The "design" we're talking about is the menu structure of the user interface. That's something you only have to do once, that you can use on the cheapest phones you make just as easily as on the most expensive ones you make, and that can be changed literally with a tap of the button.
That's naive at best and disingenuous at worst. You obviously have no idea what putting together a product, especially a hardware product, entails.
The phone I want does exist. It's just been dropped from the selection of phones available to me, because the carrier is the one who decides what phones are available... not the manufacturer.
Wait, let me get this straight -- you're pining for a phone that the carrier doesn't carry anymore? Have you tried eBay? Just a thought. I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just trying to understand what it is you want. Many slashdotters have a propensity to diss any new phone with new features because it costs more, does too much, etcetera. If the phone you want already exists, why not just go and find one instead of bitching about how overfeatured some new phone is? In other words, what point does it serve to complain about a phone that you don't want in the first place?
The more money I put into the phone, the more features it has, and the shorter its battery life is.
This is a gross oversimplification. Not all features require more battery life (although some do) and not all features increase the basic complexity of a phone (although some do). Battery life has improved quite a bit since I bought my first cell phone, and I'm reasonably happy with my current one, despite the fact that it's got a lot of features.
Putting more money into the phone won't get me a better phone, it will get me a worse one.
Again, a gross oversimplification, but ultimately a moot point because: a) You're unhappy with the "free" phone given you by your service b) You believe the more expensive ones are even worse (although I believe you're just being stubborn here to make a point, which you've utterly failed to make), and c) The phone you want exists, but you don't have it and won't go find it.
I guess you're stuck in a quagmire of your own making, then. I offered you a way out and you refused to even consider the possibility based on some poor reasoning (i.e. more $$ == worse phone). Sucks to be you.
I don't think I'm arguing that point. I'm saying that design costs money as well.
I don't see why I should have to pay for features I don't want just to get something that isn't as good, doesn't last as long, and is inevitably harder to use (no matter how it's designed)
Isn't as good as what? Seeing as how the phone you want (and we're talking about phones here, not iPods) doesn't exist, you don't really have any basis for comparison.
The reason you do have to pay for features you don't want is because because phone makers are in an arms race, each of them trying to distinguish themselves from each other in areas of design, performance, and features. Why? Because the market is saturated with handsets, both in terms of availability and also the fact that nearly everyone already has a cell phone. In order to compel people to buy a new phone, features are being invented and styling is being constantly changed. If people stuck with their existing phone, the manufacturers wouldn't make any money.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just explaining the obvious reality of things.
Now, if the makers put all (or even some) of their design effort into low-cost, indistinguishable, simple phones, the kinds that are "given away" with a cell phone service contract, then they would be pouring money into what is essentially a commodity market with very low margins. In other words, they'd be throwing money down the toilet unless they could sell bazillions of them. With this market saturation, this seems unlikely.
So basically, you're asking for the cell phone manufacturers to spend good money making a simple phone for you that won't sell very well, all because you don't feel you should have to spend money on features you don't want.
The cell phone makers see things differently.
My advice is: put some money into a better phone or quit bitching. Nobody is obligated to give you something for nothing.
I bought the simplest and cheapest phone my provider offered. It is a piece of poorly designed crap, and the complexity of unneeded features makes it hard to use.
Perhaps your phone is a "poorly designed piece of crap" precisely because it was "the cheapest phone my provider offered"?
Generally, design isn't free. Not good design, anyway. Often, the things that are better designed and easier to use cost more. Not always, but often. Maybe by spending more on a phone, you might be able to get one that is easier to use despite the additional features?
Yes, on my itty bitty iRiver. The FM works great. Reception is perfect
What you fail to acknowledge is that your iRiver has the antenna in the headphone cord, meaning you'll never be free of their crappy headphones.
