With all due respect, I think you answered one of your own questions:
But they made the video disappointingly low res, equivalent to stuff that was traded online in the late '90s, not the mid '00s (the 320x240 resolution is just not competitive with what you can find on bittorrent these days)....
And they made the music burnable to a standard redbook CD so it could be easily backed up and used with your old equipment, but they made the video unable to be burned to a DVD...
At that resolution, you wouldn't get nearly the quality of a DVD video anyway. However, you have always been able to back up iTMS video downloads as files to DVD-R; you just can't play them in a standard DVD player.
Want to add background music to your home videos? I hope you didn't buy your music online.
Using Apple's iMovie and iDVD, I'm entirely able to do this with purchased iTMS music without jumping through any hoops. So granted, I'm not using Windows, but I fail to see what you're griping about.
As for DRM ending fair use: why do you say that? There are ways to get "fair use" clips from purchased video without breaking the DRM; video screencaps comes immediately to mind (an approach that is awkward for converting an entire 30-minute show or 90-minute movie but quite reasonable for a 40-second clip).
Fair use is a right, not a privilege. There's nothing written anywhere which says that media companies have to make it easy for you to make fair use of their media. That does not in any way outlaw software makers from providing ways to do so, or give the media companies the right to end fair use in the courts. You're making a big fuss over losing something you never actually had in the first place.
"Hello, Midville Fire Department." "Yes, I need you to get my... my pet out of a tree in my yard, please. It's stuck." "Certainly, ma'am. Is it a housecat?" "Well, no.... I'm a little... I don't know how to explain...." "That's okay, ma'am. A bird, then? Cockatoo or a parrot?" "Well, it's not exactly like that...." "A gecko? Iguana? We've done iguanas before, there's nothing to be embarassed about." "Actually, um... it's a robot." "A robot, ma'am?" "Yes, my husband was demonstrating this six-legged robot he's been working on at the university for the last year and he forgot to program it to come back down... hello? Hello?..."
If today's california condor isn't well suited in the modern environment; wouldn't it be better to grow better ones more able to survive - rather than forcing the unfortunate few remaining ones to suffer in an environment no longer well suited to them?
Well, part of the cause of the California condor's decline is humans shooting them for sport. So I'll assume you don't include that in your definition of "environment no longer well suited to them."
Part of the problem is that we cannot, yet, grow better animals to survive. This article is talking about crippling mice in specific ways for medical science; eugenics is exactly the opposite technology.
Another issue is the question of species survival. Since we can't gene-sequence an animal complete for later resurrection, especially when that animal's population is under 200 like the California condor's.
The ultimate goal is to preserve species diversity in the wild as much as possible. Human expansion across the planet has had a far more devastating effect on species diversity in every possible environment than natural selection could ever achieve. Too few species and you have a kind of monoculture, filled with a small number of species excellently adapted to parasitizing human society but lousy at doing much of anything else.
...for a superintelligent white mouse? I want to be able to create my own three-dimensional sculpture with a living element before those things go out of style.
So guys, what do you say? Should we all mabye prove ZDNet wrong by not breaking into that computer?
Why don't we just do what Slashdot does best, and DDoS the thing instead? The way I see it, that's the best way to protect it from being hacked in the first place.
You guys are misunderstanding this. Apple are saints. They're only trying to help other companies by releasing competing products!
Sarcasm aside for a minute: Didn't we go through all of this when Apple included Dashboard in OS X 10.4, basically killing Konfabulator on OS X? Or when Apple started selling Final Cut Pro and Apeture? Or GarageBand, Pages and Keynote... you get the idea.
Apple has helped encourage a burgeoning accessories market with the iPod, and just because they're playing the game themselves doesn't mean they're trying to kill everyone else.
I mean, even taking the iPod Hi-Fi into account: that's an expensive box, a quality set of speakers that costs over $300 and will NOT appeal to everyone. Most iPod users will be quite happy with a set of portable-size speakers that cost $100 or less, and the rest have to take into account the cost-versus-quality of the iPod Hi-Fi.
