Not to flame, but personally I hope that The Hobbit gets shelved. I'm sick and tired of people trying to make movies out of books, which ought to be left alone. It really spoils the books, and after LoTR I've sworn never to watch any remakes of book into movies.
Peter Jackson screwed up LoTR, and the only good thing in the movie was the graphics - he changed the story line so much that Tolkien would be spinning in his grave if he were to see it.
I shudder to think what other sacrileges Peter Jackson would be committing if The Hobbit too was made into a movie.
It's really sad, and I hope that The Hobbit never gets made into a move, and most certainly not by Peter Jackson.
It's not just PJ, everyone else - I, Robot, Dune, Paycheck, Total Recall, Johnny Mnemonic and ad infinitum. I sincerely *hope* that plans for The Hobbit gets shelved - atleast kids of the next generation will get the opportunity for finding out the books for themselves, rather than seeing a screwed up version of the movie that some director has "perceived" to be Tolkien's vision. I wonder how many kids have been denied to read LoTR, because after seeing the funky graphics and the like, many hated the books. Not to mention that once you know the story ending, the book loses it's old charm. It is really really sad.
Oh well, just an opinion of a frustrated geek and a Tolkien lover.
1) Apple does not tie you into their hardware, or at least not nearly as much as most other companies. Want to use IE instead of Safari or Word instead of Office? Go ahead. Want to upgrade Windows XP with anything but IE? Tough luck.
Earlier on in the article with Real's CEO's interview, he compared Real's policies with Microsoft - and a poster commented that comparing something with turd does not make it smell like roses. Comparing Apple with MS does not make it any better. Ofcourse they're better. But that does not mean that their bad policies go away.
2) Everyone has their preference about what music service they use. My personal opinion is that Microsoft's is pretty lousy, but if you tell me why you favor them I can debate their merits with you.
Ease of use? The fact that it does not tie me down to any one player? They sell just a service, just the music - and leave the choice of the hardware to you (okay, this is arguable, but given Apple's attitude towards Real is quite detestable - interoperability is a good thing, and I can never understand why Apple acts that way).
But then again, like you said, it's about choice and opinions.
3) Yahoo does not generally innovate.
Had you included that word - generally - in your previous post, I would not have beleagured on. However, the fact remains that Yahoo has innovated in the past. Yes, they stopped innovating after the dotcom boom. Why? Because when you are under pressure from investors to downsize and optimize your resources to show a bottomline, you do not really have much leeway for innovation. I know, this is not an excuse - but having been up and down in the dotcom era, I've seen it happen and it's sad.
Apple was not the first to realize about music online - it is the fact that Apple has the kind of *userbase* who will take up what Apple brings out and make it work. Few companies have that ability, and that is what was initially responsible for Apple's success. Online music is an old, old concept. And many had implemented it well enough.
Besides, Apple is used by people who deal a lot in Audio/Video (I have an ibook for my graphics stuff). These are mostly the artsy people who will definitely pay and buy the kind of stuff that Apple brought out.
I don't mean this as a bashing or fanboy post, but in the spectrum of the points you raised I think Apple does outshine the competitors.
I understand, and my apologies if my post came across as inflammatory. But I'm just tired of Apple users who praise all of Apple's actions, when I find some of their actions just as despicable as anyone else's. I use Apple myself (right tool for the job and stuff like that) - but I do not approve of the way Apple handled the Real rights scenario.
Your post merely sounded like Apple has complete control over the music market, which I do not quite think is the case. Sure, they have a LOT of users, but other companies have pitched in just recently and it's too soon to say how things will go. Apple has a history of doing the right thing first and then screwing it up. And which is exactly what they are doing now, too.
Personally, I think several competitors is a good thing. If not anything, it will lead to competitive pricing and better service to the customers.
I can never really understand why the Slashdot crowd goes all out for Apple, when some of their policies are just as shitty.
Apple is trying to tie you down to their hardware, and their music service while good, is not the only one nor is it the best.