Yeah, imagine all those people that would avoid the iPod if it had an FM reciever
I think you've missed the fundamental reason the iPod is so popular. It's not because it's trendy, although that certainly helps. The iPod is popular because it's simple, and the mainstream music-listening audience is put off by complicated devices. I have no doubt that you (and I) can master complex devices -- but there's a lot of people who would rather do something useful with their lives. FM adds complexity, size, and cost, and in fact fails to deliver good performance without making sacrifices to the antenna god. If Apple could make it work to their satisfaction without making those sacrifices, they would have done so already. The iRiver was willing to make that sacrifice. Apple apparantly is not. Judging by sales numbers, Apple made the right choice.
Just because you have crappy radio stations doesn't mean everyone does
I live in one of the densest radio markets in the US. I have plenty of stations to choose from, including classical. And while classical (and NPR) may be the last bastions of worthwhile FM, it still does not make a complete experience. With one notable exception in my area, all the rest of the FM band is nearly worthless overproduced crap. It's probably the same in your area, you're just throwing out classical to prove me wrong. I'd put dollars to donuts that you don't actually listen to classical anyway. I'll bet you just like the notion that you could listen to classical, you know, if you wanted.
Besides, listening to classical via FM is kind of like going to the symphony and listening from the bathroom.
I have multiple classical music stations (I suspect your "evolved musical taste" is oh-so-trendy obscure bands)
Nope. I've noticed lately that the oh-so-trendy obscure bands all sound exactly alike. They're either imitating the White Stripes or the Hives, which are fine in their own right, but does every single band have to sound that way? It's not unlike a few years back where every band sounded like Smash Mouth or Blink 182 or whatever that era had to offer. It's still overproduced crap, even when it's got the faux-garage sound.
But that's not even the big reason for it. My gym broadcasts the TV sound over FM. If I want to watch ESPN or whatever, I need FM.
Go outside. Breathe some real air. Ride a bike. You'll find you might not have such an incredible need to be entertained if the exercise isn't mind-numbingly boring.
When is the iPod going to get a frickin' FM reciever??
How about never. Does never work for you?
Seriously, give it up already, it's not going to happen. It's not that Steve doesn't want you to have FM, he just doesn't want to sully the iPod's relatively good reputation with something that adds weight and complexity and requires an antenna to work properly. Have you ever used an FM receiver that didn't have an antenna sticking out of it somewhere? Did it work? No, probably not.
The fact is (inasmuch as anything on/. can be considered "fact") that every music player with an integrated FM radio pretty much sucks ass as far as FM reception goes. Some (like Sony and Nokia) take the route of integrating the antenna into the headphones themselves, but then you're stuck with their crappy headphones and you can't use the FM radio without it. Have you seen the Nokia FM-antenna headphones that come with some of their cell phones? It's like the state of Rhode Island was implanted in the middle of the cable where it branches off to each ear.
And the iPod outsells all the other music players with FM radios combined, which makes a pretty compelling case for Apple not to include that feature. Clearly, it's not hurting sales. Some would argue that it is, in fact, helping sales by not burdening the iPod with crappy hardware that doesn't work very well to begin with, a lesson that every other maker of music players should be paying attention to.
Besides, most people who buy an iPod are doing so because they're sick to #%$^ of listening to FM. Do you really like FM? What do you like about it? With the exception of NPR, there's very little left on FM that appeals to anyone with any kind of musical taste much more evolved than a 12 year old.
Should not the public decide both in what they were interested and what was in their public interest?
Let me ask a question, then: would it be okay for someone, say a journalist even, to publish your personal information (DOB, SSN, home address, bank account number) to the internet? I mean, leaving out the obvious incompetence displayed recently by the likes of ChoicePoint, would it be legitimate for someone to deliberately publish this information?
The obvious answer is "No". Why? Because that information being made public would cause you harm. Financial harm, most likely, but harm nonetheless.
The information at the heart of this case is no different to Apple than your SSN is to you. By publishing what Apple believes to be leaked information, Apple's plans were revealed to their competitors. This is why the concept of "Trade Secrets" exists -- not so much to keep consumers in the dark but to keep competitors off balance when a new product/invention/concept is being developed. A trade secret misappropriated by someone who signed an NDA is a violation of the law (contract law, I assume, but IANAL) and no individual, journalist or otherwise, has a right to divulge that information to the public when the information was gained illegally. The right to free speech is not absolute -- you should know this from your 6th grade civics class.
