Use generic technologies, not a specific app
on
iTunes' Windows Problem
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I don't want to install special applications for every device. Let me mount the device as a drive, and buy content through a (secure) web page. All other administration tasks can be done through that web page. I already have an mp3 player I like, so no loss there either. The advantage of generic technologies is that Apple doesn't need to support them. The individual consumer would be better off with fewer applications, so that they could learn those applications to a greater depth, and have more general skills to use for computing in general as a result.
This is how it works in a liberal democracy. The side with the most people wins. Donate now to your favorite free speech or pirate cause, because that money is needed to buy more lobbyists, TV spots and print ads than the opposition.
If we stop trying to block one or both sides, and get all the ideas out there in the open, they can be discussed on their merits.
If we start cheerleading and block one or both sides from presenting their arguments, we give legitimacy to their perception that they aren't being heard.
I just like quality music. Learning how to play an instrument really opened my eyes.
I don't disagree with you about the fact that some people are indie-pretentious. I don't know how to identify it, but as the saying goes, "I know it when I see it." I guess to me, if the band they like isn't much different from the stuff on FM radio, I'm going to think they're just being pretentious.
I hope to never be one of those people.
As far as music goes however, I think I'm more geared toward Harold Budd or Dead Can Dance than Feist or Wolfmother.
If you are a member of a non-profit that exists to educate and information about specific harm X, you should make sure to inflate your figures so that it seems there's a Biblical plague of X out there. Job security is guaranteed this way. If you just leave it up to X to manifest itself, you could be out of a job real quick. The biggest user of this theory is government itself, which is going to invent waves of drug dealers, Nazis, terrorists, fundamentalists, pedophiles and corporate men in black in order to justify the 30% of your paycheck that it appropriates.
People are hoping to inherit some cool from the music. It doesn't work that way. Buying music from large record labels is like shopping at Wal-mart or buying a Ford Escalade.
I am glad for this study and others. We should be exploring the stars instead of trying to pound square pegs into round holes here at home, which is what politics has become.
Space exploration has never been correctly marketed. I think we should claim that we're going to explore so many planets that we'll have one for social group. A planet for liberals, a planet for conservatives. Planet legal dope. And a planet where there are no Wal-marts.
When I look back over rock 'n' roll, I'm embarrassed by how much of my life I spent liking what our society (read: big media) tells us is "culture." It's not culture, it's culture product. That's all Elvis ever was: a cheap, safe way to make "black" music that white people liked.
For those who know what they're doing, current domain names work fine.
For everyone else, they're just going to know these sites as terms they type into Google (or Bing, I guess) anyway. There's no point giving them TLDs to make it easier; you can't dumb it down enough to benefit them, and in the meantime, dumbing it down conflicts an already confusing set of standards.
Throughout history, ideas have warred it out through the process of open discussion and debate. Right now, this issue is totally Balkanized and neither side is talking to the other. Opening it up to discussion might allow us to get farther than trying to pick on side or the other.
You make a good point, but if an open source organization were to offer malpractice insurance, lawyers could offer their services on an open source basis as well. They would be no different than any other Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) including documentation authors.
At this point, being a developer is so well-established with so many tools and sources of documentation, that it's no longer cutting-edge. The question is whether we're steering these people into dead-end careers where they are (virtual) pencil pushers in cubicles, or whether we're advancing enough that they have something interesting to do.
Making another version of a well-known type of web site, or well-known type of Android app, might be steady work but could also be so boring their brains will collapse and create black holes that can only be filled by daytime television and AM talk radio. We don't want that, do we?
On the other hand, if they're bored at work, they'll be prolific open source contributors!
I don't know whether this lawsuit will succeed or fail, but many open source and open materials are based on proprietary materials.
For example, much of Wikipedia is graduate students and college students taking ideas from their textbooks, compiling them and putting them into their own words.
Linux is based on a commercial operating system, and many of its best software packages are either clones of popular Windows software packages, or enhancements to academic projects (like Apache and Mozilla).
The two need each other it seems.
The point of that is that it makes sense for us to keep a profit motive for development of new proprietary materials, and over time, to migrate older knowledge to the realm of free and open learning.
I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy walking down the street. I have it in my home, or another person's home if I trust that person. Expecting that stores and service providers will give me this same courtesy is foolishness. It also seems that if I turn off my cell phone and laptop, I'll be invisible to this magic chip as well. Only the shadow knows.
There is no greater "absolute power" than knowing that if you say or write something that others will like, they will pay you lots of money and make you famous.
It's not that money corrupts. Money is not the root of all evil; the full quote is "the love of money is the root of all evil." When our society decided that money was more important than truth, we surrendered truth to the void.
A research scientist thinks about his day. He can slightly fudge his cancer study, make big headlines, get a ton of grant money and get appointed chair at the university. Or he can go down the long hall to his boss and say, "Nope, this one didn't work either, and while I'd like to start a religion based on false hope, this isn't the false hope you're looking for." If he does that, he can then watch one of his subordinates fudge the cancer study, make big headlines, and be his boss at the same time next year.
