Just wondering: did you have to write the XSL translator yourself, or are there already XSL functions built into Javascript? (I really need to get back into the JS/HTML game.)
Nah, Photoshop is one of the few things Adobe got right. Now, Illustrator, on the other hand... AI just seems to be playing "catch-up" with the features (both UI and functional) that other apps come out with.
And, if we're talking UI flops, don't forget Macromedia Flash. That program has given me more WTFs-per-hour than most anything else I've used. Of course I imagine a traditional illustrator could get a lot out of it, but I think they still, in a large part, fail to realize that a significant part of their market has shifted to web/UI design, and that they really need to make some more layout-designer-centric functionality.
Although it might be more free, it would be unduly wasteful if the government were to support every file format ever developed, or even if they were to go without a declaration and have the snarls of interoperability problems. It's obvious they have to declare their use of something, and they did.
The problem is that the government has to make a choice. If they chose to stay with the Office line, your argument would apply just as well. From what I understand, their new choice might actually be a better strategy against this "lock-in", in that the OpenDocument format is much more... well... open.
Ahh, yes, perhaps. Although, the OSS does have the advantage of not being dependent for life on commercial success. If iPodder takes a commercial dip, there'll still be a few people around to use or maintain it.
The answer lies somewhere between the crapfest that was MP3.com and the crapfeed that is popular radio.
For me, the answer is in the sub-popular labels. Once you get beyond the BMGs and Warners, labels often have a distinctive style, and can act as an advocate or a guide to helping you find good music.
Me? I put stock in names like Emperor Norton, the defunct Grass label, Eighteenth Street Lounge, Polyvinyl Record Co., and City Slang (a distributor, actually, but they have good taste). There are a few that are larger, with more styles, but still have good taste: Matador, Touch and Go, and some more I can't recall.
The iPod is irrelevant. This is a program that automatically downloads new podcasts to your computer, and can do things like adding them to your iTunes library.
Unfortunately, the term "Podcasting", with all its trademark inferences, was the first one to catch on. Podcasting has little to do with Apple or the iPod. Apple has even been one of the latest and least cooperative parties to come to the whole game. They had to be repeatedly beaten over the head with the popular idea just to get some iTunes support, and their software and hardware is so closed and unextensible that Apple tend to be the last ones to implement podcasting features.
Of course, the whole podcasting movement was popularized, in a large part, by folks who were Apple/iPod fans, so there was more "Gee I wish Apple would..." talk and awkward hacks to use uncooperative hard/software than people looking around and evangelizing successful and sympathetic solutions. Granted, nobody really stepped up to the plate, either. Someone like iRiver could have gained big, especially with the fact that their players come with integrated recorders and easily-hacked firmware, if they would have taken the initiative to become the Podcaster's platform of choice.
Would you have to hand it over, or just have it destroyed? The number would increase wildly if I had to allow someone else to sift through all my past information.
As a person who works in R&D at a major Industrial Sex Machine factory, I can assure you you're correct on all three counts. I don't know how many lunch meetings and training seminars I've had to sit through on this very topic. ISM law is a unique and very sticky topic, where both State and National "legislated prudery" laws intersect with things like trade-secrets and IP law, and, of course, safety and liability.
Yeah, but look at the price of small Polaroid film for cameras. Basically, you'd just be putting the job (and the cost) of the photo processing setup into the job (and cost) of each piece of film/paper.
Although that could be an interesting homebrew project. I imagine the right person could make a simple Polaroid light-jet printer on their own.
(Oh, yeah, and I don't do anything remotely connected with lasers or photography, so I'm just talking out of my ass here. Such is Slashdot.)
You're in the UK aren't you? You're in a place where the people actually see the use of coins that are worth more than a few pence.
Here in America...they've tried several times to come out with a dollar coin, only to have it fail time and again. Even when they try to change the color of the dollar coin so it's not confused with a quarter, people still balk at it. People want their paper money here.
It still doesn't mean that you can't go to the bank and get your own rolls of dollar coins. Although two-dollar notes are a bit rarer, most every bank I've been in has plenty of dollar coins available, since there are places (mostly vending machines) that use or distribute SBAs and Sacs. As for getting them accepted, well, it's money and it's not something they can't make change for, so you'd be hard-pressed to find somewhere that turned you down.
