Who likes to work, anyway? (Very different than asking, "Who likes their work?")
The less work there is, the better in general, I think. Call it inflation if you want, but ultimately I do think every job will boil down to basic customer service.
So you're arguing the patent is stupid, but not arguing that iTunes was probably the first media player to explicitly organize the music interface in that manner (this patent, I don't believe, doesn't apply to, say, photos, or videos, or anything other than genre/artist/album/song formatted music.)
If you can write an interface that uses a fourth pane such that it seems obvious *Duh why aren't all interfaces like this*, I do believe you can and should patent it:)
Unless I'm much mistaken, Winamp 2.9 first introduced the media library in March 2003; did Winamp 3.0 have the media library? iTunes had this interface in 1.0 in April of 2001.
Is it obvious? It is now. It may even have been obvious in 2003, when WinAmp introduced it... but was it because Apple introduced it in 2001?
How obvious is the Windows, Mouse, Pointer interface? Yet isn't it because Apple made it so in 1984 that Windows seems a no brainer?
Yet if what you say is true, that it would be tougher under Linux than under Windows, the total number of exploits and therefore the total cost of operation would be lower under Linux and Mac under Windows.
Analogy: Cars A and B have lower power engines and higher efficiencies than car C. Sure as gas prices go up, Cars A and Cars B will still see increases in fuel consumption dollars, but in comparison to Car C which has lower mileage per gallon, will *still* beat it.
I agree, a heteroculture is best; each machine for each best use, and a proper mix for maximum robustness, but I disagree that the TCO wouldn't matter in the long run. It would still be cheaper on a Mac or Linux setup, I believe, at least until the competition caused Micrsoft to shore up it's design!
Windows 95 in 1995 Windows 98 in 1996 Windows Me in 1997 Windows 2k in 1998 Windows XP in 1999 Windows Longhorn in 2000
So the question is: Do we want Apple to slow down? Certainly not! Do we want to upgrade? At our leisure. Do we want new features? Certainly!
So what's the problem?
That people don't want to upgrade? Why is that a problem. I love every single new release. If 10.4 is underwhelming, then no, I won't be using it. Otherwise... I'll shell out for it.
Photoshop Elements is $70. 1/10th the cost, 100% of the interface, 80% of the features.
Which gives the GIMP some serious competition: If it takes a user 3 days to learn GIMP and 3 hours to learn Photoshop Elements, and then it takes them 3 hours to use GIMP where it takes 10 minutes to use Photoshop Elements... isn't that $70 wisely spent?
Of course, I keep hoping for improvements to GIMP, not because it's cheaper, but because I want 90% of Photoshop rather than 80% of Photoshop (cheap)!
Imagine pieces of transparencies you lay on top of each other to create your final output.
Photoshop has masks:
Between each transparency you can insert cutouts to block certain portions of images; unlike the real world though, masks can be edited. Once you cut out a transparency, you cannot simply add back in. Also, you can toggle on and off these masks at any time.
Photoshop has blending modes:
Each layer can interact with the other layer in multiple ways. In the real world you can only: Block or transmit. Photoshop allows you to add, subtract, mix, apply thresholds, multiply, and invert, as well as modify different colors! In the real world this would be accomplished with multiple transparencies and masks.
Photoshop has color correction:
The white in the image is too blue? Shift it more towards yellow. Too green? Shift it towards magenta. Want everything 'cooler'? Shift it more towards blue.
So these are some of the powerful features, and it's not just useful for publication, and publication *isn't* a fairly small niche. Imagine this: Every poster you've ever seen. Every book you've ever held. Every ad and photo in every magazine. Every insert in any DVD. Every DVD cover. Every DVD. Every advert in every newspaper. The coupons you get in the mail. The logos you see printed on every tube of toothpaste. The artwork on every box of toothpaste. Every piece of art on every game package. The artwork on your box of Quaker Oats. The artwork on the box of macaroni and cheese. The artwork on the paper bag in your grocery store. The desktop image on most computers. The photos you see on most professional websites.
