Stealing is when someone loses something. Read a dictionary.
Number one definition is "To take (the property of another) without right or permission." Downloading a MP3 from Kazaa is taking someone else's property without right or permission. It's stealing.
When someone downloads music, the artist, the starving artist is loosing the meager pittance they would have made from a one more CD sold.
I've read your posts further up. I was a poor college student once, too. I couldn't afford new CDs. I'd save a little bit of money and hope I could find it used. If I couldn't spare the money or find it used, I'd go without. When I felt I needed music, I'd listen to the radio or maybe borrow a CD from a friend.
You are rationalizing your behaviour. No matter how you phrase it, downloading music you didn't pay for is stealing. If you can't afford a want, you do without. If you are so poor that you can't afford $1 a track, then you do without. It's that simple.
I can't afford an iPod. I don't rationalize stealing one because they're priced higher than they should be. I simply go without. That's part of being poor.
Music is not food. You will not die without it.
As far as the $1 per track that you've complained about. Are you so poor that you never drink a coke or splurge on a candy bar? Do you rationalize stealing those too?
No, but if you get up on stage and play John Cage's 4'33" you will have people asking if it's music or even art. There is music which pushes the boundaries of what people would consider as "obviously music."
(4'3" is four minutes and thirty-three second of silence.)
Visual art has no utility? Have you looked at the culinary arts? Statues of gods? The Jefferson Monument has no utility? The visual arts inspire. That's utiility enough.
No, if they were greedy they'd pull the George Lucas shit. Release only full screen versions till all three are done, then release a marked-up, limited edition, widescreen boxed set. Then release the extended scenes in a new theatrical version. Then release a boxed set with the additional footage.
So all the fans own three copies of the movies.
No, if they were greedy they wouldn't tell you that an extended version is coming out a *months* later. (I'll resist the urge to rail against people who can't wait a few months and the general lack of patience in American's consumer culture.)
It takes time to put everything else together. It wouldn't be surprising to find out that the production crew has been concentrating on the regular DVD and getting it out earlier. It probably sells better (cheaper, shorter, appeals to a greater audience). Oh, yah, so that would be greed, too... but not in the bad way that would cause all of us to own three copies of the movies.
Perhaps someone in your post office or your postman knows when the DVDs are "inbound" as opposed to "outbound"
You can tell by looking the envelope. There's no special knowledge. Coming in, it's an envelope red on both sides. Going back one side's red, white on the other.
Actually, Netflix doesn't want to rely on new customers for all their business. They want their churn to be as low as possible because it's easier to keep a customer than to get a new one.
I don't know what the big deal is with this article. I've been a Netflix customer for quite a while (about a year, maybe), watch two or three a week on the $19.95 plan, and have had no problems getting the movies at the top of my queue. The only two that have been waiting at the top have been 'Heavenly Creatures' and 'Samurai Jack.' A few movies' statuses further down the list fluctuate frequently, but it's not like you aren't receiving movies you put in your queue.
No, of course not. I like doing it to, but I've found that an RSS reader like NetNewsWire is the best way to keep up to date on blogs and news sites. Instead of visiting ten sites once or twice a day to see if new stories have been posted, the news reader just lets me know when new content is there. It also gives me the headlines - very useful when Slashdot carries crap stories for several days straight. A simple click of a menu item in NetNewsWire loads the story in a browser.
I've gone from manually keeping track of five main sites to letting the RSS reader track close to thirty sites.
Because it combines the what I needde in Linux/BSD with what I wanted in Windows.
I need a terminal for work and unix - ssh, vi, apache/php/mysql, stability.
I want ease of use for email, browsing, and media.
Before OS X I had two systems on my desk - Windows for home and office apps, Linux for work. Now I have one system doing it all seamlessly under one OS.
Linux pushers will point out there are plenty of alternative and workable home and office apps for Linux. I get no joy out of messing with programs for twenty minutes just to get the latest movie trailer clips to work. I don't want to use console email programs or still-beta GUI mail clients. I don't want to work 'on' my computer messing with libraries or spend time learning how to properly manage RPMs. I want to sit down, do the stuff I need to do, and that's it. I want to watch some stupid flash movie my brother emails me without having to download the latest buggy binary of flash for linux that may or may not work. I want to plug my digital camera in and effortlessly download pictures from the get go. I don't want to recompile my kernel to include USB support.