I'm not sure about the underlying technology, but I know the latest Corel PhotoPaint (version 12) has a similar feature. I'm not sure if Photoshop has it, although I can't imagine it's far off if it's not there yet.
Most people aren't tired of the record companies. Most people who know and care are tired of the record companies, but a fair amount of others pay the whole debate no mind. Just think of all the things you don't know or care about.
Maybe the more online-savvy generations will have more interest in the more relevant issue of copyright... or maybe they won't. A lot of people don't run into the limits of things like RIAA and the law, and a lot of people who do just "download something off the Internet" to fix the problem without knowing or paying mind to the political and legal undertones involved.
It costs less not to develop the core than it does to develop the core. Those savings can be put toward lower price, upgraded value-added features, or upgraded marketing.
I don't recall what it was that I was reading, some book on the theory of Open Source, but a good point was made: It's not for everything. If the software's a driver (literally or figuratively) to the core portion of the business, than it's a good idea to OSS it. If unique software IS the core portion of the business, it's dumb to give away the competitive advantage.
It would be better if HBO released the TV shows with ads -- in a format that really forced people to watch the ads.
There's a company waiting to be made here, I'm certain. I'm suprised it's not here already. Put in ads and call-home (so the ad-sales department can get numbers), and dump it on the nets. Of course, everyone would have to get into a tizzy that their free content is "adware", "spyware", and "DRMed", and the same old crap would keep getting circulated.
Actually, the RIAA is an industry trade organization, not a label or a publisher.
But...
I can pretty much assure you that the labels and publishers don't go routinely locking promising bands in studios without their consent. This sort of thing generally involves a contract-- an agreement on both sides of the table, and caveat emptor all around.
Maybe I don't know enough musicians, but how are they blind and incapable of networking, talking, or even researching who's screwing who and how not to get owned? Right now, I can look online and get reviews on my choices for most any measely(sp?) little purchase or contract I might make. Hell, right now I'm sure I can look online and dig up countless (most derivative, albeit) tirades, in detail, of how musicians get screwed by unscrupulous labels. If a musician or group decides to sign on the dotted line, without consulting a lawyer, their peers, or their common sense, they've still made the contract. You weren't a party to that contract, and you have no right or authority to pretend to dictate the terms. Your choice is only to patronize or not patronize the end product. Perhaps you could lend your services as a legal concience to musicians in business deals.
At which point everyone boos and hisses at the plaintiff.
Granted, the laws and lawsuits are overkill by orders of magnitude and the laws do need to be changed, but it wouldn't be saddest by far when folks like the aforementioned got hit.
And you aren't the poster I was responding to. You're doing exactly the kind of thing that I would like to see more other anti-RIAA people doing: foregoing mainstream and actually giving it up.
The post I was responding to...
I don't care if it's [copyright infringement] "theft", piracy, or fucking murder anymore. Not one more cent is going into the pockets of the industry from me....had the tone that this person was going to be downloading regardless of the analogies the opposition might present.
Me? I get my fix from eMusic (although I'm not so anti-RIAA as a lot of folks, I'm pretty sure they carry all, if not mostly, non-RIAA music) and I couldn't be happier.
I think the problem we are having is a lot of people trying to implement the same functionality from different directions. Personally, I think the "proper" solution is...
Bull. This is in fact a very simple matter. The internet is now a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you like it or not, nations don't like it when a critical part of their infrastructure is controlled by a foreign government. The US wouldn't like and accept such a situation and other nations won't either, so the interesting question is not if this situation will change, but how it will change.
Then the country can create their own root server for services they wish to control. Get ISPs in the country to pick up that server, and there's no problem.
The problem is that there's no value without a transaction. If you can't sell copyright, it takes away a lot of the potential value.
Of course, people who don't realize, or fail to protect, that value may end up selling off too much of their valuable copyright when they get "starstruck" by a big corporate record deal, for instance. However, I don't believe it should be the purpose of law to protect people from their own bad judgement, or the purpose of copyright law to protect people from their inability to best monetize their personal creations.