You can be as smug as you want by belittling the importance of the trade secret that was leaked, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple is, just like any other corporation or person, entitled to protection under the law. If you don't like the law, work to change it.
so many loyal slashdotters were welcoming Apple's victory against journalism?
If you had actually read any of the articles or bothered to spend 10 minutes informing yourself on the topic, you would realize that in fact Apple had not scored a "victory against journalism", but instead had won the right to subpeona records in order to determine how information was illegally obtained.
The judge stated, quite rationally, that it didn't matter if the bloggers at the center of the case were journalists or not, for even journalists lack the right to publish trade secrets that do not benefit the public interest. More to the point, the judge stated that interest by the public is not the same as public interest.
So if you want to go on being misinformed, then please be my guest and don't read the articles. But at least have the decency to do so quietly and not spread FUD around the internets.
Nonetheless, a precedent set by the US Supreme Court is effectively law. This particular precedent (most likely a mistake by a clerk, btw) was made over a hundred years ago, and has been slowly eroding the rights of actual human beings in favor of corporations the whole time.
This article is a pretty thorough description of how the mistake was made, and what the circumstances around it were.
A shorter description from another source (for those who just can't bring themselves to read TFA):
Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of American history. In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people, including the right to free speech.
This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources, corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private citizen. They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates -- had been undermined. Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic government.
The original Mac screen had a whitepoint that, well, tends toward blue, as did many Apple monitors that came after that. When Apple introduced the legendary 13" Color Display (made by Sony) the whitepoint was carried over, and the version of white displayed by that monitor tended toward blue as well.
On the Kelvin scale, it's 9600+8MPCD. If I recall correctly, the CIE1931 xy value is x=0.283 y=0.289. It's pretty much blue.
It's relative, I personally don't find the battery life particularly lacking, but there are some devices that do claim better battery life than the iPod.
2) Poor format support (Vorbis? FLAC?)
The market doesn't give a crap about Vorbis or FLAC. Get over it.
3) Poor playback (no EQ, no Gapless playback)
Ummm.. on the iPod? Yes, it does have EQ. Either you've never used the iPod, or you're baiting us. Shame on you either way.
4) Poor feature set (No FM, no voice recorder, nothing that sets it apart features-whys)
Have you ever seen an FM tuner that works without an antenna? No? I didn't think so. Do you really want an antenna on your audio player? No, I didn't think so.
5) Still more expensive than most other players
Well, except for Sony's unit, the previous incarnation of which costs $100 more than the 20gb iPod.
So, you get 1 out of 5, but I'm deducting one extra point for what I consider a deliberate prevarication on item 3.
The firmware that is in use on most devices is a Linux or BSD derived type of Unix
Nope. While I'm sure you could point to some examples, most USB devices use very lowly microcontrollers such as 6800 derivatives or dedicated USB Controller / CPU combos from Cypress and the like, and have only the thinnest of OS-like infrastructure. The reason is simple -- most USB devices don't have to do very much actual work, at least not the kind that would require a large OS like Linux or BSD.
While there may be USB devices based on Linux or BSD, these are by far the exception and not the rule.
To slashad! Where you can read ad copy sooner then anyone else
Well, except that this announcement is, like, many days old. I've come to realize recently that slashdot is not really very timely on these types of things.
A year is long for RFID? I guess you're new to this topic.
Considering it hasn't made it to the market yet, yes, I stand by that assertion.
Whatever n00b.
I see. I'm dealing with a 14 year old. I should have known better on slashdot.
Listen, your paranoia is needed elsewhere.
I disagree. I find some healthy skepticism on topics like this to be far more useful than simply believing that the world will be a beautiful place if left in the hands of the corporate body. That would just be stupid and misinformed.
Believe what you want, but the folks behind RFID are in it to make money. They don't have our best interests at heart, that's not their job. I respect them for that. I also expect people like you and I to question them at every turn to ensure that, in fact, trivial things like privacy will not be trampled.
If we don't ask these questions and force the issue, who will? Our political leaders?
