just draconian.
The whole problem with democratic and republican forms of government is that sometimes the electorate is wrong. But if we're not going to put our faith in the ability of the people to make informed choices - and to recognize for themselves whether they're truly informed - then we've got to rethink ther basic premise upon which our government is formed.
The situation you describe sounds nice - but you can't get there without putting restrictions on speech. You can't give everyone equal ability to communicate unless you define exactly how much they're going to be able to do so.
So everybody draws their fixed amount of money from this pool. But I've got extra resources - either on my own, or given to me by supporters who really like my message. Why shouldn't I be able to use those? Why should my ability to communicate be stifled? Why should my political speech be hampered?
The problem with that philosophy is that you wind up restricting people in legitimate situations as well. If it's tough to prove the quid-pro-quo, then you've got to let it be (or continue looking for proof) - because there's no justice in punishing people we can't prove have done something wrong.
The other thing people seem to ignore when talking about campaign finance is that the electorate gets to play a part in the whole thing. If you strongly suspect your congressman is bought and sold (but can't prove it), don't vote for him. If he's making policy that serves interests that aren't yours - regardless of whether its because he received large campaign contributions from those interests, or simply agrees with them - don't vote for him. Last I checked, you're still not allowed to buy votes.
The point is that the money is used explictly for speech - in the form of campaigning. And the law is specifically aimed to prevent those with greater abilities to collect funds from having a greater ability to campaign.
Restricting the amount of money you can give the parties and candidates restricts speech. That's the whole intent of the law.
You're worried about politicians being bought and sold? Then use the existing anti-corruption laws to prosecute politicians in tit-for-tat situations. McCain-Feingold and other similar measures attempt to regulate activity that may be completely legitimate.
My favorite is: "Custom Clients developed for use on a mobile device or via a wireless telecommunications carrier's network and/or wireless services require separate licensing and business agreements with AOL. Any inquiries regarding mobile applications should be sent to AIMCommercial@aol.com."
So does that count laptops? And why should it matter whether the internet connection is wired or via a wireless service? What if I'm using a card in my PC to connect to Verizon's wireless internet service? And what, fundamentally, is the difference between a mobile platform and a standard computer - size?
My only point is that what's a must-have for one, isn't necessarily a must-have for another - but the increased bandwidth will be useful regardless of what your personal must-have is. So it doesn't make any more sense to rule out streaming video as a logical application than it does anything else.
Re:The logical application of 3G bandwidth
on
No 3G for HP Until 2007
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't know that most of those examples are must-haves. Better graphics and graphical icons? I can't imagine finding that, in and of itself, all that useful on a phone. Increased mail capability? Sure, that I could see.
Overall, the increased bandwidth will be useful for lots and lots - you get your better graphics, I get my useful wireless connection on a laptop or PDA. I could also imagine mobile videophones finally taking off, once the bandwidth and processing power are there.
There's a lot of talk about the DRM on here, peppered the the same valid criticisms that come up all the time... but what I wonder is if the content providers realize how patently stupid trying to protect WORDS through technological locks is.
I mean, it's just words. If someone creates a DRM mechaism that makes it really, really hard to copy and distrubte the latest hit single, OK, they've sort of accomplished something. I can't just record my garage band doing a cover and expect it to sound the same. But if we're talking about an in-demand book, how freaking hard is it for a pirate distributer to transcribe a copy? Or even more simply (and very commonly), to use OCR software?
Free association also leads to segregation, as people will tend to flock to others they perceive to be like themselves - for reasons of ideology, personal preferences, religion, race, gender, or whatever. That doesn't make free association a bad thing.
You're right, it IS illegal for businesses to discriminate based on race - but should it be? Should anyone have the right to tell me what to do with my own capital and resources? Where does this inherent right to a level playing field with someone else's resources come from? If I only want to hire tall guys named Steve for my petite women's apparel store, well, that's a pretty stoopit business plan, but since I'm signing the paychecks I don't see where anyone but the free market has a right to tell me I can't do it. When my business fails because it was a bad idea, then I either have a choice to change my ways or continue to be a failure.