Windows fascists will point out that you can get lots of unixy apps for Windows. I don't want to have to load a separate ssh app, though. I don't want an ssh app that was abandoned a year ago or costs $15. I don't want apps that will write files all over the place. I like using the terminal... for somet things. I like being able to find out what's going on with my computer, but only when I want to/have to. I like vi. I need cvs. I like having twenty options for ping and dig and ps and telnet. I also want a system that stays out of my way. I want my printer to work without messing around with drivers. I want to select text in a browser and send it to a sticky without even thinking about how to do it.
So, why the mac? When I need access to the OS's underbelly (like Linux), it's there. When I want to not think about using the computer (like Windows), it does it. So, the OS does what I want. It just doesn't frustrated me like Linux and Windows used to.
It's cliche and sound simplistic, but my Mac "just works."
Actually it was Apple Records (of Beatles fame). They settled out of court.
As many people pointed out IF (big, big if) Apple bought Universal, the music would be kept under the brand name Universal. Apple wouldn't be competing with Apple Records - it's wholy owned subsidiary Univesal would. That gets around any trademark infringement because no one's going to mistake up Universal for Apple Records.
Ummm.... We've had a "great way for small-time developers to get their software to the masses" which "totally eliminates the need for a publisher" and has almost "no upfront costs" for over a decade.
It's called the Internet.
(Sorry, it was just too easy. I know, I know, there are apps that are too big to realistically be downloaded by most people, and this greatly increases the number of Mac titles "on the shelf" in your average CompUSA.)
Yes, it'd be nice if the Mac market was a little larger. However, the Mac market is more tightly knit and word of new, cool, and useful software travels quickly.
When Konfabulator came out, I had three different people tell me about it. I've told several people about WeatherPop, and they've downloaded and used it. Same with NetNewsWire, Fire, and Watson. Because of the fewer Mac titles, there's less competition, too.
You must be new to Slashdot. Half the posts are from people who didn't bother reading the article. Normally I'd criticize people for not reading the article, too, but given Dvorak's history and the topic it didn't warrant reading.
Plus, I had a juicy link that could get me +5 Informative.
I'm sorry, but I don't have to read Dvorak to know its crap. He lost his credibility somewhere around 1998. Now whenever he writes about Macs it's uninformed, ignorant, and self-conflicting dreck. He greatly damaged his own creditibility when in Jan 2001, he visited MacWorld and liked the iMac, comparing it to a Ferrari. Six months later, he wrote that Apple hasn't innovated in years and should kill the Mac.
In the words of my grandpappy, "I don't have to smell it to know it's shit."
"Has no read MacWhispers..." should be "Has no one read MacWhispers..."
Seems like most people got that, though.
Basicly, Dvorak's prediction has no base. He doesn't even mention the talks assumed to be happening between Apple and IBM, and he doesn't even say "I have credible sources." His whole article is based on a keynote from Jobs-as-Pixar-CEO, some people in the front row of another keynote, and who Apple *isn't* talking to.
I would like to predict that Microsoft is converting they're Windows line of OS to run on Mac OS X because
1) Some MS people were at MacWorld. 2) Some Apple people were at a Windows conference. 3) Most importantly, MS isn't talking to Linus so they must be talking to Apple.
Big whoop dee do. John C. Dvorak says he thinks they're going to create a dual proc system. I just read his article. Have you read his reasons? They're crap.
First, there is zero evidence that Apple is talking to AMD?and it would if it were staying with the x86 legacy chips.
What about the evidence that Apple's talking to IBM? He's saying that since Apple isn't talking to Intel's x86 competitor they *must* be talking to Intel? It make no sense. It's like saying "John isn't talking to his barber, so he must be talking to his hair dresser." Nevermind that John's still at the coffee shop.
Second, Apple likes to make jazzy announcements in which it claims to be the first or the most aggressive in a market.
Yes, they do, and staying w/in the PPC family yes announcing they're going to put a subset of IBM's Power series, thus ditching Motorola, is flashy and major.
