Yes, because comparing the release of Jelly Bean on a multitude of manufacturer, carrier, and hardware platforms is an entirely reasonable comparison to the release of an iOS locked to specific hardware, from one manufacturer.
Quoth the Joker : That's the point
Clearly a walled garden system like Apple will have quicker adoption of new software. What's somewhat surprising -and imo newsworthy- is the magnitude. In less than 2 days, iOS 6 has reached over 1/3 of potential clients. Going back a version, iOS 5 (or better) has a saturation level well over 95% in the year since release. That's incredible, compared to Android OS devices, over 75% of which are running 2.x variants, released in late 2010.
The fact that is happened : Not surprising.
The level to which it happened : Moderately surprising
Data : Useful
I'd be more interested in the next step : connecting up to an established cellular network. Do we know which providers will support a non-contract iPhone 5 and/or what the fees and data usage limits will be?
The report mentioned a new slimmer SIM chip. Will this cause any technical difficulties on the smaller market providers?
As much as I love Pandora and it's ilk (and I really do) the royalty thing is only half the reason it's unprofitable. The big reason, which I don't see addressed, is the stark lack of commercials.
Don't get me wrong, that's one of my favorite things about Pandora... for every 6 or 7 songs, you get one quick commercial, and back to the music. Compare to FM stations, which generally have 3-4 songs at most before cutting away for half-a-dozen commercials, and you can easily see why one is making more money than the other.
How should someone who writes and records an album verify that the songs he wrote don't accidentally infringe a third party's copyright?
Simple: educate yourself and be creative. If you really want to make some music that isn't likely to infringe on existing copyrights, learn about time signatures, chord progression, key intonation and anything else you can. Learn your freaking scales and intervals, how they effect harmonies and how all these things intermingle. Learn how to play your instruments well (including vocals as an instrument) and how to work with your band-mates, on key or tempo changes mid-song.
The vast majority of today's music (the popular stuff, anyway) is bland, samey 4/4 pablum. When so limited, the chances of infringing are high. Get creative and move outside that narrow scope, and you'll drastically reduce the chances of running into someone else.
And finally, if you're going to crib notes from another artist, look to Pachelbel, Buxtehude, Borodin, Chopin, Rossini, Don Ellis, Nilsson (Bo, not Harry... well, actually, Harry too). They won't mind.
Except the distribution part is not tracked, not verifiable, and extrapolated to the fullest possible extent by Sony.
More like labeling anyone who has ever gotten into a fight as a heinous murderer. "Well, you punched one person, so you might have punched a million more people we don't know about, and if you're going around punching millions of people, you're probably killing them too. We hereby find you guild of 500,000 counts of murder and sentence you to a few dozen millenia in jail."
Really, that's what they're going for. Sony has near-infinite resources compared to one guy with a Pro Bono lawyer... so they're running circles around him. They've got a dozen lawyers in court, objecting to anything he does, while another dozen lawyers fight with his ISP to subpoena his net usage history and still some more lawyers and lobbyists work to get new laws passed that make copyright infringement a felony punishable by death... etc etc etc. Sony probably hired a crew to canvas this guy's neighborhood and interrogate the neighbors: "Have you heard any of these 30 songs emanating from that house?"
What it all boils down to is Sony setting a precedent. It's a modern day Witch Hunt. They want to have a big public showing that downloading music is evil and bad and will cost you MILLIONS (Sony is trying to get up to $4.5 million in damages) to hopefully scare the public into (A) not downloading music and (B) paying the Sony extortion letters. If this $600,000+ fine holds up, what would your reaction be to a letter from Sony that said, "We have evidence to show you've downloaded our songs illegally. You are hereby fined $5,000. Pay up or we're headed to court." How many people would think about this guy, and just pay up?
Even if only 1% of people respond and pay, that's still a damn good ROI for the cost of a stamp.
Bonus points for Sony if they can drive people away from LEGAL music downloads. "You claim to have purchased these songs from Amazon or iTunes... but I don't see a receipt. $5,000 or we're going to court." The longer Sony can keep people beholden to the ancient CD system, the better it is for them.
Basically because Sony employs thousands and thousands of lawyers, and when they win (because they have thousands and thousands of lawyers) the single defendant is required to foot the bill for all those lawyers.
The crazy part: Sony is asking for 4.5 million dollars. Also, the initial fee that Tennenbaum was asked to pay (via extortion letter in the mail, before any lawyers were involved) was $3,500.
Sony is really trying to set a precedent here, to give their extortion letters some clout. "Just pay the $3,500... or you'll end up like Scott Tennenbaum!"
Which is what makes this whole ordeal more of a science project than an attempt to circumvent laws. You can build better quality stuff, cheaper, with junk at any hardware store. You can circumvent laws by 3D-Printing the lower receiver and using standard metal parts everywhere else.
The only reason to try and 3D-Print the whole thing, is to simply see if it can be done.