Besides the fact that that article is over a year old (practically an eternity in the life of RFID) this merely documents that some parties are building it into the various standards that they're working with. Is the kill feature required by law? No. Is it in all RFID products? No. Is it a done deal? Almost certainly not.
This article, besides being more recent, indicates that the industry is only now beginning to address the privacy issues.
I remain unsatisfied that at this point "All consumer-product RFID tags have self-destruct codes".
All consumer-product RFID tags have self-destruct codes
I call bullshit. There's certainly been a desire to have this in RFID tags by privacy groups, but to my knowledge nobody has stepped up to the plate. Cite some sources, please, and I'll stand corrected.
But given that 90% of the OS was in pascal and some assembly with some programmers gone for good and with left over bad source codes
I was at Apple 10 years ago and I can say with certainty that System 7 (the OS at the time) was a mix of C and assembler, for the most part. Pascal had long since been eliminated from everything except MacApp.
t's hard to believe that a band that has prided itself on pushing the envelope and being controversial would do something like this.
This is a controversial move, isn't it? Well then, there you have it.
Seriously though, I think what you're getting at is that the Beastie Boys prided themselves on being anti-establishment, which definitely seems to have gone out the window with this latest move.
Maybe instead of blaming Microsoft at every chance that pops up, users could try to be more constructive and try to resolve the issues at hand through less invasive, arrogant, annoying, or sometimes just plain stupid means.
Maybe instead of arrogantly assuming that it's customers are peons, annoying them by allowing CDs to install invasive software that on the face of it looks like a virus, Microsoft should instead focus on being constructive and creating a usable and secure operating system that isn't cursed by 98% of the people who use it....and I'm not even a Linux fanboy.
In order to install software in certain places under MacOS X, you must supply an administrator password. This includes anywhere in/System or/Library where a piece of software could be included as part of the boot up process. Thus, it would not be possible for DRM to install itself (and have any lasting effect) without an administrator's password.
Therefore, I don't think this will have any effect on MacOS X users.
Hi, I'm in the market, and I'm here to tell you I won't bear this. Perhaps enough others will that you can stay in business with that attitude.
Well, that's the great thing about a capitalist economy. If the market won't bear it, the company must either change their pricing or die. If you're right, Canon will do one of those things. If you're wrong, then, well, I guess you'll just have to be wrong.
But I think if I'm able to get the facts out to people, you'll have to change your practices or be run out of town.
I think they call that preaching to the choir. The Slashdot audience, nearly by definition, does not believe that software has the kind of market value that we're talking about. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the market, in fact, does value additional functionality, be it in software or hardware. If I was wrong, companies like Canon (or Sony, or Adobe) wouldn't still be in business. You do the math.
Consumers are getting the shaft any time they buy these crippled products
I realize this will probably be an unpopular opinion here, but your post ignores the fact that we do live in a capitalist economy, and as such a company is entitled, nay, expected to charge as much as the market will bear. I don't like getting the shaft any more than you do, but it's never been about the cost of making the product -- it's always been about the perceived value to the consumer. If the consumer views the extra features as being valuable, be they in software or hardware, then the consumer will pay the price. If they don't, then the product fails and the company goes back to the drawing board.
Further (and again this will be an unpopular stance here) even if we ignore the part about what the market will bear, software is a product, too, and there are many people willing to pay for software. Sure, Adobe could sell PhotoShop CS for $100 or less, as the cost of manufacturing is certainly nowhere near that. But they don't. The choose instead to sell PhotoShop Elements at a low cost and PhotoShop CS at a significantly higher cost. Why? Well, besides the fact that they have every right to set the price as they see fit and then succeed or fail at that price point, they have engineering costs to recoup and shareholders to satisfy, just like any publicly held company.
In short, I don't think your complaint about "crippled" products has merit. But that's just my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
The "design" we're talking about is the menu structure of the user interface. That's something you only have to do once, that you can use on the cheapest phones you make just as easily as on the most expensive ones you make, and that can be changed literally with a tap of the button.
That's naive at best and disingenuous at worst. You obviously have no idea what putting together a product, especially a hardware product, entails.