Try Microsoft's online music service. It's much better than Apple's. Apple had a good ride because they were the first - I'll hand that to them. Nothing more. When better services come (and yes, Microsoft's service seems *much* better - go have a look) along, Apple will fall back and not care about it's existing users. Think it hasn't happened before?
All Apple does is come up with new technologies, use them while they're new and dump them once they're done. Sometimes I think that if Steve Jobs invited some of the Mac-heads to hell, everyone will follow him.
Barring some very unYahoo-like innovation
Excuse me? Yahoo in and of itself was an innovation. When nobody cared about webhosting, they acquired Geocities. And they broke into the IM market long before even Microsoft cared to notice.
I was disappointed in his comparison of Real to Windows. What Microsoft does is wrong - that does not make what Real did any less wrong, or give it a cause for justification.
Some of his comments were quite honest, such as this one -
Of course we have competitors if we were a monopoly you would have other reasons to criticize us.:)
That actually brought a smile to my face. Well, it's kinda sad really, I remember the day when Real was new and radical, and I was so amazed at seeing streaming media on the web.
From those days, Real has come a long way - and not too smooth a road at that.
Mac users are very sensitive anytime anyone criticizes Apple, I guess because they emotionally identify with Apple as the "underdog" versus Microsoft. But for every Mac user who didn't like our criticizing Apple, there were literally hundreds of Windows users who enjoyed Harmony, including iPod users who sent us their comments...
His point on Apple users is quite a valid point - I do not mean to troll or to flame, but that is a general attitude that I've noticed in the so-called Mac fanatics. In business, volume matters, Real has no obligation to cater to the needs of everyone. When there are millions of Windows users who are willing to spend, why should they bother with the Mac users. And hey - don't flame me, I own an ibook too.
And *MOST* importantly -
96% of portable device owner said they thought they should be able to move music they bought to any device, which gives us great confidence that we're on the right side of history.
If Real were to succeed - that is what they will have to leverage - the fact that people want choice. Having to invest in specific hardware to listen to music, or trying to tie down the customer - these have failed all the bloody time. Sure, it may bring you profit for a while, but when you fall you fall hard.
Anyway, this was a good interview. Goodluck Rob. IT would take a lot of undo what Real has done in the past, but his attitude kinda makes me feel a little optimistic.
Who knows - they were, afterall, one of the first people to port their media software to Linux when nobody even bothered. So much for Apple. Heh.
Wrong is wrong. There are no grey areas. Its a boolean function. its right, its wrong. Nothing else.
Sure, it's easy for you to say that - sitting in the comforts of your home with an Internet connection and time to kill on a discussion site.
But I bet that the several people who watch their children die of hunger or poverty would bet to differ.
I can understand malevolent people exist, but a large chunk of them are driven to it by the *society* we live in. Rather, the lousy excuse for a society that we live in.
One of my friend works for an international aid agency. Maybe you should see some of the pictures of people worn by war, strife, poverty and diseases.
There is NO right and NO wrong. It is ALL a perspective. When you are on the street with nothing to call your own, stealing is NOT wrong or right - it becomes a necessity. You do not have the luxury of morals when it is a question of survival for you and your loved ones.
If water were made a commodity, and if people died of thirst because they could not buy it, would you consider STEALING water to live a crime? If air were made a commodity, and people died because they could not buy air, would you consider stealing air a crime? It's a survival instinct, you cannot cull millions of years of evolution because of some cock-and-bull morals that you conjured up for yourself.
Narrow-minded and prejudiced thoughts like this make me want to puke. Sheesh.
Well said, but there is one point that I do not agree on -
The host went on to say that reading lets you know that other people have had similar experiences and no experience is completely new.
Maybe true, since it is quite likely that no matter what you experience, it has been experienced by scores of people before you. However, the thing about books is the fact that each experience is personal.
The way I interpret and read a book, would be quite different from someone else. I would read it the way I've been brought up to, I would correlate it to my experiences, and based on what drives me - it would either inspire me or bore me.
That is the beauty of books, to each his own - literally!
Good God, folks, would it hurt to at least try and make things a bit balanced?