Simply put, if it's been manufactured, and you can see it, Photoshop can be used to make it better; and quite likely, has.
Anyone can grow green tea without polluting the environment?
It therefore might be quite economical *and* environmentally sound to use green tea as the source for said compound?
That's like saying it's irrelevant that *paper* comes from trees. Yeah, so paper uses cellulose, and trees contain cellulose, but why is that relevant?
Don't feel as if you helped get GWB elected; you didn't.
You failed to get Gore elected, if anything, but you did show to the country that you had a conscience and if someone wanted your vote, they had to serve your needs.
It's only that now your needs are to get rid of Bush.
That's exactly the problem because everyone won't do that.
The solution therefore is to encourage everyone to vote your conscience and vote for what is right.
If 30% voted for their conscience, instead of choosing the lesser evil (D or R), then that is a sizeable, countable, courtable population that needs to be addressed by the political parties. The problem is that 60% of them decide to vote for a lesser evil, therefore proving to the political machine that 'good enough' is.
It isn't. I have, in all likelihood, another 20 elections in my lifetime. I will use those 20 elections to vote my conscience and hope that by the time I've hit my 10th that I'll see other people join me. But for now I can only be satisfied that I made my choice according to my dedication to my beliefs.
But for winter, the fridge works great *especially* in Canada.
You heat the house and cool your food at the same time.
In the summer though what you would want is a more efficient system; perhaps run a heat exchanger against the coils in the back to heat up your hot water tank or your radiant floor heating in the bathroom?
Due to the fact that fridges are, at most I've read, 45% efficient, your fridge is *warming* your house. If it's spending 45 watts to cool your food, it's also spending 55 watts to warm your house (or something like that).
Which means your house would take even *more* energy to heat in the winter if you didn't use the fridge!
Why would you archive in WMA? What is the benefit? FLAC + Foobar allows you to transcode into anything right?
I mean, there's no filesize benefits to lossless WMA; no platform benefits (you need to transcode), no political benefits (Uh. Microsoft owns you?)... no performance benefits.
At the least, AAC lossless allows you crossplatform playback, with Quicktime. Does WMA lossless play on Mac WMP?
Compelling content == sales Lack of compelling content != sales
Game sales have dropped 40%, fine. Is it the reduction in PS2 sales? Or is it a reduction in compelling content?
In a similar vein: If there are no good movies in the theater, I don't see movies. Is it the lack of movie theaters? Or the lack of compelling content?
The ability to play on iPod? The ability to play in Quicktime? The ability to import into iMovie? The ability to import into iPhoto? The ability to import into Final Cut Pro|Express?
How is 57% vs 60% a hard time? It seems close enough to me.
And while ALE is slower to compress, it's faster to decompress; seems to me realtime playback is better than realtime compression, especially when you load the system up.
And if you upgrade to iTunes on the PC, you'd be enjoying all the features I've been enjoying on my Mac for three years now! (None of my music is DRMed, plus I get database search features, dynamic database driven playlists, and one stop rip, mix, burn, features)
And people who have fallen in love with the iTunes interface; people who use the iPod (which doesn't have DRM so it's separate from your criteria); and people who have large collections of CDs
Slashdot Mirror
We are doing them a favor ^^
Who likes to work, anyway? (Very different than asking, "Who likes their work?")
The less work there is, the better in general, I think. Call it inflation if you want, but ultimately I do think every job will boil down to basic customer service.
Winamp 3 went beta in October 2001, while iTunes was 1.0 at least available in Feb 2001 :)
So no, Winamp3 is not older than iTunes
So you're arguing the patent is stupid, but not arguing that iTunes was probably the first media player to explicitly organize the music interface in that manner (this patent, I don't believe, doesn't apply to, say, photos, or videos, or anything other than genre/artist/album/song formatted music.)