The phone I want does exist. It's just been dropped from the selection of phones available to me, because the carrier is the one who decides what phones are available... not the manufacturer.
Wait, let me get this straight -- you're pining for a phone that the carrier doesn't carry anymore? Have you tried eBay? Just a thought. I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just trying to understand what it is you want. Many slashdotters have a propensity to diss any new phone with new features because it costs more, does too much, etcetera. If the phone you want already exists, why not just go and find one instead of bitching about how overfeatured some new phone is? In other words, what point does it serve to complain about a phone that you don't want in the first place?
The more money I put into the phone, the more features it has, and the shorter its battery life is.
This is a gross oversimplification. Not all features require more battery life (although some do) and not all features increase the basic complexity of a phone (although some do). Battery life has improved quite a bit since I bought my first cell phone, and I'm reasonably happy with my current one, despite the fact that it's got a lot of features.
Putting more money into the phone won't get me a better phone, it will get me a worse one.
Again, a gross oversimplification, but ultimately a moot point because:
a) You're unhappy with the "free" phone given you by your service
b) You believe the more expensive ones are even worse (although I believe you're just being stubborn here to make a point, which you've utterly failed to make), and
c) The phone you want exists, but you don't have it and won't go find it.
I guess you're stuck in a quagmire of your own making, then. I offered you a way out and you refused to even consider the possibility based on some poor reasoning (i.e. more $$ == worse phone). Sucks to be you.
Have a nice day!
Because features inherently cost money
I don't think I'm arguing that point. I'm saying that design costs money as well.
I don't see why I should have to pay for features I don't want just to get something that isn't as good, doesn't last as long, and is inevitably harder to use (no matter how it's designed)
Isn't as good as what? Seeing as how the phone you want (and we're talking about phones here, not iPods) doesn't exist, you don't really have any basis for comparison.
The reason you do have to pay for features you don't want is because because phone makers are in an arms race, each of them trying to distinguish themselves from each other in areas of design, performance, and features. Why? Because the market is saturated with handsets, both in terms of availability and also the fact that nearly everyone already has a cell phone. In order to compel people to buy a new phone, features are being invented and styling is being constantly changed. If people stuck with their existing phone, the manufacturers wouldn't make any money.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just explaining the obvious reality of things.
Now, if the makers put all (or even some) of their design effort into low-cost, indistinguishable, simple phones, the kinds that are "given away" with a cell phone service contract, then they would be pouring money into what is essentially a commodity market with very low margins. In other words, they'd be throwing money down the toilet unless they could sell bazillions of them. With this market saturation, this seems unlikely.
So basically, you're asking for the cell phone manufacturers to spend good money making a simple phone for you that won't sell very well, all because you don't feel you should have to spend money on features you don't want.
The cell phone makers see things differently.
My advice is: put some money into a better phone or quit bitching. Nobody is obligated to give you something for nothing.
I bought the simplest and cheapest phone my provider offered. It is a piece of poorly designed crap, and the complexity of unneeded features makes it hard to use.
Perhaps your phone is a "poorly designed piece of crap" precisely because it was "the cheapest phone my provider offered"?
Generally, design isn't free. Not good design, anyway. Often, the things that are better designed and easier to use cost more. Not always, but often. Maybe by spending more on a phone, you might be able to get one that is easier to use despite the additional features?
Yes, on my itty bitty iRiver. The FM works great. Reception is perfect
What you fail to acknowledge is that your iRiver has the antenna in the headphone cord, meaning you'll never be free of their crappy headphones.
Yeah, imagine all those people that would avoid the iPod if it had an FM reciever
I think you've missed the fundamental reason the iPod is so popular. It's not because it's trendy, although that certainly helps. The iPod is popular because it's simple, and the mainstream music-listening audience is put off by complicated devices. I have no doubt that you (and I) can master complex devices -- but there's a lot of people who would rather do something useful with their lives. FM adds complexity, size, and cost, and in fact fails to deliver good performance without making sacrifices to the antenna god. If Apple could make it work to their satisfaction without making those sacrifices, they would have done so already. The iRiver was willing to make that sacrifice. Apple apparantly is not. Judging by sales numbers, Apple made the right choice.