You are/. We love you for being what you are. Do not let your corporate overlords re-program you. You do not need to be "fun" and clever; those people will not visit here anyway. You need to be Mecca for nerds, and you are. Don't change... just get better at doing what you do.
Our societies are now based on rampant consumerism and the freedom of the individual to do whatever they want, so long as it's not illegal and they can pay for it. As a result, we have gone from a few hundred million to seven billion people within a century. If we value our natural world, we will find some way to check this growth sooner rather than later.
You guys are looking at this all wrong. It's not news; it's a product.
The point is to introduce enough doubt that we'll argue over it, take sides like at a soccer/football match, call each other racists and criminals, buy hoodies on Amazon.com, watch hours of advertising and buy a lot of newspapers.
The profit motive here is for them to obscure and limit the information released, not the full story.
Hmm...
If you'll pardon me, me and my popcorn will be sitting back and watching before I leap in with some judgment one way or another.
If the interviewer had asked about views on genetically modified foods rather than global warming, they would have discovered that liberals are opposed to science and conservatives support it.
Can you tell us a bit more about this? I don't know anything about genetically modified foods. In fact, I don't know much about foods, other than that I don't trust anything at the grocery store that both comes in a box and must be refrigerated.
In short, this study is an excellent example why no one should trust self-styled intellectuals. Conservatives don't hate intellectuals, conservatives hate posers.
This hit a nerve for me. I am consistently amazed at how few self-styled intellectuals have any intellectual curiosity. It seems to be all about reading the right books and having the right opinions. How does one become an actual intellectual, like a real thinker, in your view?
This reminds me of Yahoo: they're listening too much to the pundits, looking too much at trends, and not doing what is known to succeed, which is figuring out what you do right that people like to buy and getting better at it.
I am sorry to see this happen to RIM, but their competition did just up the ante with Android. I still like a lot of the Blackberry features better and often feel their hardware and software is better engineered, but a generation or so behind. Sometimes that's the price you pay for stability but sometimes it's a liability.
I can see being upset about speech that causes actual damage, such as promoting drug use, bullying another student, provoking specific violence ("I'm going to kill you tomorrow, Danny") or posting private information.
Offensive speech? Obscenities? It's a stupid idea to start regulating this stuff, as there will be a lot of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to install special applications for every device. Let me mount the device as a drive, and buy content through a (secure) web page. All other administration tasks can be done through that web page. I already have an mp3 player I like, so no loss there either. The advantage of generic technologies is that Apple doesn't need to support them. The individual consumer would be better off with fewer applications, so that they could learn those applications to a greater depth, and have more general skills to use for computing in general as a result.
This is how it works in a liberal democracy. The side with the most people wins. Donate now to your favorite free speech or pirate cause, because that money is needed to buy more lobbyists, TV spots and print ads than the opposition.
If we stop trying to block one or both sides, and get all the ideas out there in the open, they can be discussed on their merits.
If we start cheerleading and block one or both sides from presenting their arguments, we give legitimacy to their perception that they aren't being heard.
False humility is what seems pretentious to me.
I just like quality music. Learning how to play an instrument really opened my eyes.
I don't disagree with you about the fact that some people are indie-pretentious. I don't know how to identify it, but as the saying goes, "I know it when I see it." I guess to me, if the band they like isn't much different from the stuff on FM radio, I'm going to think they're just being pretentious.
I hope to never be one of those people.
As far as music goes however, I think I'm more geared toward Harold Budd or Dead Can Dance than Feist or Wolfmother.
If you are a member of a non-profit that exists to educate and information about specific harm X, you should make sure to inflate your figures so that it seems there's a Biblical plague of X out there. Job security is guaranteed this way. If you just leave it up to X to manifest itself, you could be out of a job real quick. The biggest user of this theory is government itself, which is going to invent waves of drug dealers, Nazis, terrorists, fundamentalists, pedophiles and corporate men in black in order to justify the 30% of your paycheck that it appropriates.
People are hoping to inherit some cool from the music. It doesn't work that way. Buying music from large record labels is like shopping at Wal-mart or buying a Ford Escalade.
I am glad for this study and others. We should be exploring the stars instead of trying to pound square pegs into round holes here at home, which is what politics has become.
Space exploration has never been correctly marketed. I think we should claim that we're going to explore so many planets that we'll have one for social group. A planet for liberals, a planet for conservatives. Planet legal dope. And a planet where there are no Wal-marts.
You have to get the consumers excited about this.
When I look back over rock 'n' roll, I'm embarrassed by how much of my life I spent liking what our society (read: big media) tells us is "culture." It's not culture, it's culture product. That's all Elvis ever was: a cheap, safe way to make "black" music that white people liked.
Find a reputable indie band and stick with it. Listen to indie radio, if you can still find it.
For those who know what they're doing, current domain names work fine.
