Great. So there would be no place for economically conservative civil libertarians who believe in minimal government intervention. Not like there's any place for us now.
Yay nuanced political thought! Wish it could get me somewhere.
"The major problem with it is that the guy wanting to invest all the money into deploying a huge service is going to want a monopoly on it."
And I want a pony. Tough.
"He's going to be the one willing to spend billions to make it all happen to everybody and quickly."
Or, a municipality could float a bond and do it themselves, IFF the voters want to do it.
The big M word is an evil word when it's not strictly limited, both in scope and in time. I would agree that, used carefully, it can be a useful concept. However, when that much money starts flying around, the principles of the legislators get a little bit...not there.
Obviously, "everyone" doesn't love to hate DRM because Napster and iTMS have large customer bases.
Some people hate DRM and won't buy products that use it. Isn't that up to them? Why should they care about "valid and useful DRM applications" if they feel the concept is flawed? Do you think that the insignificant minority of humans who are even aware of what DRM is is going to prevent these products from being offered?
I've bought a few tracks from iTMS. I've never had an issue with their DRM, and the convenience and price is sufficiently attractive for me to put up with it. I don't have a philosophical objection to DRM, but I certainly evaluate my purchases carefully to make sure I'm getting enough for my dollar.
And, if Apple ever goes all nutty-like and restricts their DRM retroactively, I'll remove it.
Hard drives increase capacity by increasing data density. Manufacturing a 100GB hard drive will cost about the same as manufacturing a 10GB hard drive. Yes, you could probably get by with only one platter in the 10GB drive, but it's not going to decrease your mfr costs much.
I bought a, uh, novelty item for my girlfriend on The Drag in Austin, TX. Walked in, put my money on the counter, walked out with an unmarked bag, and totally didn't get arrested.
I believe there's a limit on how many you can own, but I'd be pretty surprised to learn that more than zero people had ever been prosecuted.
That's not to say it's a good law: I say if any given law hasn't been used in the last five calendar years, strike it from the books. Hypercriminalization==bad.
So, basically, insurance companies only want to insure people who are healthy, and don't need health care. Meanwhile, people who actually need health care get raked over the coals, because the insurance companies are screwing the doctors so hard they can't keep their doors open without getting cash out of uninsured people.
I'd like somebody to explain to me the difference between selling insurance and racketeering. Use small words, because I'm obviously not smart enough to figure it out.
"They're just looking at the stats coming in and charging accordingly."
I think you misspelled "They're just gaming the stats to maximize the amount of money they can soak out of people."
You can't argue that it's more expensive to provide medical service for any given human when they're not working for a large firm. Individuals simply don't have any negotiating power with insurance companies, so the insurance companies happily screw them. And, since the individual doesn't want to, like, die, they pay.
"I think that, in this at least, we can trust him to be saying what he really believes is true."
So what? If I believe in the tooth fairy, and I tell you that tooth fairies are good, is that information at all relevant to you?
You can trust Bill Gates to work only in his own interest. Just because he's rich doesn't make him more honest, or wise. He was just more conniving than the next guy.
"Sure, they are doing it in an ineffective way which degrades our rights without increased safety"
Their intentions are, to me, irrelevant. Their goals are incompatible with a) my personal liberty and b) the Constitution. I wish those things were taken seriously anymore. They are, in fact, exercising their existing power in an illegitimate way to gain more power over me, and I find that more than a little offensive.
Slashdot Mirror
What does this headline have to do with San Francisco?
And which Bay?
Is it that unreasonable for the company to expect to own something that you built on their equipment, on the time they bought from you?
"not everyone has a DAW in their house--or even wants one for that matter."
And those people can continue to do business with record companies, and continue having the same problems.
Adapt or die. That goes for everybody.
How do you do that? I mean, it's a pretty thing to think, but operationally it'd be a nightmare.
Wow. Your grasp of the point of the entire discussion is, well, bewildering.
Great. So there would be no place for economically conservative civil libertarians who believe in minimal government intervention. Not like there's any place for us now.
Yay nuanced political thought! Wish it could get me somewhere.
Yeah, I just got here from Texas. I could have had a winter like this in Austin. Why isn't it cold?
I like the mass transit a lot, though. Yay bus 17!
If it's so easy, go claim the prize.
Oh wait, it's not easy at all.