Hahaha! You must be new here.
Just kidding. I'm sure that given enough time and effort, you might just see that, www.world.slashdot.org or something like that. However, do you really want to see a section like that? Given the diversity, you'll find people trolling and flaming each other to bits.
Really not worth it. Besides, this is more fun - you get to make fun of Dubya:-p
Although Wi-fi would be cool, what I'd really like is some power outlets for portable elctronic devices on the flight. It really sucks, when your laptop battery conks out after a couple of hours, or if you need a power outlet for any of your gadgets.
This is worse when you are on international flights, when you have to sit for 12 straight hours doing nothing.
I guess they'd cite a million reasons why it's dangerous and not do it, but if they can allow cellphones, why not this.
Maybe I'll rephrase. Microsoft says that Linux does not matter, and then they go ahead and include a bunch of Unix related services. Then, they say Linux is popular and insecure, but they'll make their OS more interoperable with Linux. Providing support for something you quite blatantly disapprove of, for whatever reasons, is what I'd call hypocrisy.
Your comparison of IBM with Microsoft is flawed - IBM is neither anti-Windows, nor are they anti-Unix - they go where the money is, and it's not like they take sides. On the other hand, MS has to take sides, because Linux is their competitor. Which is what they have been doing. And after which, if you took sides, and yet go after that which you put down, it's hypocrisy. Sure, it's business - but does not make it any less hypocritical.
Not FUD?! What the hell. Every word in his talk was precisely that.
Despite the focus on the next version of Windows, Microsoft is also working to make its offerings more interoperable with products using other software platforms such as Linux, Unix and XML (Extensible Markup Language), Ballmer said.
Ahh, wait. Now why do they bother supporting Linux or Unix if they feel that it's not good enough? I would imagine that if you are that confident in how a rival product is shitty, you would just go ahead and not offer support. But MS wants to leverage customers who have Linux and Unix systems, but yet diss Linux. Sheer hypocrisy.
"If you have two popular operating systems, both will get attacked -- whatever is popular is going to be attacked," he said.
Yes smartass. But resisting the attack will be the better one, and that will not be based on what's popular. Are they trying to say that Linux is popular, now? Out of the horse's own mouth, eh.
"In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
"I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt," Ballmer said. "I just think people should go out and research this for themselves."
Boo! The only reason the software industry is so messed up by patents is beause big businesses want to resort to their lawyers in case something goes wrong, and not technology. How about building great technology and not resort to cheap practices, for a change?
Sheesh. I'm fuckin' mad as hell. Not FUD? That's all there is in that.
However, I would imagine that it would be hard to match the resilience of metals with plastic, not to mention the material nature in terms of several factors (such as resistance, inductance, etc).
Seriously! I grew up admiring Scotty, and Star Trek in general. For the longest time, my resume stated my objective as making Star Trek a reality:)
Well, today I'm a quantum physicist and a computer scientist in AI, and I would say that of all things that have inspired me in life to pursue these goals, ST has affected me the most. I still remember those episodes where he used to get strange alien warp engines and contraptions and make them work.
It's sad that it went downhill later down the line, but as a child, it inspired me to pursue science in a way nothing else ever has, and ever will. Here's to Scotty!
Slashdot Mirror
Not to flame, but personally I hope that The Hobbit gets shelved. I'm sick and tired of people trying to make movies out of books, which ought to be left alone. It really spoils the books, and after LoTR I've sworn never to watch any remakes of book into movies.
Peter Jackson screwed up LoTR, and the only good thing in the movie was the graphics - he changed the story line so much that Tolkien would be spinning in his grave if he were to see it.
I shudder to think what other sacrileges Peter Jackson would be committing if The Hobbit too was made into a movie.
It's really sad, and I hope that The Hobbit never gets made into a move, and most certainly not by Peter Jackson.