:)
If you can write an interface that uses a fourth pane such that it seems obvious *Duh why aren't all interfaces like this*, I do believe you can and should patent it
Unless I'm much mistaken, Winamp 2.9 first introduced the media library in March 2003; did Winamp 3.0 have the media library? iTunes had this interface in 1.0 in April of 2001.
Is it obvious? It is now. It may even have been obvious in 2003, when WinAmp introduced it... but was it because Apple introduced it in 2001?
How obvious is the Windows, Mouse, Pointer interface? Yet isn't it because Apple made it so in 1984 that Windows seems a no brainer?
That's why I'm using a Mac.
Apple has been defiantly going out of business now for over 25 years now.
Heteroculture, Unix, *and* long term support.
Yet if what you say is true, that it would be tougher under Linux than under Windows, the total number of exploits and therefore the total cost of operation would be lower under Linux and Mac under Windows.
Analogy: Cars A and B have lower power engines and higher efficiencies than car C. Sure as gas prices go up, Cars A and Cars B will still see increases in fuel consumption dollars, but in comparison to Car C which has lower mileage per gallon, will *still* beat it.
I agree, a heteroculture is best; each machine for each best use, and a proper mix for maximum robustness, but I disagree that the TCO wouldn't matter in the long run. It would still be cheaper on a Mac or Linux setup, I believe, at least until the competition caused Micrsoft to shore up it's design!
If someone wrote up a paper about the iPod mini and submitted it... what would happen?
It's only as bad as Windows if you think:
Windows 95 in 1995
Windows 98 in 1996
Windows Me in 1997
Windows 2k in 1998
Windows XP in 1999
Windows Longhorn in 2000
So the question is: Do we want Apple to slow down? Certainly not!
Do we want to upgrade? At our leisure.
Do we want new features? Certainly!
So what's the problem?
That people don't want to upgrade? Why is that a problem. I love every single new release. If 10.4 is underwhelming, then no, I won't be using it. Otherwise... I'll shell out for it.
Blah you mix memes here.
The reason the government is involved is because airwaves are 'public'
Democracy works fine. Vote for people who will care about what you care about, and educate others to care about what you care about.
Refuse to purchase what doesn't suit you.
In the end companies will lose business, if you are right, and politicians who gain power will lose corporate financing.
Photoshop Elements is $70. 1/10th the cost, 100% of the interface, 80% of the features.
Which gives the GIMP some serious competition: If it takes a user 3 days to learn GIMP and 3 hours to learn Photoshop Elements, and then it takes them 3 hours to use GIMP where it takes 10 minutes to use Photoshop Elements... isn't that $70 wisely spent?
Of course, I keep hoping for improvements to GIMP, not because it's cheaper, but because I want 90% of Photoshop rather than 80% of Photoshop (cheap)!
Photoshop has layers:
Imagine pieces of transparencies you lay on top of each other to create your final output.
Photoshop has masks:
Between each transparency you can insert cutouts to block certain portions of images; unlike the real world though, masks can be edited. Once you cut out a transparency, you cannot simply add back in. Also, you can toggle on and off these masks at any time.
Photoshop has blending modes:
Each layer can interact with the other layer in multiple ways. In the real world you can only: Block or transmit. Photoshop allows you to add, subtract, mix, apply thresholds, multiply, and invert, as well as modify different colors! In the real world this would be accomplished with multiple transparencies and masks.
Photoshop has color correction:
The white in the image is too blue? Shift it more towards yellow. Too green? Shift it towards magenta. Want everything 'cooler'? Shift it more towards blue.
So these are some of the powerful features, and it's not just useful for publication, and publication *isn't* a fairly small niche. Imagine this: Every poster you've ever seen. Every book you've ever held. Every ad and photo in every magazine. Every insert in any DVD. Every DVD cover. Every DVD. Every advert in every newspaper. The coupons you get in the mail. The logos you see printed on every tube of toothpaste. The artwork on every box of toothpaste. Every piece of art on every game package. The artwork on your box of Quaker Oats. The artwork on the box of macaroni and cheese. The artwork on the paper bag in your grocery store. The desktop image on most computers. The photos you see on most professional websites.