Slashdot Mirror
Just wondering: did you have to write the XSL translator yourself, or are there already XSL functions built into Javascript? (I really need to get back into the JS/HTML game.)
Nah, Photoshop is one of the few things Adobe got right. Now, Illustrator, on the other hand... AI just seems to be playing "catch-up" with the features (both UI and functional) that other apps come out with.
And, if we're talking UI flops, don't forget Macromedia Flash. That program has given me more WTFs-per-hour than most anything else I've used. Of course I imagine a traditional illustrator could get a lot out of it, but I think they still, in a large part, fail to realize that a significant part of their market has shifted to web/UI design, and that they really need to make some more layout-designer-centric functionality.
What was the argument over, again?
Who should?
Although it might be more free, it would be unduly wasteful if the government were to support every file format ever developed, or even if they were to go without a declaration and have the snarls of interoperability problems. It's obvious they have to declare their use of something, and they did.
The problem is that the government has to make a choice. If they chose to stay with the Office line, your argument would apply just as well. From what I understand, their new choice might actually be a better strategy against this "lock-in", in that the OpenDocument format is much more... well... open.
I'm going to guess "companies that profit by giving ad-impression numbers achieved by hijacking browsers to show ads".
Ahh, yes, perhaps. Although, the OSS does have the advantage of not being dependent for life on commercial success. If iPodder takes a commercial dip, there'll still be a few people around to use or maintain it.
The answer lies somewhere between the crapfest that was MP3.com and the crapfeed that is popular radio.
For me, the answer is in the sub-popular labels. Once you get beyond the BMGs and Warners, labels often have a distinctive style, and can act as an advocate or a guide to helping you find good music.
Me? I put stock in names like Emperor Norton, the defunct Grass label, Eighteenth Street Lounge, Polyvinyl Record Co., and City Slang (a distributor, actually, but they have good taste). There are a few that are larger, with more styles, but still have good taste: Matador, Touch and Go, and some more I can't recall.
The iPod is irrelevant. This is a program that automatically downloads new podcasts to your computer, and can do things like adding them to your iTunes library.
Unfortunately, the term "Podcasting", with all its trademark inferences, was the first one to catch on. Podcasting has little to do with Apple or the iPod. Apple has even been one of the latest and least cooperative parties to come to the whole game. They had to be repeatedly beaten over the head with the popular idea just to get some iTunes support, and their software and hardware is so closed and unextensible that Apple tend to be the last ones to implement podcasting features.
Of course, the whole podcasting movement was popularized, in a large part, by folks who were Apple/iPod fans, so there was more "Gee I wish Apple would..." talk and awkward hacks to use uncooperative hard/software than people looking around and evangelizing successful and sympathetic solutions. Granted, nobody really stepped up to the plate, either. Someone like iRiver could have gained big, especially with the fact that their players come with integrated recorders and easily-hacked firmware, if they would have taken the initiative to become the Podcaster's platform of choice.
Oh, nothing really. It was intended as humor. T'was about the best thing I could think of to link the three dangers.
Would you have to hand it over, or just have it destroyed? The number would increase wildly if I had to allow someone else to sift through all my past information.
As a person who works in R&D at a major Industrial Sex Machine factory, I can assure you you're correct on all three counts. I don't know how many lunch meetings and training seminars I've had to sit through on this very topic. ISM law is a unique and very sticky topic, where both State and National "legislated prudery" laws intersect with things like trade-secrets and IP law, and, of course, safety and liability.
Yeah, but look at the price of small Polaroid film for cameras. Basically, you'd just be putting the job (and the cost) of the photo processing setup into the job (and cost) of each piece of film/paper.
Although that could be an interesting homebrew project. I imagine the right person could make a simple Polaroid light-jet printer on their own.
(Oh, yeah, and I don't do anything remotely connected with lasers or photography, so I'm just talking out of my ass here. Such is Slashdot.)
You're in the UK aren't you? You're in a place where the people actually see the use of coins that are worth more than a few pence.
Here in America...they've tried several times to come out with a dollar coin, only to have it fail time and again. Even when they try to change the color of the dollar coin so it's not confused with a quarter, people still balk at it. People want their paper money here.