Third, if Apple optimizes the OS X kernel for the Itanium, the likelihood of the Apple OS being ripped off by normal PC users is nil.
I don't about the Itanium, but what special feature would keep it from being ripped off? Even if they moved to x86, they'd have a special BIOS chip on the board to keep generic systems from ripping the OS just like they do with PPC.
And finally, by choosing the Itanium, Apple will have an ally in Intel, who will put its design team to work for Apple and perhaps even invest in the company, knowing AMD is not in the picture.
It makes sense, but how is this evidence? It's a "They should do this" statement, not a "They are doing this".
Dvorak's made a prediction. Yet he doesn't address the greater evidence that Apple is moving to the IBM PPC series, chips designed for desktops and laptops, which operate at higher frequencies and are superior chips to Motorola's. His piece if fluff, pure and simple.
Apple has bids out for PPC 970 mobos. Doesn't sound like they're switching to x86.
I'm not even going to bother reading the comments below. Apple's system is based on the PPC. Switching to x86 chips would be stupid. They're still trying to get developers and consumers switched to OS X, and to ask people to move to a completely different architecture so soon after a major OS change would be suicide.
Please, once and for all, Apple is not moving to the x86. It's a stupid rumor and only flames those idiots who say "I'd use OS X when it comes out for x86" and "I'll buy a Mac as soon as they use the faster x86 chip."
How about a post saying BSD's dead? Vi's better then emacs? RMS say something great/stupid?
Yes, as a final slap in the face to the audience not only did they not edit out the last 60s and leave in "To Be Continued", they also thanked the fans and the producers for four great years.
IANAL either, but I don't think contract law is as cut and dry as you like to think. Also, Amazon has in-house laywers who probably have a policy saying what will happen in the case of mispricing. They are laywers and know what they're doing.
With respect to items sold by Amazon.com, we cannot confirm the price of an item until you order; however, we do NOT charge your credit card until after your order has entered the shipping process. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. Rest assured, however, that we verify prices of products sold and shipped by Amazon.com as part of our shipping procedures.
If an item's correct price is lower than our stated price, we charge the lower amount and ship you the item.
If an item's correct price is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation.
From reading other sites such as CNET and the Register, the contract is made when your card is charged. On most printed ads, there is a disclaimer, however small saying the vendor is not responsible for typos and mispricing.
Argh, where's the damn "I want to delete this post because I hadn't had coffee yet, so what you were saying didn't click" button!
You were saying the update was posted yesterday afternoon, not that the Slashdot editor was being an arrogant American and assuming it was Friday morning for most people. Duh!
My god man, were are you from? What do you do? Do you do anything with your hands? Do you have a hobby you take seriously?
Every, EVERY, artist or craftsman or hobbyist or professional I've ever known has preferences of tools. Most of them can give you detailed reasons why they prefer Snap-On over Porter-Cable or KitchenAid over Oster or the B&O over Polk. Hell, man, don't you know about vi v. emacs? Ford v Chevy? Film v Digital? Gas v Electric? Stick v Automatic? Bong v Joint? Drip v Press? Each one has pros and cons, and as humans it's only natural to discuss and argue over which is better.
For Christmas, my dad tells me *exactly* which tool he'd like. To him there is a difference between a Makita and a Black & Decker sawzall. There's a difference between a fiberglass and a wooden handle hammer.
Almost every cookbook I own has a section dedicated to tools - knives, pots, pans, cutting boards, gadgets, cups, spoons.
My photographer friends are passionate about their cameras and film. The tools help them express themselves.
It's not "just a fucking tool." It's an extension of yourself that helps you work more effecitienly and creatively in the world. Go ask your local antropologist or biologist how important tools are to humanity.
You might think it's sad that people are passionate about their tools, but that only shows how ignorant you are. Look at yourself, and ask if you really don't have serious preferences for the tools you use? How would you react if someone asked you to do your job/hobby with tools you didn't like?
Slashdot Mirror
Stealing is when someone loses something. Read a dictionary.
Number one definition is "To take (the property of another) without right or permission." Downloading a MP3 from Kazaa is taking someone else's property without right or permission. It's stealing.