Simply put, if it's been manufactured, and you can see it, Photoshop can be used to make it better; and quite likely, has.
Anyone can grow green tea without polluting the environment?
It therefore might be quite economical *and* environmentally sound to use green tea as the source for said compound?
That's like saying it's irrelevant that *paper* comes from trees. Yeah, so paper uses cellulose, and trees contain cellulose, but why is that relevant?
Don't feel as if you helped get GWB elected; you didn't.
You failed to get Gore elected, if anything, but you did show to the country that you had a conscience and if someone wanted your vote, they had to serve your needs.
It's only that now your needs are to get rid of Bush.
Free with scanners and cameras
$69 on sale
$99 MSRP
80% of Photoshop, 500% of GIMP, and only 20% of Photoshop's price.
Sure, it costs $99 more than GIMP, but if it takes you 3 minutes in Photoshop Elements vs 1 hour in GIMP, who is really being silly?
Really? You can't find a candidate that has the same convictions as yourself?
:P
That probably means you need to run then
That's exactly the problem because everyone won't do that.
The solution therefore is to encourage everyone to vote your conscience and vote for what is right.
If 30% voted for their conscience, instead of choosing the lesser evil (D or R), then that is a sizeable, countable, courtable population that needs to be addressed by the political parties. The problem is that 60% of them decide to vote for a lesser evil, therefore proving to the political machine that 'good enough' is.
It isn't. I have, in all likelihood, another 20 elections in my lifetime. I will use those 20 elections to vote my conscience and hope that by the time I've hit my 10th that I'll see other people join me. But for now I can only be satisfied that I made my choice according to my dedication to my beliefs.
What kind of conservative are you? If you're for small government and for personal liberties... are you a libertarian?
Vote your conscience then. Vote for what is right. If everyone did that, don't you think the world would be a little better?
For summer, I agree.
But for winter, the fridge works great *especially* in Canada.
You heat the house and cool your food at the same time.
In the summer though what you would want is a more efficient system; perhaps run a heat exchanger against the coils in the back to heat up your hot water tank or your radiant floor heating in the bathroom?
Due to the fact that fridges are, at most I've read, 45% efficient, your fridge is *warming* your house. If it's spending 45 watts to cool your food, it's also spending 55 watts to warm your house (or something like that).
Which means your house would take even *more* energy to heat in the winter if you didn't use the fridge!
Why would you archive in WMA? What is the benefit? FLAC + Foobar allows you to transcode into anything right?
I mean, there's no filesize benefits to lossless WMA; no platform benefits (you need to transcode), no political benefits (Uh. Microsoft owns you?)... no performance benefits.
At the least, AAC lossless allows you crossplatform playback, with Quicktime. Does WMA lossless play on Mac WMP?
Sorry, I thought my point was clear:
Compelling content == sales
Lack of compelling content != sales
Game sales have dropped 40%, fine. Is it the reduction in PS2 sales? Or is it a reduction in compelling content?
In a similar vein: If there are no good movies in the theater, I don't see movies. Is it the lack of movie theaters? Or the lack of compelling content?
The ability to play on iPod?
The ability to play in Quicktime?
The ability to import into iMovie?
The ability to import into iPhoto?
The ability to import into Final Cut Pro|Express?
It's on there now.
How is 57% vs 60% a hard time? It seems close enough to me.
And while ALE is slower to compress, it's faster to decompress; seems to me realtime playback is better than realtime compression, especially when you load the system up.
And if you upgrade to iTunes on the PC, you'd be enjoying all the features I've been enjoying on my Mac for three years now! (None of my music is DRMed, plus I get database search features, dynamic database driven playlists, and one stop rip, mix, burn, features)
And people who have fallen in love with the iTunes interface; people who use the iPod (which doesn't have DRM so it's separate from your criteria); and people who have large collections of CDs