It's not just PJ, everyone else - I, Robot, Dune, Paycheck, Total Recall, Johnny Mnemonic and ad infinitum. I sincerely *hope* that plans for The Hobbit gets shelved - atleast kids of the next generation will get the opportunity for finding out the books for themselves, rather than seeing a screwed up version of the movie that some director has "perceived" to be Tolkien's vision. I wonder how many kids have been denied to read LoTR, because after seeing the funky graphics and the like, many hated the books. Not to mention that once you know the story ending, the book loses it's old charm. It is really really sad.
Oh well, just an opinion of a frustrated geek and a Tolkien lover.
1) Apple does not tie you into their hardware, or at least not nearly as much as most other companies. Want to use IE instead of Safari or Word instead of Office? Go ahead. Want to upgrade Windows XP with anything but IE? Tough luck.
Earlier on in the article with Real's CEO's interview, he compared Real's policies with Microsoft - and a poster commented that comparing something with turd does not make it smell like roses. Comparing Apple with MS does not make it any better. Ofcourse they're better. But that does not mean that their bad policies go away.
2) Everyone has their preference about what music service they use. My personal opinion is that Microsoft's is pretty lousy, but if you tell me why you favor them I can debate their merits with you.
Ease of use? The fact that it does not tie me down to any one player? They sell just a service, just the music - and leave the choice of the hardware to you (okay, this is arguable, but given Apple's attitude towards Real is quite detestable - interoperability is a good thing, and I can never understand why Apple acts that way).
But then again, like you said, it's about choice and opinions.
3) Yahoo does not generally innovate.
Had you included that word - generally - in your previous post, I would not have beleagured on. However, the fact remains that Yahoo has innovated in the past. Yes, they stopped innovating after the dotcom boom. Why? Because when you are under pressure from investors to downsize and optimize your resources to show a bottomline, you do not really have much leeway for innovation. I know, this is not an excuse - but having been up and down in the dotcom era, I've seen it happen and it's sad.
Apple was not the first to realize about music online - it is the fact that Apple has the kind of *userbase* who will take up what Apple brings out and make it work. Few companies have that ability, and that is what was initially responsible for Apple's success. Online music is an old, old concept. And many had implemented it well enough.
Besides, Apple is used by people who deal a lot in Audio/Video (I have an ibook for my graphics stuff). These are mostly the artsy people who will definitely pay and buy the kind of stuff that Apple brought out.
I don't mean this as a bashing or fanboy post, but in the spectrum of the points you raised I think Apple does outshine the competitors.
I understand, and my apologies if my post came across as inflammatory. But I'm just tired of Apple users who praise all of Apple's actions, when I find some of their actions just as despicable as anyone else's. I use Apple myself (right tool for the job and stuff like that) - but I do not approve of the way Apple handled the Real rights scenario.
Your post merely sounded like Apple has complete control over the music market, which I do not quite think is the case. Sure, they have a LOT of users, but other companies have pitched in just recently and it's too soon to say how things will go. Apple has a history of doing the right thing first and then screwing it up. And which is exactly what they are doing now, too.
Personally, I think several competitors is a good thing. If not anything, it will lead to competitive pricing and better service to the customers.
Not really. Please stop trolling.
I can never really understand why the Slashdot crowd goes all out for Apple, when some of their policies are just as shitty.
Apple is trying to tie you down to their hardware, and their music service while good, is not the only one nor is it the best.
Try Microsoft's online music service. It's much better than Apple's. Apple had a good ride because they were the first - I'll hand that to them. Nothing more. When better services come (and yes, Microsoft's service seems *much* better - go have a look) along, Apple will fall back and not care about it's existing users. Think it hasn't happened before?
All Apple does is come up with new technologies, use them while they're new and dump them once they're done. Sometimes I think that if Steve Jobs invited some of the Mac-heads to hell, everyone will follow him.
Barring some very unYahoo-like innovation
Excuse me? Yahoo in and of itself was an innovation. When nobody cared about webhosting, they acquired Geocities. And they broke into the IM market long before even Microsoft cared to notice.
And oh, I forgot to add this.
I was disappointed in his comparison of Real to Windows. What Microsoft does is wrong - that does not make what Real did any less wrong, or give it a cause for justification.