Just because you have crappy radio stations doesn't mean everyone does
I live in one of the densest radio markets in the US. I have plenty of stations to choose from, including classical. And while classical (and NPR) may be the last bastions of worthwhile FM, it still does not make a complete experience. With one notable exception in my area, all the rest of the FM band is nearly worthless overproduced crap. It's probably the same in your area, you're just throwing out classical to prove me wrong. I'd put dollars to donuts that you don't actually listen to classical anyway. I'll bet you just like the notion that you could listen to classical, you know, if you wanted.
Besides, listening to classical via FM is kind of like going to the symphony and listening from the bathroom.
I have multiple classical music stations (I suspect your "evolved musical taste" is oh-so-trendy obscure bands)
Nope. I've noticed lately that the oh-so-trendy obscure bands all sound exactly alike. They're either imitating the White Stripes or the Hives, which are fine in their own right, but does every single band have to sound that way? It's not unlike a few years back where every band sounded like Smash Mouth or Blink 182 or whatever that era had to offer. It's still overproduced crap, even when it's got the faux-garage sound.
But that's not even the big reason for it. My gym broadcasts the TV sound over FM. If I want to watch ESPN or whatever, I need FM.
Go outside. Breathe some real air. Ride a bike. You'll find you might not have such an incredible need to be entertained if the exercise isn't mind-numbingly boring.
When is the iPod going to get a frickin' FM reciever??
/. can be considered "fact") that every music player with an integrated FM radio pretty much sucks ass as far as FM reception goes. Some (like Sony and Nokia) take the route of integrating the antenna into the headphones themselves, but then you're stuck with their crappy headphones and you can't use the FM radio without it. Have you seen the Nokia FM-antenna headphones that come with some of their cell phones? It's like the state of Rhode Island was implanted in the middle of the cable where it branches off to each ear.
How about never. Does never work for you?
Seriously, give it up already, it's not going to happen. It's not that Steve doesn't want you to have FM, he just doesn't want to sully the iPod's relatively good reputation with something that adds weight and complexity and requires an antenna to work properly. Have you ever used an FM receiver that didn't have an antenna sticking out of it somewhere? Did it work? No, probably not.
The fact is (inasmuch as anything on
And the iPod outsells all the other music players with FM radios combined, which makes a pretty compelling case for Apple not to include that feature. Clearly, it's not hurting sales. Some would argue that it is, in fact, helping sales by not burdening the iPod with crappy hardware that doesn't work very well to begin with, a lesson that every other maker of music players should be paying attention to.
Besides, most people who buy an iPod are doing so because they're sick to #%$^ of listening to FM. Do you really like FM? What do you like about it? With the exception of NPR, there's very little left on FM that appeals to anyone with any kind of musical taste much more evolved than a 12 year old.
Should not the public decide both in what they were interested and what was in their public interest?
Let me ask a question, then: would it be okay for someone, say a journalist even, to publish your personal information (DOB, SSN, home address, bank account number) to the internet? I mean, leaving out the obvious incompetence displayed recently by the likes of ChoicePoint, would it be legitimate for someone to deliberately publish this information?
The obvious answer is "No". Why? Because that information being made public would cause you harm. Financial harm, most likely, but harm nonetheless.
The information at the heart of this case is no different to Apple than your SSN is to you. By publishing what Apple believes to be leaked information, Apple's plans were revealed to their competitors. This is why the concept of "Trade Secrets" exists -- not so much to keep consumers in the dark but to keep competitors off balance when a new product/invention/concept is being developed. A trade secret misappropriated by someone who signed an NDA is a violation of the law (contract law, I assume, but IANAL) and no individual, journalist or otherwise, has a right to divulge that information to the public when the information was gained illegally. The right to free speech is not absolute -- you should know this from your 6th grade civics class.
You can be as smug as you want by belittling the importance of the trade secret that was leaked, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple is, just like any other corporation or person, entitled to protection under the law. If you don't like the law, work to change it.