"The major problem with it is that the guy wanting to invest all the money into deploying a huge service is going to want a monopoly on it."
And I want a pony. Tough.
"He's going to be the one willing to spend billions to make it all happen to everybody and quickly."
Or, a municipality could float a bond and do it themselves, IFF the voters want to do it.
The big M word is an evil word when it's not strictly limited, both in scope and in time. I would agree that, used carefully, it can be a useful concept. However, when that much money starts flying around, the principles of the legislators get a little bit...not there.
So we have one company (or municipality) lay the cable, and sell the access to ISPs. What's the problem?
It's just like with cake: You cut the cake, I choose what piece I want. Keeps us both honest.
Uh, so use a different font. You understand that web sites don't download fonts, right?
Why would you want to read "standard 96dpi fonts"?
So, uh, stop.
Obviously, "everyone" doesn't love to hate DRM because Napster and iTMS have large customer bases.
Some people hate DRM and won't buy products that use it. Isn't that up to them? Why should they care about "valid and useful DRM applications" if they feel the concept is flawed? Do you think that the insignificant minority of humans who are even aware of what DRM is is going to prevent these products from being offered?
I've bought a few tracks from iTMS. I've never had an issue with their DRM, and the convenience and price is sufficiently attractive for me to put up with it. I don't have a philosophical objection to DRM, but I certainly evaluate my purchases carefully to make sure I'm getting enough for my dollar.
And, if Apple ever goes all nutty-like and restricts their DRM retroactively, I'll remove it.
Never happen.
Hard drives increase capacity by increasing data density. Manufacturing a 100GB hard drive will cost about the same as manufacturing a 10GB hard drive. Yes, you could probably get by with only one platter in the 10GB drive, but it's not going to decrease your mfr costs much.
I bought a, uh, novelty item for my girlfriend on The Drag in Austin, TX. Walked in, put my money on the counter, walked out with an unmarked bag, and totally didn't get arrested.
I believe there's a limit on how many you can own, but I'd be pretty surprised to learn that more than zero people had ever been prosecuted.
That's not to say it's a good law: I say if any given law hasn't been used in the last five calendar years, strike it from the books. Hypercriminalization==bad.
So, basically, insurance companies only want to insure people who are healthy, and don't need health care. Meanwhile, people who actually need health care get raked over the coals, because the insurance companies are screwing the doctors so hard they can't keep their doors open without getting cash out of uninsured people.
I'd like somebody to explain to me the difference between selling insurance and racketeering. Use small words, because I'm obviously not smart enough to figure it out.
Why should the "bucket" be anything other than "all insured parties"? Why am I in a "bucket" with my coworkers?
Oh yeah, because it's more profitable for insurance companies. I forgot.
Peanuts are not nuts.
He's made a business of lying about the suitability of his software for any given task. What makes you think he's telling the truth THIS time?
He has more money than he can spend. What makes you think he has more money than he wants?
"They're just looking at the stats coming in and charging accordingly."
I think you misspelled "They're just gaming the stats to maximize the amount of money they can soak out of people."
You can't argue that it's more expensive to provide medical service for any given human when they're not working for a large firm. Individuals simply don't have any negotiating power with insurance companies, so the insurance companies happily screw them. And, since the individual doesn't want to, like, die, they pay.
Yeah. Free market at work. Not.
"I think that, in this at least, we can trust him to be saying what he really believes is true."
So what? If I believe in the tooth fairy, and I tell you that tooth fairies are good, is that information at all relevant to you?
You can trust Bill Gates to work only in his own interest. Just because he's rich doesn't make him more honest, or wise. He was just more conniving than the next guy.
"Sure, they are doing it in an ineffective way which degrades our rights without increased safety"
Their intentions are, to me, irrelevant. Their goals are incompatible with a) my personal liberty and b) the Constitution. I wish those things were taken seriously anymore. They are, in fact, exercising their existing power in an illegitimate way to gain more power over me, and I find that more than a little offensive.
I didn't see anywhere that the poster endorsed that course of action.
/. community is composed of a lot of people with a lot of opinions. There is no hive mind.
Apple can sue whoever they want. So can Microsoft. So can you.
The
Look into Apple Lossless. The nice thing is, since they're lossless encoding formats, you can transcode (wait for it!) losslessly.