But for that bit, it was a damn good interview.
I agree.
:)
Some of his comments were quite honest, such as this one -
Of course we have competitors if we were a monopoly you would have other reasons to criticize us.
That actually brought a smile to my face. Well, it's kinda sad really, I remember the day when Real was new and radical, and I was so amazed at seeing streaming media on the web.
From those days, Real has come a long way - and not too smooth a road at that.
Mac users are very sensitive anytime anyone criticizes Apple, I guess because they emotionally identify with Apple as the "underdog" versus Microsoft. But for every Mac user who didn't like our criticizing Apple, there were literally hundreds of Windows users who enjoyed Harmony, including iPod users who sent us their comments...
His point on Apple users is quite a valid point - I do not mean to troll or to flame, but that is a general attitude that I've noticed in the so-called Mac fanatics. In business, volume matters, Real has no obligation to cater to the needs of everyone. When there are millions of Windows users who are willing to spend, why should they bother with the Mac users. And hey - don't flame me, I own an ibook too.
And *MOST* importantly -
96% of portable device owner said they thought they should be able to move music they bought to any device, which gives us great confidence that we're on the right side of history.
If Real were to succeed - that is what they will have to leverage - the fact that people want choice. Having to invest in specific hardware to listen to music, or trying to tie down the customer - these have failed all the bloody time. Sure, it may bring you profit for a while, but when you fall you fall hard.
Anyway, this was a good interview. Goodluck Rob. IT would take a lot of undo what Real has done in the past, but his attitude kinda makes me feel a little optimistic.
Who knows - they were, afterall, one of the first people to port their media software to Linux when nobody even bothered. So much for Apple. Heh.
Between the previous post and this one, I would say RideRocketOne sounds more appropriate ;-)
Only if you sell them ;-)
I was talking about the rights and wrongs of doing things for survival - such as stealing food to live, not about the malevolent acts at all.
My justification was merely to point out that for some things, rights and wrongs don't matter, and don't work.
His idea of stealing food was one of those cases - the case of a German teen writing a worm is not.
Score -1, Arrogant, ignorant and stupid troll.
Wrong is wrong. There are no grey areas. Its a boolean function. its right, its wrong. Nothing else.
Sure, it's easy for you to say that - sitting in the comforts of your home with an Internet connection and time to kill on a discussion site.
But I bet that the several people who watch their children die of hunger or poverty would bet to differ.
I can understand malevolent people exist, but a large chunk of them are driven to it by the *society* we live in. Rather, the lousy excuse for a society that we live in.
One of my friend works for an international aid agency. Maybe you should see some of the pictures of people worn by war, strife, poverty and diseases.
There is NO right and NO wrong. It is ALL a perspective. When you are on the street with nothing to call your own, stealing is NOT wrong or right - it becomes a necessity. You do not have the luxury of morals when it is a question of survival for you and your loved ones.
If water were made a commodity, and if people died of thirst because they could not buy it, would you consider STEALING water to live a crime? If air were made a commodity, and people died because they could not buy air, would you consider stealing air a crime? It's a survival instinct, you cannot cull millions of years of evolution because of some cock-and-bull morals that you conjured up for yourself.
Narrow-minded and prejudiced thoughts like this make me want to puke. Sheesh.
Mod parent +5 Great Big Nerd for being able to remember the fake technology of Wrath of Khan after all these years. ;)
;)
Mod parent +5 Greater Big Nerd for being able to recognize the fake technology of Wrath of Khan after all these years, coming from a fellow nerd
Hmm, better acting when he is playing a dead guy? ;-)
...and lawyers ;-)
Well said, but there is one point that I do not agree on -
The host went on to say that reading lets you know that other people have had similar experiences and no experience is completely new.
Maybe true, since it is quite likely that no matter what you experience, it has been experienced by scores of people before you. However, the thing about books is the fact that each experience is personal.
The way I interpret and read a book, would be quite different from someone else. I would read it the way I've been brought up to, I would correlate it to my experiences, and based on what drives me - it would either inspire me or bore me.