And stop whining. Please.
so many loyal slashdotters were welcoming Apple's victory against journalism?
If you had actually read any of the articles or bothered to spend 10 minutes informing yourself on the topic, you would realize that in fact Apple had not scored a "victory against journalism", but instead had won the right to subpeona records in order to determine how information was illegally obtained.
The judge stated, quite rationally, that it didn't matter if the bloggers at the center of the case were journalists or not, for even journalists lack the right to publish trade secrets that do not benefit the public interest. More to the point, the judge stated that interest by the public is not the same as public interest.
So if you want to go on being misinformed, then please be my guest and don't read the articles. But at least have the decency to do so quietly and not spread FUD around the internets.
This article is a pretty thorough description of how the mistake was made, and what the circumstances around it were.
A shorter description from another source (for those who just can't bring themselves to read TFA):
it's an I-pod
Actually, it's an iPod, not an I-pod. I can't imagine what rock you've been living under for the last year if you don't know how to spell it.
Could be, or maybe they just don't want to get mugged
Yeah, I hear that crime is a real problem on the Microsoft campus.
Besides, employees mugging each other is just an outward symptom of working for a company that's mugging everyone else.
The original Mac screen had a whitepoint that, well, tends toward blue, as did many Apple monitors that came after that. When Apple introduced the legendary 13" Color Display (made by Sony) the whitepoint was carried over, and the version of white displayed by that monitor tended toward blue as well.
On the Kelvin scale, it's 9600+8MPCD. If I recall correctly, the CIE1931 xy value is x=0.283 y=0.289. It's pretty much blue.
1) Poor battery life
It's relative, I personally don't find the battery life particularly lacking, but there are some devices that do claim better battery life than the iPod.
2) Poor format support (Vorbis? FLAC?)
The market doesn't give a crap about Vorbis or FLAC. Get over it.
3) Poor playback (no EQ, no Gapless playback)
Ummm.. on the iPod? Yes, it does have EQ. Either you've never used the iPod, or you're baiting us. Shame on you either way.
4) Poor feature set (No FM, no voice recorder, nothing that sets it apart features-whys)
Have you ever seen an FM tuner that works without an antenna? No? I didn't think so. Do you really want an antenna on your audio player? No, I didn't think so.
5) Still more expensive than most other players
Well, except for Sony's unit, the previous incarnation of which costs $100 more than the 20gb iPod.
So, you get 1 out of 5, but I'm deducting one extra point for what I consider a deliberate prevarication on item 3.
The firmware that is in use on most devices is a Linux or BSD derived type of Unix
Nope. While I'm sure you could point to some examples, most USB devices use very lowly microcontrollers such as 6800 derivatives or dedicated USB Controller / CPU combos from Cypress and the like, and have only the thinnest of OS-like infrastructure. The reason is simple -- most USB devices don't have to do very much actual work, at least not the kind that would require a large OS like Linux or BSD.
While there may be USB devices based on Linux or BSD, these are by far the exception and not the rule.
To slashad! Where you can read ad copy sooner then anyone else
Well, except that this announcement is, like, many days old. I've come to realize recently that slashdot is not really very timely on these types of things.
See Gizmodo's Report from last Friday.
We've been passing them the cluestick for a couple of years now. It's time to start beating them with it.
A year is long for RFID? I guess you're new to this topic.
Considering it hasn't made it to the market yet, yes, I stand by that assertion.
Whatever n00b.
I see. I'm dealing with a 14 year old. I should have known better on slashdot.
Listen, your paranoia is needed elsewhere.
I disagree. I find some healthy skepticism on topics like this to be far more useful than simply believing that the world will be a beautiful place if left in the hands of the corporate body. That would just be stupid and misinformed.
Believe what you want, but the folks behind RFID are in it to make money. They don't have our best interests at heart, that's not their job. I respect them for that. I also expect people like you and I to question them at every turn to ensure that, in fact, trivial things like privacy will not be trampled.
If we don't ask these questions and force the issue, who will? Our political leaders?
Really.