Apple has been selling its own accessories since it started selling iPods, and the accessory companies, quite frankly, have more to fear from the likes of Belkin than they do from Apple.
I'm not so sure. From what I've read over the years, Jobs himself was a big driving force behind the design of the iPod -- pushing for smaller size, a cleaner interface, meeting with designers weekly if not daily to provide his own input on the device.
He didn't do the grunt work on it, but I don't think there's much question that the iPod is Jobs' creation at least as much as anyone else's.
Oh, and about the author's brilliant scheme of buying CDs and returning them the next day...wouldn't work. I can't think of any store that will accept a new CD for anywhere close to full price after it's been opened. The best you can do is sell it as "used", and you'll be lucky to get a fourth of what you originally paid.
Seriously -- other than as a new game platform, why would the average person buy a new computer?
Mostly, because that average person bought a $400 cheap-@$$ computer from Wal-Mart two years ago, it's already broken, and the repairs or replacement parts cost more than the computer is worth.
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen
Oh, I agree entirely. So, how many MP3s have you illegally downloaded this month?
That said, I can't say that I like the idea of a full touch-screen interface. While it may be nice, it prevents you from using the device without looking at it, unless you buy a remote.
Keep in mind that this is a video iPod, though. As in, you'll be looking at the screen anyway. But even if you're not--since the scroll wheel would magically appear beneath your fingertip no matter where you touched the screen, it would actually improve usability. All I'd have to do is hit the screen somewhere near the center, and I know my fingertip is at the top of the scroll wheel.
In fact, the only thing I don't like about this idea is the streaks I'd end up putting all over my nice video screen. Not to mention the possible damage women with long fingernails could do to theirs.
nothing exclusive to ThinkSecret has been true for about six months.
They've done about 50/50, I'd say, although I'm not sure how many of those predictions are "exclusive". But the emergence of a large-screen viPod is something that people have been debating for a while now; it wouldn't surprise me if it emerged in one form or another this year.
Perhaps I'm just a little too cynical here, but this sounds like a great way to get free labor using an open source project.
Considering that the whole point of using an open source project is to get software using free labor -- yeah, you're being pretty cynical.
Apple didn't have to give anybody anything in exchange for their contributions. Nobody ever expected or asked them to. This isn't an incentive to get other people to be in the "top twelve" next year; it's a "thank you" to the people who have already worked hard.
Re:Would the Beatles have made it today?
on
How Songs Get Popular
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Would the Beatles have made it today?
Of course not; the question is inherently absurd. Their music was popular mainly because it was radically different from anything that people were listening to on the radio at that time. Since then, they've influenced musicians thousands of times over on both sides of the Atlantic.
But new styles still make it big now and then. Think of the fads of ska or swing dancing in the 1990s, or the gradual rise in popularity of rap from a niche in the early 1980s to the mainstream today.
Apple switched because Intel offers a better deal right now.
I seem to recall it was also a matter of supply problems: IBM couldn't keep up with Apple's demand, while Intel is (apparently) having no problems doing so. In this case, switching back to IBM would just mean inviting this problem back.
But what is more important to a home user? His or her own personal files, or a bunch of system files? If "Johnny's first day at school" is more important that system critical resources, perhaps you should have hard copies (CD, DVD, tape, etc.) of this media.
You don't even have to go that far to deflect this particular argument. Just keep in mind that if a virus can infect the entire system, then every other user on that machine can have their files hosed, instead of just the one who acquired the infection.
The better question should be "But what is more important to a home user? His or her own personal files, or what your spouse is likely to do to you when her/his account is wiped out too?"
Slashdot Mirror
With all due respect, I think you answered one of your own questions:
But they made the video disappointingly low res, equivalent to stuff that was traded online in the late '90s, not the mid '00s (the 320x240 resolution is just not competitive with what you can find on bittorrent these days)....
And they made the music burnable to a standard redbook CD so it could be easily backed up and used with your old equipment, but they made the video unable to be burned to a DVD...
At that resolution, you wouldn't get nearly the quality of a DVD video anyway. However, you have always been able to back up iTMS video downloads as files to DVD-R; you just can't play them in a standard DVD player.