Yes and no. There's nothing legally different about Ye Olde Faire Grounds where the gunshow is taking place, as compared to my garage, or the Walmart parking lot. However if you were looking for a place with many private sellers, trying to find the highest possibility of turning up a shady character, well... you're going to have a LOT better odds at the gunshow than in my garage.
The legal ramifications of 3D printing guns are already upon us. TFS references an older article where someone printed out a Lower Receiver, which IS the gun, legally speaking.
This article is much more about "can we do this impossible thing." Can you 3D-Print a barrel that doesn't melt after a few rounds? Can you 3D-Print some kind of recoil absorption method (most fire-arms use metal springs)?...a firing pin that strikes a primer with enough force to fire?...a bolt strong enough to take the impact, or possibly an advanced recoil absorption method to reduce the strain on your bolt...
A lot of hurdles to cross before a gun can be fully 3D-Printed. And a lot of wider ramifications as to the 3D-Printing world, if those hurdles can be cleared.
You forgot the increasingly sedentary lifestyle as a major contributor.
I'm 30 now. While I grew up with an Atari, Nintendo, etc in the house, I always found plenty of time to go outside, ride a bike, climb a tree, etc. PhysEd was an integral part of school at every level. We had an "Olympics" at various grades where every kid in that grade would compete in track and field events. Every kid I knew was at least somewhat active, and there wasn't a single kid nearly as obese as your common fatty today.
Don't forget the $$ spent on hiring software engineers to design^H^H^H^H^H^H... to write and test^H^H^H^H... to write the code for whatever DRM is involved. Ubisoft's little root kit (uplay) didn't spawn into existence on it's own.
Pretty much EVERYTHING you eat today is genetically modified on some level. To expect consumers to decide what genetic modifications are acceptable and which ones aren't, is a very tall order for the layman. If only we had some government group to Administrate the Food sold in this country. They could oversee medicine too. We would call them the FDA and they ALREADY EXIST.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US a pair of tits will get you an R rating instantly
Unless the movie is directed by James Cameron, and the tits are a spectacular pair, such as Kate Winslet's.
Then you'll get away with PG-13
Yes, because comparing the release of Jelly Bean on a multitude of manufacturer, carrier, and hardware platforms is an entirely reasonable comparison to the release of an iOS locked to specific hardware, from one manufacturer.
Quoth the Joker : That's the point
Clearly a walled garden system like Apple will have quicker adoption of new software. What's somewhat surprising -and imo newsworthy- is the magnitude. In less than 2 days, iOS 6 has reached over 1/3 of potential clients. Going back a version, iOS 5 (or better) has a saturation level well over 95% in the year since release. That's incredible, compared to Android OS devices, over 75% of which are running 2.x variants, released in late 2010.
The fact that is happened : Not surprising.
The level to which it happened : Moderately surprising
Data : Useful
Romeo and Juliette was a 3-day fling between a 17* year old boy and a 13 year old girl, that caused the deaths of 6 people.
It would most certainly make the MPs cut for "absolutely vile"
*Romeo's age is never explicitly stated, but contextual clues put him in his late teens, possibly even early 20s.
I'd be more interested in the next step : connecting up to an established cellular network. Do we know which providers will support a non-contract iPhone 5 and/or what the fees and data usage limits will be?
The report mentioned a new slimmer SIM chip. Will this cause any technical difficulties on the smaller market providers?
Breaking news: Facebook users find Facebook to be the most effective means of influencing them.
Film at 11
As much as I love Pandora and it's ilk (and I really do) the royalty thing is only half the reason it's unprofitable. The big reason, which I don't see addressed, is the stark lack of commercials.
Don't get me wrong, that's one of my favorite things about Pandora... for every 6 or 7 songs, you get one quick commercial, and back to the music. Compare to FM stations, which generally have 3-4 songs at most before cutting away for half-a-dozen commercials, and you can easily see why one is making more money than the other.
How should someone who writes and records an album verify that the songs he wrote don't accidentally infringe a third party's copyright?
Simple: educate yourself and be creative. If you really want to make some music that isn't likely to infringe on existing copyrights, learn about time signatures, chord progression, key intonation and anything else you can. Learn your freaking scales and intervals, how they effect harmonies and how all these things intermingle. Learn how to play your instruments well (including vocals as an instrument) and how to work with your band-mates, on key or tempo changes mid-song.
The vast majority of today's music (the popular stuff, anyway) is bland, samey 4/4 pablum. When so limited, the chances of infringing are high. Get creative and move outside that narrow scope, and you'll drastically reduce the chances of running into someone else.
And finally, if you're going to crib notes from another artist, look to Pachelbel, Buxtehude, Borodin, Chopin, Rossini, Don Ellis, Nilsson (Bo, not Harry ... well, actually, Harry too). They won't mind.
How many audiophiles...
HA! The dangers of posting while talking with someone named Scott.
Multitask fail.
Except the distribution part is not tracked, not verifiable, and extrapolated to the fullest possible extent by Sony.