For everyone else, they're just going to know these sites as terms they type into Google (or Bing, I guess) anyway. There's no point giving them TLDs to make it easier; you can't dumb it down enough to benefit them, and in the meantime, dumbing it down conflicts an already confusing set of standards.
As the children died, they were able to relate well to others and communicate their feelings.
Throughout history, ideas have warred it out through the process of open discussion and debate. Right now, this issue is totally Balkanized and neither side is talking to the other. Opening it up to discussion might allow us to get farther than trying to pick on side or the other.
You make a good point, but if an open source organization were to offer malpractice insurance, lawyers could offer their services on an open source basis as well. They would be no different than any other Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) including documentation authors.
Get "first post" on the new Iranian combination Internet/Facebook/Koran service.
At this point, being a developer is so well-established with so many tools and sources of documentation, that it's no longer cutting-edge. The question is whether we're steering these people into dead-end careers where they are (virtual) pencil pushers in cubicles, or whether we're advancing enough that they have something interesting to do.
Making another version of a well-known type of web site, or well-known type of Android app, might be steady work but could also be so boring their brains will collapse and create black holes that can only be filled by daytime television and AM talk radio. We don't want that, do we?
On the other hand, if they're bored at work, they'll be prolific open source contributors!
I don't know whether this lawsuit will succeed or fail, but many open source and open materials are based on proprietary materials.
For example, much of Wikipedia is graduate students and college students taking ideas from their textbooks, compiling them and putting them into their own words.
Linux is based on a commercial operating system, and many of its best software packages are either clones of popular Windows software packages, or enhancements to academic projects (like Apache and Mozilla).
The two need each other it seems.
The point of that is that it makes sense for us to keep a profit motive for development of new proprietary materials, and over time, to migrate older knowledge to the realm of free and open learning.
I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy walking down the street. I have it in my home, or another person's home if I trust that person. Expecting that stores and service providers will give me this same courtesy is foolishness. It also seems that if I turn off my cell phone and laptop, I'll be invisible to this magic chip as well. Only the shadow knows.
There is no greater "absolute power" than knowing that if you say or write something that others will like, they will pay you lots of money and make you famous.
It's not that money corrupts. Money is not the root of all evil; the full quote is "the love of money is the root of all evil." When our society decided that money was more important than truth, we surrendered truth to the void.
A research scientist thinks about his day. He can slightly fudge his cancer study, make big headlines, get a ton of grant money and get appointed chair at the university. Or he can go down the long hall to his boss and say, "Nope, this one didn't work either, and while I'd like to start a religion based on false hope, this isn't the false hope you're looking for." If he does that, he can then watch one of his subordinates fudge the cancer study, make big headlines, and be his boss at the same time next year.
Which choice would you make?
You are /. We love you for being what you are. Do not let your corporate overlords re-program you. You do not need to be "fun" and clever; those people will not visit here anyway. You need to be Mecca for nerds, and you are. Don't change... just get better at doing what you do.
Fondly,
A long time user
Chill out and accept everyone, including those who don't tolerate you.
Our societies are now based on rampant consumerism and the freedom of the individual to do whatever they want, so long as it's not illegal and they can pay for it. As a result, we have gone from a few hundred million to seven billion people within a century. If we value our natural world, we will find some way to check this growth sooner rather than later.
There's nothing wrong with living under a rock. It's energy efficient, quiet and affordable. And, no unwanted guests.
You guys are looking at this all wrong. It's not news; it's a product.
The point is to introduce enough doubt that we'll argue over it, take sides like at a soccer/football match, call each other racists and criminals, buy hoodies on Amazon.com, watch hours of advertising and buy a lot of newspapers.
The profit motive here is for them to obscure and limit the information released, not the full story.
Hmm...
If you'll pardon me, me and my popcorn will be sitting back and watching before I leap in with some judgment one way or another.
Can you tell us a bit more about this? I don't know anything about genetically modified foods. In fact, I don't know much about foods, other than that I don't trust anything at the grocery store that both comes in a box and must be refrigerated.
This hit a nerve for me. I am consistently amazed at how few self-styled intellectuals have any intellectual curiosity. It seems to be all about reading the right books and having the right opinions. How does one become an actual intellectual, like a real thinker, in your view?
This reminds me of Yahoo: they're listening too much to the pundits, looking too much at trends, and not doing what is known to succeed, which is figuring out what you do right that people like to buy and getting better at it.
I am sorry to see this happen to RIM, but their competition did just up the ante with Android. I still like a lot of the Blackberry features better and often feel their hardware and software is better engineered, but a generation or so behind. Sometimes that's the price you pay for stability but sometimes it's a liability.
Didn't we just have a news item about offensive speech?
I can see being upset about speech that causes actual damage, such as promoting drug use, bullying another student, provoking specific violence ("I'm going to kill you tomorrow, Danny") or posting private information.
Offensive speech? Obscenities? It's a stupid idea to start regulating this stuff, as there will be a lot of it.