That is the beauty of books, to each his own - literally!
ROTFL!!! Or stuck to one another like glue. One of the two :-p
Jesus Christ, child! What's with you, don't give the man Taco anymore ideas.
;)
As if we aren't blinded enough already by the brilliant dazzling display of colours in the IT section.
On the other hand, I like the caption, "Politics for Nerds. Your vote matters."
Groovy, baby
Good God, folks, would it hurt to at least try and make things a bit balanced?
:-p
Hahaha! You must be new here.
Just kidding. I'm sure that given enough time and effort, you might just see that, www.world.slashdot.org or something like that. However, do you really want to see a section like that? Given the diversity, you'll find people trolling and flaming each other to bits.
Really not worth it. Besides, this is more fun - you get to make fun of Dubya
Although Wi-fi would be cool, what I'd really like is some power outlets for portable elctronic devices on the flight. It really sucks, when your laptop battery conks out after a couple of hours, or if you need a power outlet for any of your gadgets.
This is worse when you are on international flights, when you have to sit for 12 straight hours doing nothing.
I guess they'd cite a million reasons why it's dangerous and not do it, but if they can allow cellphones, why not this.
Maybe I'll rephrase. Microsoft says that Linux does not matter, and then they go ahead and include a bunch of Unix related services. Then, they say Linux is popular and insecure, but they'll make their OS more interoperable with Linux. Providing support for something you quite blatantly disapprove of, for whatever reasons, is what I'd call hypocrisy.
Your comparison of IBM with Microsoft is flawed - IBM is neither anti-Windows, nor are they anti-Unix - they go where the money is, and it's not like they take sides. On the other hand, MS has to take sides, because Linux is their competitor. Which is what they have been doing. And after which, if you took sides, and yet go after that which you put down, it's hypocrisy. Sure, it's business - but does not make it any less hypocritical.
Not FUD?! What the hell. Every word in his talk was precisely that.
Despite the focus on the next version of Windows, Microsoft is also working to make its offerings more interoperable with products using other software platforms such as Linux, Unix and XML (Extensible Markup Language), Ballmer said.
Ahh, wait. Now why do they bother supporting Linux or Unix if they feel that it's not good enough? I would imagine that if you are that confident in how a rival product is shitty, you would just go ahead and not offer support. But MS wants to leverage customers who have Linux and Unix systems, but yet diss Linux. Sheer hypocrisy.
"If you have two popular operating systems, both will get attacked -- whatever is popular is going to be attacked," he said.
Yes smartass. But resisting the attack will be the better one, and that will not be based on what's popular. Are they trying to say that Linux is popular, now? Out of the horse's own mouth, eh.
"In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
"I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt," Ballmer said. "I just think people should go out and research this for themselves."
Boo! The only reason the software industry is so messed up by patents is beause big businesses want to resort to their lawyers in case something goes wrong, and not technology. How about building great technology and not resort to cheap practices, for a change?
Sheesh. I'm fuckin' mad as hell. Not FUD? That's all there is in that.
Yeah, this is just God's own way of taking revenge for making a certain village in Texas miss it's idiot ;-)
Do not know if we are talking about the same pot, but hell, I sure as hell would like to have some of what Darl seems to be smoking ;-)
In theory, if the plastic can conduct, sure.
However, I would imagine that it would be hard to match the resilience of metals with plastic, not to mention the material nature in terms of several factors (such as resistance, inductance, etc).
Seriously! I grew up admiring Scotty, and Star Trek in general. For the longest time, my resume stated my objective as making Star Trek a reality :)
Well, today I'm a quantum physicist and a computer scientist in AI, and I would say that of all things that have inspired me in life to pursue these goals, ST has affected me the most. I still remember those episodes where he used to get strange alien warp engines and contraptions and make them work.
It's sad that it went downhill later down the line, but as a child, it inspired me to pursue science in a way nothing else ever has, and ever will. Here's to Scotty!
Don't you mean beige? :)
Damn! For a moment there, I read that as Randall Waterhouse :)