Duly noted and thoroughly refuted
Besides the fact that that article is over a year old (practically an eternity in the life of RFID) this merely documents that some parties are building it into the various standards that they're working with. Is the kill feature required by law? No. Is it in all RFID products? No. Is it a done deal? Almost certainly not.
This article, besides being more recent, indicates that the industry is only now beginning to address the privacy issues.
I remain unsatisfied that at this point "All consumer-product RFID tags have self-destruct codes".
All consumer-product RFID tags have self-destruct codes
I call bullshit. There's certainly been a desire to have this in RFID tags by privacy groups, but to my knowledge nobody has stepped up to the plate. Cite some sources, please, and I'll stand corrected.
But given that 90% of the OS was in pascal and some assembly with some programmers gone for good and with left over bad source codes
I was at Apple 10 years ago and I can say with certainty that System 7 (the OS at the time) was a mix of C and assembler, for the most part. Pascal had long since been eliminated from everything except MacApp.
t's hard to believe that a band that has prided itself on pushing the envelope and being controversial would do something like this.
This is a controversial move, isn't it? Well then, there you have it.
Seriously though, I think what you're getting at is that the Beastie Boys prided themselves on being anti-establishment, which definitely seems to have gone out the window with this latest move.
Maybe instead of blaming Microsoft at every chance that pops up, users could try to be more constructive and try to resolve the issues at hand through less invasive, arrogant, annoying, or sometimes just plain stupid means.
...and I'm not even a Linux fanboy.
Maybe instead of arrogantly assuming that it's customers are peons, annoying them by allowing CDs to install invasive software that on the face of it looks like a virus, Microsoft should instead focus on being constructive and creating a usable and secure operating system that isn't cursed by 98% of the people who use it.
In order to install software in certain places under MacOS X, you must supply an administrator password. This includes anywhere in /System or /Library where a piece of software could be included as part of the boot up process. Thus, it would not be possible for DRM to install itself (and have any lasting effect) without an administrator's password.
Therefore, I don't think this will have any effect on MacOS X users.
Hi, I'm in the market, and I'm here to tell you I won't bear this. Perhaps enough others will that you can stay in business with that attitude.
Well, that's the great thing about a capitalist economy. If the market won't bear it, the company must either change their pricing or die. If you're right, Canon will do one of those things. If you're wrong, then, well, I guess you'll just have to be wrong.
But I think if I'm able to get the facts out to people, you'll have to change your practices or be run out of town.
I think they call that preaching to the choir. The Slashdot audience, nearly by definition, does not believe that software has the kind of market value that we're talking about. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the market, in fact, does value additional functionality, be it in software or hardware. If I was wrong, companies like Canon (or Sony, or Adobe) wouldn't still be in business. You do the math.
Consumers are getting the shaft any time they buy these crippled products
I realize this will probably be an unpopular opinion here, but your post ignores the fact that we do live in a capitalist economy, and as such a company is entitled, nay, expected to charge as much as the market will bear. I don't like getting the shaft any more than you do, but it's never been about the cost of making the product -- it's always been about the perceived value to the consumer. If the consumer views the extra features as being valuable, be they in software or hardware, then the consumer will pay the price. If they don't, then the product fails and the company goes back to the drawing board.
Further (and again this will be an unpopular stance here) even if we ignore the part about what the market will bear, software is a product, too, and there are many people willing to pay for software. Sure, Adobe could sell PhotoShop CS for $100 or less, as the cost of manufacturing is certainly nowhere near that. But they don't. The choose instead to sell PhotoShop Elements at a low cost and PhotoShop CS at a significantly higher cost. Why? Well, besides the fact that they have every right to set the price as they see fit and then succeed or fail at that price point, they have engineering costs to recoup and shareholders to satisfy, just like any publicly held company.
In short, I don't think your complaint about "crippled" products has merit. But that's just my opinion.
Christ. Now I've seen it all. Don't you people have something better to do than debate the correct definition of a Byte?
;)
Go outside. Read a book. Get a girlfriend. Almost anything in the world, including gazing at your own navel, is more important than this discussion.
Yeah, I know. I must be new here.