Want to add background music to your home videos? I hope you didn't buy your music online.
Using Apple's iMovie and iDVD, I'm entirely able to do this with purchased iTMS music without jumping through any hoops. So granted, I'm not using Windows, but I fail to see what you're griping about.
As for DRM ending fair use: why do you say that? There are ways to get "fair use" clips from purchased video without breaking the DRM; video screencaps comes immediately to mind (an approach that is awkward for converting an entire 30-minute show or 90-minute movie but quite reasonable for a 40-second clip).
Fair use is a right, not a privilege. There's nothing written anywhere which says that media companies have to make it easy for you to make fair use of their media. That does not in any way outlaw software makers from providing ways to do so, or give the media companies the right to end fair use in the courts. You're making a big fuss over losing something you never actually had in the first place.
"Hello, Midville Fire Department."
"Yes, I need you to get my... my pet out of a tree in my yard, please. It's stuck."
"Certainly, ma'am. Is it a housecat?"
"Well, no.... I'm a little... I don't know how to explain...."
"That's okay, ma'am. A bird, then? Cockatoo or a parrot?"
"Well, it's not exactly like that...."
"A gecko? Iguana? We've done iguanas before, there's nothing to be embarassed about."
"Actually, um... it's a robot."
"A robot, ma'am?"
"Yes, my husband was demonstrating this six-legged robot he's been working on at the university for the last year and he forgot to program it to come back down... hello? Hello?..."
If today's california condor isn't well suited in the modern environment; wouldn't it be better to grow better ones more able to survive - rather than forcing the unfortunate few remaining ones to suffer in an environment no longer well suited to them?
Well, part of the cause of the California condor's decline is humans shooting them for sport. So I'll assume you don't include that in your definition of "environment no longer well suited to them."
Part of the problem is that we cannot, yet, grow better animals to survive. This article is talking about crippling mice in specific ways for medical science; eugenics is exactly the opposite technology.
Another issue is the question of species survival. Since we can't gene-sequence an animal complete for later resurrection, especially when that animal's population is under 200 like the California condor's.
The ultimate goal is to preserve species diversity in the wild as much as possible. Human expansion across the planet has had a far more devastating effect on species diversity in every possible environment than natural selection could ever achieve. Too few species and you have a kind of monoculture, filled with a small number of species excellently adapted to parasitizing human society but lousy at doing much of anything else.
...for a superintelligent white mouse? I want to be able to create my own three-dimensional sculpture with a living element before those things go out of style.
So guys, what do you say? Should we all mabye prove ZDNet wrong by not breaking into that computer?
Why don't we just do what Slashdot does best, and DDoS the thing instead? The way I see it, that's the best way to protect it from being hacked in the first place.
You guys are misunderstanding this. Apple are saints. They're only trying to help other companies by releasing competing products!
Sarcasm aside for a minute: Didn't we go through all of this when Apple included Dashboard in OS X 10.4, basically killing Konfabulator on OS X? Or when Apple started selling Final Cut Pro and Apeture? Or GarageBand, Pages and Keynote... you get the idea.
Apple has helped encourage a burgeoning accessories market with the iPod, and just because they're playing the game themselves doesn't mean they're trying to kill everyone else.
I mean, even taking the iPod Hi-Fi into account: that's an expensive box, a quality set of speakers that costs over $300 and will NOT appeal to everyone. Most iPod users will be quite happy with a set of portable-size speakers that cost $100 or less, and the rest have to take into account the cost-versus-quality of the iPod Hi-Fi.
Apple has been selling its own accessories since it started selling iPods, and the accessory companies, quite frankly, have more to fear from the likes of Belkin than they do from Apple.
Really, wouldn't it be better to stick with a known system and, you know, do your job as a sysadmin by fixing any security holes?
Hey, buddy, this is Slashdot. We don't need that kind of talk around here.
A Symantec engineer predicts a 'gradual erosion' of the idea that Macs are a safer operating system than Windows.
Well, yeah... Symantec has kind of a vested interest in gradually eroding that idea, don't they?
this is probably going to a great MP3 player.