When someone downloads music, the artist, the starving artist is loosing the meager pittance they would have made from a one more CD sold.
I've read your posts further up. I was a poor college student once, too. I couldn't afford new CDs. I'd save a little bit of money and hope I could find it used. If I couldn't spare the money or find it used, I'd go without. When I felt I needed music, I'd listen to the radio or maybe borrow a CD from a friend.
You are rationalizing your behaviour. No matter how you phrase it, downloading music you didn't pay for is stealing. If you can't afford a want, you do without. If you are so poor that you can't afford $1 a track, then you do without. It's that simple.
I can't afford an iPod. I don't rationalize stealing one because they're priced higher than they should be. I simply go without. That's part of being poor.
Music is not food. You will not die without it.
As far as the $1 per track that you've complained about. Are you so poor that you never drink a coke or splurge on a candy bar? Do you rationalize stealing those too?
No, but if you get up on stage and play John Cage's 4'33" you will have people asking if it's music or even art. There is music which pushes the boundaries of what people would consider as "obviously music."
(4'3" is four minutes and thirty-three second of silence.)
Visual art has no utility? Have you looked at the culinary arts? Statues of gods? The Jefferson Monument has no utility? The visual arts inspire. That's utiility enough.
Greed?
No, if they were greedy they'd pull the George Lucas shit. Release only full screen versions till all three are done, then release a marked-up, limited edition, widescreen boxed set. Then release the extended scenes in a new theatrical version. Then release a boxed set with the additional footage.
So all the fans own three copies of the movies.
No, if they were greedy they wouldn't tell you that an extended version is coming out a *months* later. (I'll resist the urge to rail against people who can't wait a few months and the general lack of patience in American's consumer culture.)
It takes time to put everything else together. It wouldn't be surprising to find out that the production crew has been concentrating on the regular DVD and getting it out earlier. It probably sells better (cheaper, shorter, appeals to a greater audience). Oh, yah, so that would be greed, too... but not in the bad way that would cause all of us to own three copies of the movies.
Perhaps someone in your post office or your postman knows when the DVDs are "inbound" as opposed to "outbound"
You can tell by looking the envelope. There's no special knowledge. Coming in, it's an envelope red on both sides. Going back one side's red, white on the other.
Actually, Netflix doesn't want to rely on new customers for all their business. They want their churn to be as low as possible because it's easier to keep a customer than to get a new one.
I don't know what the big deal is with this article. I've been a Netflix customer for quite a while (about a year, maybe), watch two or three a week on the $19.95 plan, and have had no problems getting the movies at the top of my queue. The only two that have been waiting at the top have been 'Heavenly Creatures' and 'Samurai Jack.' A few movies' statuses further down the list fluctuate frequently, but it's not like you aren't receiving movies you put in your queue.
No, of course not. I like doing it to, but I've found that an RSS reader like NetNewsWire is the best way to keep up to date on blogs and news sites. Instead of visiting ten sites once or twice a day to see if new stories have been posted, the news reader just lets me know when new content is there. It also gives me the headlines - very useful when Slashdot carries crap stories for several days straight. A simple click of a menu item in NetNewsWire loads the story in a browser.
I've gone from manually keeping track of five main sites to letting the RSS reader track close to thirty sites.
Because it combines the what I needde in Linux/BSD with what I wanted in Windows.
I need a terminal for work and unix - ssh, vi, apache/php/mysql, stability.
I want ease of use for email, browsing, and media.
Before OS X I had two systems on my desk - Windows for home and office apps, Linux for work. Now I have one system doing it all seamlessly under one OS.
Linux pushers will point out there are plenty of alternative and workable home and office apps for Linux. I get no joy out of messing with programs for twenty minutes just to get the latest movie trailer clips to work. I don't want to use console email programs or still-beta GUI mail clients. I don't want to work 'on' my computer messing with libraries or spend time learning how to properly manage RPMs. I want to sit down, do the stuff I need to do, and that's it. I want to watch some stupid flash movie my brother emails me without having to download the latest buggy binary of flash for linux that may or may not work. I want to plug my digital camera in and effortlessly download pictures from the get go. I don't want to recompile my kernel to include USB support.