Likewise, if I rent apartments, and I'll only rent out to white people - that's a pretty poor business plan. It means cutting out a segment of the population who might be willing to pay for my apartments, and potentially lowering the dollar value. Maybe I can still get a good price on the apartments; it depends on the places. But the apartments weren't on the market until I put them there. I have every right to leave them closed up indefinately, or tear them down, or turn them into small offices, if I choose. So why, when I decide to rent them out, do other people get to tell me on what terms that will happen? How about this - if my business practices offend you, boycott me. Make a big stink about it. Embarass me on local TV stations. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't - but where does anyone get a right to do more than that.
Personal disclaimer - I lived for three years with an interracial lesbian couple; I'm not inclined to discriminate myself. Any business I'd be involved with would half to have a strict interntal anti-discrimination policy, regardless of what the law says, because discrimination offends me and I won't be a party to it. And I believe the government, which must serve everyone, should be strict in its anti-discrimination policies among its own institutions and programs. But I won't tell someone else what to do with his land, his business, or his money.
Sure. Think about it this way: If you were a gay Jewish-born Muslim convert, would you really want to live with the guy who posted it?
People need to wrap their heads around the idea that freedom includes the freedom to be a jackass. Some people have offensive views. They should be allowed to express them; others should be allowed to refute them. And they should be allowed to do with their own private property as they please; no one has an inherent right to live with me, and I'm only going to enter into an agreement to share my home with someone I find agreeable - I don't need to justify my definition of "agreeable" to anyone but myself. And if I'm looking to rent out a home, I should be able to rent it out to whomever I please. If I want to artificially cut out a segment of potential renters, thereby reducing the marketability of my place and possibly its dollar value, so be it. I'm a jackass for it, but again, no one had a right to that property, and no one had an opportunitiy to use it until I chose to put it on the market anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, with that particular punctuation and capitalization, it doesn't mean much of anything at all.
If you think you -can't- hear the difference on a portable MP3 player with a set of headphones, you are kidding yourself (or need to get your hearing checked). Buy a decent set of headphones.
The original 128 kbps AAC is far from optimal to start. It's adequate for casual use, but still clearly inferior to a CD on anything but $20 computer speakers. Transcode, and you'll lose a lot. How sensitive you are to the loss is a personal thing.
I've done the transcoding with WMAs to MP3s. I find that keeping the MP3 bitrate up rediculously high (say 320kbps) helps quite a lot, but I'm still getting sound fidelity that's marginally worse than the original (and I'm producing files that are much larger than I'd need to if I was taking from CDDA and aiming for the same quality level).
But of course, none of that has anything to do with the DRM, per se. Any lossy-to-lossy conversion involves those problems.
Where the DRM does become an issue in this particular scenerio, though, is that the DRM is one of the key reasons why you NEED to transcode. Admittedly, there are few players other than the iPod that will handle even unencumbered MP4/AAC - but even those that do can't play ITMS tracks, because of the DRM. So you've got to circumvent the copy protection and transcode (you could even go AAC to AAC if your player accepts the format) to use the tracks with anything that's not an iPod.
Also, as another poster pointed out, the fact that the DRM is easily circumvented doesn't excuse it's presence. If no one was trying to stop us from copying the tracks (or from playing them under the circumstances in which we see fit), the DRM wouldn't be there in the first place. It's an insult and it's bad customer service that Apple and others are intentionally crippling their products to take freedom away from the consumer.
Except they're not aftermarket locks and systems for 10K per year. They're the replacements for the recalled parts for 10K per year.
"So to get this straight, you run an operating system that has so many security problems that you need to run at least two other programs just to make sure that you aren't infected by anything. At least one of those programs is an intensive application that has to scan every potentially harmful file before it can be used."
First of all, neither of those applications is intensive or running all the time. I use a virus scan on executables before running them; I don't leave it doing live monitoring, because that's a waste.
Second of all, can you think of an operating system for which those types of precautions aren't a good idea? If I was using a Mac, I'd feel nice knowing that there've been no widespread viruses and little spyware, but I'd still check for them from time to time. It's just good practice.
It most certainly is possible. I won't go as far as the grandparent, but close. I've never been -harmfully- afflicted by being hacked, rooted, or infected with a virus or spyware. I've almost never run into any of those at all - but once every couple of years something crops up.