I'm not so sure. From what I've read over the years, Jobs himself was a big driving force behind the design of the iPod -- pushing for smaller size, a cleaner interface, meeting with designers weekly if not daily to provide his own input on the device.
He didn't do the grunt work on it, but I don't think there's much question that the iPod is Jobs' creation at least as much as anyone else's.
Oh, and about the author's brilliant scheme of buying CDs and returning them the next day ...wouldn't work. I can't think of any store that will accept a new CD for anywhere close to full price after it's been opened. The best you can do is sell it as "used", and you'll be lucky to get a fourth of what you originally paid.
I've noticed one major constant about most technology, as it changes it gets smaller.
I'm confused now. Is it a constant, or isn't it?
Seriously -- other than as a new game platform, why would the average person buy a new computer?
Mostly, because that average person bought a $400 cheap-@$$ computer from Wal-Mart two years ago, it's already broken, and the repairs or replacement parts cost more than the computer is worth.
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen
Oh, I agree entirely. So, how many MP3s have you illegally downloaded this month?
...that this was a toy-sized vehicle-slash-robot and not an Autobot-sized one.
Still, pretty snazzy. I'm be triply-impresed I can build one out of Lego Mindstorms.
I thougt all Microsofts products was more or less beta.
You're thinking of Google, who release great products but keep them in beta for years.
This is easily confused with Microsoft, who release mediocre products instead of keeping them in beta for years.
I believe if Apple really wanted to do something, they should compensate every person who did good work for them. That would be fair.
No, that would be employment.
That said, I can't say that I like the idea of a full touch-screen interface. While it may be nice, it prevents you from using the device without looking at it, unless you buy a remote.
Keep in mind that this is a video iPod, though. As in, you'll be looking at the screen anyway. But even if you're not--since the scroll wheel would magically appear beneath your fingertip no matter where you touched the screen, it would actually improve usability. All I'd have to do is hit the screen somewhere near the center, and I know my fingertip is at the top of the scroll wheel.
In fact, the only thing I don't like about this idea is the streaks I'd end up putting all over my nice video screen. Not to mention the possible damage women with long fingernails could do to theirs.
nothing exclusive to ThinkSecret has been true for about six months.
They've done about 50/50, I'd say, although I'm not sure how many of those predictions are "exclusive". But the emergence of a large-screen viPod is something that people have been debating for a while now; it wouldn't surprise me if it emerged in one form or another this year.
Perhaps I'm just a little too cynical here, but this sounds like a great way to get free labor using an open source project.
Considering that the whole point of using an open source project is to get software using free labor -- yeah, you're being pretty cynical.
Apple didn't have to give anybody anything in exchange for their contributions. Nobody ever expected or asked them to. This isn't an incentive to get other people to be in the "top twelve" next year; it's a "thank you" to the people who have already worked hard.
Would the Beatles have made it today?
Of course not; the question is inherently absurd. Their music was popular mainly because it was radically different from anything that people were listening to on the radio at that time. Since then, they've influenced musicians thousands of times over on both sides of the Atlantic.
But new styles still make it big now and then. Think of the fads of ska or swing dancing in the 1990s, or the gradual rise in popularity of rap from a niche in the early 1980s to the mainstream today.
Apple needs to reinvent the Shuffle.
They just did. Didn't you read the headline?
Apple switched because Intel offers a better deal right now.
I seem to recall it was also a matter of supply problems: IBM couldn't keep up with Apple's demand, while Intel is (apparently) having no problems doing so. In this case, switching back to IBM would just mean inviting this problem back.
But what is more important to a home user? His or her own personal files, or a bunch of system files?
If "Johnny's first day at school" is more important that system critical resources, perhaps you should have hard copies (CD, DVD, tape, etc.) of this media.
You don't even have to go that far to deflect this particular argument. Just keep in mind that if a virus can infect the entire system, then every other user on that machine can have their files hosed, instead of just the one who acquired the infection.
The better question should be "But what is more important to a home user? His or her own personal files, or what your spouse is likely to do to you when her/his account is wiped out too?"
Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game?
Because the players, coaches and fans are still American citizens?
I dunno, that's just a guess.