More like labeling anyone who has ever gotten into a fight as a heinous murderer. "Well, you punched one person, so you might have punched a million more people we don't know about, and if you're going around punching millions of people, you're probably killing them too. We hereby find you guild of 500,000 counts of murder and sentence you to a few dozen millenia in jail."
It took him 8 years to download 30 songs?
I'll never complain about my Internet speeds again!
The law, generally speaking, is fine. "You infringed on $30 worth of copyright, so we're going to recoup that money."
The problem is with the ruling that it costs nearly a million dollars to recoup $30 worth of infringement.
A listing of the 31 songs he is accused of downloading
Really, that's what they're going for. Sony has near-infinite resources compared to one guy with a Pro Bono lawyer... so they're running circles around him. They've got a dozen lawyers in court, objecting to anything he does, while another dozen lawyers fight with his ISP to subpoena his net usage history and still some more lawyers and lobbyists work to get new laws passed that make copyright infringement a felony punishable by death ... etc etc etc. Sony probably hired a crew to canvas this guy's neighborhood and interrogate the neighbors: "Have you heard any of these 30 songs emanating from that house?"
What it all boils down to is Sony setting a precedent. It's a modern day Witch Hunt. They want to have a big public showing that downloading music is evil and bad and will cost you MILLIONS (Sony is trying to get up to $4.5 million in damages) to hopefully scare the public into (A) not downloading music and (B) paying the Sony extortion letters. If this $600,000+ fine holds up, what would your reaction be to a letter from Sony that said, "We have evidence to show you've downloaded our songs illegally. You are hereby fined $5,000. Pay up or we're headed to court." How many people would think about this guy, and just pay up?
Even if only 1% of people respond and pay, that's still a damn good ROI for the cost of a stamp.
Bonus points for Sony if they can drive people away from LEGAL music downloads. "You claim to have purchased these songs from Amazon or iTunes ... but I don't see a receipt. $5,000 or we're going to court." The longer Sony can keep people beholden to the ancient CD system, the better it is for them.
Basically because Sony employs thousands and thousands of lawyers, and when they win (because they have thousands and thousands of lawyers) the single defendant is required to foot the bill for all those lawyers.
The crazy part: Sony is asking for 4.5 million dollars. Also, the initial fee that Tennenbaum was asked to pay (via extortion letter in the mail, before any lawyers were involved) was $3,500.
Sony is really trying to set a precedent here, to give their extortion letters some clout. "Just pay the $3,500 ... or you'll end up like Scott Tennenbaum!"
Which is what makes this whole ordeal more of a science project than an attempt to circumvent laws. You can build better quality stuff, cheaper, with junk at any hardware store. You can circumvent laws by 3D-Printing the lower receiver and using standard metal parts everywhere else.
The only reason to try and 3D-Print the whole thing, is to simply see if it can be done.
The "gun show loophole" is a myth.
Yes and no. There's nothing legally different about Ye Olde Faire Grounds where the gunshow is taking place, as compared to my garage, or the Walmart parking lot. However if you were looking for a place with many private sellers, trying to find the highest possibility of turning up a shady character, well... you're going to have a LOT better odds at the gunshow than in my garage.
This is a project for law students?
... they are liable to kill themselves.
I fail to see the downside.
The legal ramifications of 3D printing guns are already upon us. TFS references an older article where someone printed out a Lower Receiver, which IS the gun, legally speaking.
This article is much more about "can we do this impossible thing." Can you 3D-Print a barrel that doesn't melt after a few rounds? Can you 3D-Print some kind of recoil absorption method (most fire-arms use metal springs)? ...a firing pin that strikes a primer with enough force to fire? ...a bolt strong enough to take the impact, or possibly an advanced recoil absorption method to reduce the strain on your bolt...
A lot of hurdles to cross before a gun can be fully 3D-Printed. And a lot of wider ramifications as to the 3D-Printing world, if those hurdles can be cleared.
That's entirely the point: designing ways to compensate for the weakness of plastic.
DayZ is a mod for Arma2.
If you and a halfling are being chased by a dragon ...
You forgot the increasingly sedentary lifestyle as a major contributor.
I'm 30 now. While I grew up with an Atari, Nintendo, etc in the house, I always found plenty of time to go outside, ride a bike, climb a tree, etc. PhysEd was an integral part of school at every level. We had an "Olympics" at various grades where every kid in that grade would compete in track and field events. Every kid I knew was at least somewhat active, and there wasn't a single kid nearly as obese as your common fatty today.
Don't forget the $$ spent on hiring software engineers to design^H^H^H^H^H^H ... to write and test^H^H^H^H ... to write the code for whatever DRM is involved. Ubisoft's little root kit (uplay) didn't spawn into existence on it's own.
Saw this a while back, seems relevant.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2541-Feeding-Edge
Pretty much EVERYTHING you eat today is genetically modified on some level. To expect consumers to decide what genetic modifications are acceptable and which ones aren't, is a very tall order for the layman. If only we had some government group to Administrate the Food sold in this country. They could oversee medicine too. We would call them the FDA and they ALREADY EXIST.