I've (very) occasionally caught a virus present on the machine before it was ever executed or did any harm. I've (very) rarely wound up with spyware - but nothing major, and nothing that couldn't either be uninstalled via its own well-behaved uninstaller or removed easily via something like adaware.
Why? Because I don't run or install software if common sense says the source might be shady. The one or two spyware incidents I've had were with semi-legit software - it probably told me in a Eula all about the nasty reporting it wanted to do, and I clicked through - that, as spyware goes, was relatively benign.
Now my old roommate's machine, with the same basic setup, was another story. It was amazing she could move the mouse with all the crap going on in the background from various malware. Different computing use habits, I suppose.
I thought they were created to test our patience.
Last post, dumbasses.
Give me Word 5.1a for the Mac any day. It got words on a page in a neat and presentable format, and did pretty much nothing else. It was perfect.
I have no idea whether it -is- trademarked, but it seems to me that it shouldn't be. After all, Nietze talked about his "superman" long before Clark Kent was Superman. And it's a pretty obvious hybrid of normal words - Super and Man. A man who is super. What's more plain than that?
I don't know about you, but I've got dozens if not hundreds of friends and friendly aquantances. Even within my core group of close friends, many of those people aren't very technically minded, and would be confused by a lesson in computer privacy. But even if they all understood - how am I going to instruct so many people, and be sure they're all following through? And what about friends of friends? PEople I see once at a party, people I meet in passing?
You really can't expect to control anything but your own actions.
Seems to me the better solution is to google for yourself once in a while, and if you see anyone posting anything troublesome that includes you, contact that person directly.
It's worth it if you or others willingly pay for it. And since most of the unwashed masses don't think in these terms and aren't tuned in to the great intellectual property debate, many of them will pay for it.
I really hate just about all this supposed consumer-protection regulation. Make a product. If it does what I want, and it's a reasonable price, I'll buy it. If it employs, say, a DRM scheme that's incompatible with how I choose to use it, I won't. If I'm the only one who wants what I want, so no one makes it, well, that's the free market and I'll have to suck it up.
I have no problem with device and media companies using DRM, ethically speaking. It makes their products less attractive to me personally, but they're betting that people like me are in the minority there. So be it. The only real problem with DRM is when laws like the DMCA in the USA prohibit you from circumventing it, because telling you what benign things you can do with a product you already own (short of redistribution) is just draconian.
1.37 percent is a LOT. A freaking LOT. And this is revenue, not profit.
The whole problem with democratic and republican forms of government is that sometimes the electorate is wrong. But if we're not going to put our faith in the ability of the people to make informed choices - and to recognize for themselves whether they're truly informed - then we've got to rethink ther basic premise upon which our government is formed.
The situation you describe sounds nice - but you can't get there without putting restrictions on speech. You can't give everyone equal ability to communicate unless you define exactly how much they're going to be able to do so.
So everybody draws their fixed amount of money from this pool. But I've got extra resources - either on my own, or given to me by supporters who really like my message. Why shouldn't I be able to use those? Why should my ability to communicate be stifled? Why should my political speech be hampered?
The problem with that philosophy is that you wind up restricting people in legitimate situations as well. If it's tough to prove the quid-pro-quo, then you've got to let it be (or continue looking for proof) - because there's no justice in punishing people we can't prove have done something wrong.
The other thing people seem to ignore when talking about campaign finance is that the electorate gets to play a part in the whole thing. If you strongly suspect your congressman is bought and sold (but can't prove it), don't vote for him. If he's making policy that serves interests that aren't yours - regardless of whether its because he received large campaign contributions from those interests, or simply agrees with them - don't vote for him. Last I checked, you're still not allowed to buy votes.
The point is that the money is used explictly for speech - in the form of campaigning. And the law is specifically aimed to prevent those with greater abilities to collect funds from having a greater ability to campaign.
Restricting the amount of money you can give the parties and candidates restricts speech. That's the whole intent of the law.
You're worried about politicians being bought and sold? Then use the existing anti-corruption laws to prosecute politicians in tit-for-tat situations. McCain-Feingold and other similar measures attempt to regulate activity that may be completely legitimate.