Windows fascists will point out that you can get lots of unixy apps for Windows. I don't want to have to load a separate ssh app, though. I don't want an ssh app that was abandoned a year ago or costs $15. I don't want apps that will write files all over the place. I like using the terminal... for somet things. I like being able to find out what's going on with my computer, but only when I want to/have to. I like vi. I need cvs. I like having twenty options for ping and dig and ps and telnet. I also want a system that stays out of my way. I want my printer to work without messing around with drivers. I want to select text in a browser and send it to a sticky without even thinking about how to do it.
So, why the mac? When I need access to the OS's underbelly (like Linux), it's there. When I want to not think about using the computer (like Windows), it does it. So, the OS does what I want. It just doesn't frustrated me like Linux and Windows used to.
It's cliche and sound simplistic, but my Mac "just works."
Actually it was Apple Records (of Beatles fame). They settled out of court.
As many people pointed out IF (big, big if) Apple bought Universal, the music would be kept under the brand name Universal. Apple wouldn't be competing with Apple Records - it's wholy owned subsidiary Univesal would. That gets around any trademark infringement because no one's going to mistake up Universal for Apple Records.
Ummm.... We've had a "great way for small-time developers to get their software to the masses" which "totally eliminates the need for a publisher" and has almost "no upfront costs" for over a decade.
It's called the Internet.
(Sorry, it was just too easy. I know, I know, there are apps that are too big to realistically be downloaded by most people, and this greatly increases the number of Mac titles "on the shelf" in your average CompUSA.)
I so wish I had mod points. You made perhaps the most clear anti-Mac clone argument I've ever read. Bravo!
Yes, it'd be nice if the Mac market was a little larger. However, the Mac market is more tightly knit and word of new, cool, and useful software travels quickly.
When Konfabulator came out, I had three different people tell me about it. I've told several people about WeatherPop, and they've downloaded and used it. Same with NetNewsWire, Fire, and Watson. Because of the fewer Mac titles, there's less competition, too.
You must be new to Slashdot. Half the posts are from people who didn't bother reading the article. Normally I'd criticize people for not reading the article, too, but given Dvorak's history and the topic it didn't warrant reading.
Plus, I had a juicy link that could get me +5 Informative.
Mmmmm.... Karma whoring.
I'm sorry, but I don't have to read Dvorak to know its crap. He lost his credibility somewhere around 1998. Now whenever he writes about Macs it's uninformed, ignorant, and self-conflicting dreck. He greatly damaged his own creditibility when in Jan 2001, he visited MacWorld and liked the iMac, comparing it to a Ferrari. Six months later, he wrote that Apple hasn't innovated in years and should kill the Mac.
In the words of my grandpappy, "I don't have to smell it to know it's shit."
"Has no read MacWhispers ..." should be "Has no one read MacWhispers ..."
Seems like most people got that, though.
Basicly, Dvorak's prediction has no base. He doesn't even mention the talks assumed to be happening between Apple and IBM, and he doesn't even say "I have credible sources." His whole article is based on a keynote from Jobs-as-Pixar-CEO, some people in the front row of another keynote, and who Apple *isn't* talking to.
I would like to predict that Microsoft is converting they're Windows line of OS to run on Mac OS X because
1) Some MS people were at MacWorld.
2) Some Apple people were at a Windows conference.
3) Most importantly, MS isn't talking to Linus so they must be talking to Apple.
Silly!!!
Big whoop dee do. John C. Dvorak says he thinks they're going to create a dual proc system. I just read his article. Have you read his reasons? They're crap.
First, there is zero evidence that Apple is talking to AMD?and it would if it were staying with the x86 legacy chips.
What about the evidence that Apple's talking to IBM? He's saying that since Apple isn't talking to Intel's x86 competitor they *must* be talking to Intel? It make no sense. It's like saying "John isn't talking to his barber, so he must be talking to his hair dresser." Nevermind that John's still at the coffee shop.
Second, Apple likes to make jazzy announcements in which it claims to be the first or the most aggressive in a market.
Yes, they do, and staying w/in the PPC family yes announcing they're going to put a subset of IBM's Power series, thus ditching Motorola, is flashy and major.