My favorite is: "Custom Clients developed for use on a mobile device or via a wireless telecommunications carrier's network and/or wireless services require separate licensing and business agreements with AOL. Any inquiries regarding mobile applications should be sent to AIMCommercial@aol.com."
So does that count laptops? And why should it matter whether the internet connection is wired or via a wireless service? What if I'm using a card in my PC to connect to Verizon's wireless internet service? And what, fundamentally, is the difference between a mobile platform and a standard computer - size?
My only point is that what's a must-have for one, isn't necessarily a must-have for another - but the increased bandwidth will be useful regardless of what your personal must-have is. So it doesn't make any more sense to rule out streaming video as a logical application than it does anything else.
I don't know that most of those examples are must-haves. Better graphics and graphical icons? I can't imagine finding that, in and of itself, all that useful on a phone. Increased mail capability? Sure, that I could see.
Overall, the increased bandwidth will be useful for lots and lots - you get your better graphics, I get my useful wireless connection on a laptop or PDA. I could also imagine mobile videophones finally taking off, once the bandwidth and processing power are there.
Myspace abuses me every time I log on ... and I'm just talking about the page design.
There's a lot of talk about the DRM on here, peppered the the same valid criticisms that come up all the time ... but what I wonder is if the content providers realize how patently stupid trying to protect WORDS through technological locks is.
I mean, it's just words. If someone creates a DRM mechaism that makes it really, really hard to copy and distrubte the latest hit single, OK, they've sort of accomplished something. I can't just record my garage band doing a cover and expect it to sound the same. But if we're talking about an in-demand book, how freaking hard is it for a pirate distributer to transcribe a copy? Or even more simply (and very commonly), to use OCR software?
They're just WORDS!
Free association also leads to segregation, as people will tend to flock to others they perceive to be like themselves - for reasons of ideology, personal preferences, religion, race, gender, or whatever. That doesn't make free association a bad thing.
You're right, it IS illegal for businesses to discriminate based on race - but should it be? Should anyone have the right to tell me what to do with my own capital and resources? Where does this inherent right to a level playing field with someone else's resources come from? If I only want to hire tall guys named Steve for my petite women's apparel store, well, that's a pretty stoopit business plan, but since I'm signing the paychecks I don't see where anyone but the free market has a right to tell me I can't do it. When my business fails because it was a bad idea, then I either have a choice to change my ways or continue to be a failure.
Likewise, if I rent apartments, and I'll only rent out to white people - that's a pretty poor business plan. It means cutting out a segment of the population who might be willing to pay for my apartments, and potentially lowering the dollar value. Maybe I can still get a good price on the apartments; it depends on the places. But the apartments weren't on the market until I put them there. I have every right to leave them closed up indefinately, or tear them down, or turn them into small offices, if I choose. So why, when I decide to rent them out, do other people get to tell me on what terms that will happen? How about this - if my business practices offend you, boycott me. Make a big stink about it. Embarass me on local TV stations. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't - but where does anyone get a right to do more than that.
Personal disclaimer - I lived for three years with an interracial lesbian couple; I'm not inclined to discriminate myself. Any business I'd be involved with would half to have a strict interntal anti-discrimination policy, regardless of what the law says, because discrimination offends me and I won't be a party to it. And I believe the government, which must serve everyone, should be strict in its anti-discrimination policies among its own institutions and programs. But I won't tell someone else what to do with his land, his business, or his money.
Sure. Think about it this way: If you were a gay Jewish-born Muslim convert, would you really want to live with the guy who posted it?
People need to wrap their heads around the idea that freedom includes the freedom to be a jackass. Some people have offensive views. They should be allowed to express them; others should be allowed to refute them. And they should be allowed to do with their own private property as they please; no one has an inherent right to live with me, and I'm only going to enter into an agreement to share my home with someone I find agreeable - I don't need to justify my definition of "agreeable" to anyone but myself. And if I'm looking to rent out a home, I should be able to rent it out to whomever I please. If I want to artificially cut out a segment of potential renters, thereby reducing the marketability of my place and possibly its dollar value, so be it. I'm a jackass for it, but again, no one had a right to that property, and no one had an opportunitiy to use it until I chose to put it on the market anyway.
Actually, Doc Brown and Marty had just kept on returning to that same day over and over again, to fix mistakes they made the last time around.