Third, if Apple optimizes the OS X kernel for the Itanium, the likelihood of the Apple OS being ripped off by normal PC users is nil.
I don't about the Itanium, but what special feature would keep it from being ripped off? Even if they moved to x86, they'd have a special BIOS chip on the board to keep generic systems from ripping the OS just like they do with PPC.
And finally, by choosing the Itanium, Apple will have an ally in Intel, who will put its design team to work for Apple and perhaps even invest in the company, knowing AMD is not in the picture.
It makes sense, but how is this evidence? It's a "They should do this" statement, not a "They are doing this".
Dvorak's made a prediction. Yet he doesn't address the greater evidence that Apple is moving to the IBM PPC series, chips designed for desktops and laptops, which operate at higher frequencies and are superior chips to Motorola's. His piece if fluff, pure and simple.
Has no read MacWhispers post title New PowerMac Motherboards To Use PPC 970???
Apple has bids out for PPC 970 mobos. Doesn't sound like they're switching to x86.
I'm not even going to bother reading the comments below. Apple's system is based on the PPC. Switching to x86 chips would be stupid. They're still trying to get developers and consumers switched to OS X, and to ask people to move to a completely different architecture so soon after a major OS change would be suicide.
Please, once and for all, Apple is not moving to the x86. It's a stupid rumor and only flames those idiots who say "I'd use OS X when it comes out for x86" and "I'll buy a Mac as soon as they use the faster x86 chip."
How about a post saying BSD's dead? Vi's better then emacs? RMS say something great/stupid?
Yes, as a final slap in the face to the audience not only did they not edit out the last 60s and leave in "To Be Continued", they also thanked the fans and the producers for four great years.
Assholes.
The 10.1 upgrade was free from Apple stores and resellers or $20 for shipping and handling. Here.
Macslash's article on the 10.2 pricing outrage had anecdotal posts saying that Apple typically charges for every other upgrade.
From Amazon.com's Pricing policy:
From reading other sites such as CNET and the Register, the contract is made when your card is charged. On most printed ads, there is a disclaimer, however small saying the vendor is not responsible for typos and mispricing.
Edward Hopper's Nighthawks - pics and details at http://edwardhopper.info/painting/Nighthawks.html
Argh, where's the damn "I want to delete this post because I hadn't had coffee yet, so what you were saying didn't click" button!
You were saying the update was posted yesterday afternoon, not that the Slashdot editor was being an arrogant American and assuming it was Friday morning for most people. Duh!
Err?
Where are you living that 8:30 Friday morning on the US East coast is still Thursday afternoon? Most of the world is already into Friday afternoon.
Amazon says March 19
here
Immortals sick of living?
A super intellegent AI?
Add in Sean Connery and you'll have Zardoz
My god man, were are you from? What do you do? Do you do anything with your hands? Do you have a hobby you take seriously?
Every, EVERY, artist or craftsman or hobbyist or professional I've ever known has preferences of tools. Most of them can give you detailed reasons why they prefer Snap-On over Porter-Cable or KitchenAid over Oster or the B&O over Polk. Hell, man, don't you know about vi v. emacs? Ford v Chevy? Film v Digital? Gas v Electric? Stick v Automatic? Bong v Joint? Drip v Press? Each one has pros and cons, and as humans it's only natural to discuss and argue over which is better.
For Christmas, my dad tells me *exactly* which tool he'd like. To him there is a difference between a Makita and a Black & Decker sawzall. There's a difference between a fiberglass and a wooden handle hammer.
Almost every cookbook I own has a section dedicated to tools - knives, pots, pans, cutting boards, gadgets, cups, spoons.
My photographer friends are passionate about their cameras and film. The tools help them express themselves.
It's not "just a fucking tool." It's an extension of yourself that helps you work more effecitienly and creatively in the world. Go ask your local antropologist or biologist how important tools are to humanity.
You might think it's sad that people are passionate about their tools, but that only shows how ignorant you are. Look at yourself, and ask if you really don't have serious preferences for the tools you use? How would you react if someone asked you to do your job/hobby with tools you didn't like?