It still doesn't mean that you can't go to the bank and get your own rolls of dollar coins. Although two-dollar notes are a bit rarer, most every bank I've been in has plenty of dollar coins available, since there are places (mostly vending machines) that use or distribute SBAs and Sacs. As for getting them accepted, well, it's money and it's not something they can't make change for, so you'd be hard-pressed to find somewhere that turned you down.
I'm not sure about the underlying technology, but I know the latest Corel PhotoPaint (version 12) has a similar feature. I'm not sure if Photoshop has it, although I can't imagine it's far off if it's not there yet.
Most people aren't tired of the record companies. Most people who know and care are tired of the record companies, but a fair amount of others pay the whole debate no mind. Just think of all the things you don't know or care about.
Maybe the more online-savvy generations will have more interest in the more relevant issue of copyright... or maybe they won't. A lot of people don't run into the limits of things like RIAA and the law, and a lot of people who do just "download something off the Internet" to fix the problem without knowing or paying mind to the political and legal undertones involved.
It costs less not to develop the core than it does to develop the core. Those savings can be put toward lower price, upgraded value-added features, or upgraded marketing.
I don't recall what it was that I was reading, some book on the theory of Open Source, but a good point was made: It's not for everything. If the software's a driver (literally or figuratively) to the core portion of the business, than it's a good idea to OSS it. If unique software IS the core portion of the business, it's dumb to give away the competitive advantage.
Yeah, but then the thousand-and-first nutjob overwrites.
It would be better if HBO released the TV shows with ads -- in a format that really forced people to watch the ads.
There's a company waiting to be made here, I'm certain. I'm suprised it's not here already. Put in ads and call-home (so the ad-sales department can get numbers), and dump it on the nets. Of course, everyone would have to get into a tizzy that their free content is "adware", "spyware", and "DRMed", and the same old crap would keep getting circulated.
You're an exception, or probably an exception in their eyes. And, yes, you have to look at "their right" even if you don't like it.
Actually, the RIAA is an industry trade organization, not a label or a publisher.
But...
I can pretty much assure you that the labels and publishers don't go routinely locking promising bands in studios without their consent. This sort of thing generally involves a contract-- an agreement on both sides of the table, and caveat emptor all around.
Maybe I don't know enough musicians, but how are they blind and incapable of networking, talking, or even researching who's screwing who and how not to get owned? Right now, I can look online and get reviews on my choices for most any measely(sp?) little purchase or contract I might make. Hell, right now I'm sure I can look online and dig up countless (most derivative, albeit) tirades, in detail, of how musicians get screwed by unscrupulous labels. If a musician or group decides to sign on the dotted line, without consulting a lawyer, their peers, or their common sense, they've still made the contract. You weren't a party to that contract, and you have no right or authority to pretend to dictate the terms. Your choice is only to patronize or not patronize the end product. Perhaps you could lend your services as a legal concience to musicians in business deals.
At which point everyone boos and hisses at the plaintiff.
Granted, the laws and lawsuits are overkill by orders of magnitude and the laws do need to be changed, but it wouldn't be saddest by far when folks like the aforementioned got hit.
And you aren't the poster I was responding to. You're doing exactly the kind of thing that I would like to see more other anti-RIAA people doing: foregoing mainstream and actually giving it up.
...had the tone that this person was going to be downloading regardless of the analogies the opposition might present.
The post I was responding to...
I don't care if it's [copyright infringement] "theft", piracy, or fucking murder anymore.
Not one more cent is going into the pockets of the industry from me.
Me? I get my fix from eMusic (although I'm not so anti-RIAA as a lot of folks, I'm pretty sure they carry all, if not mostly, non-RIAA music) and I couldn't be happier.
I think the problem we are having is a lot of people trying to implement the same functionality from different directions. Personally, I think the "proper" solution is...
Yep.
Bull. This is in fact a very simple matter. The internet is now a key part of the infrastructure of many countries and no matter if you like it or not, nations don't like it when a critical part of their infrastructure is controlled by a foreign government. The US wouldn't like and accept such a situation and other nations won't either, so the interesting question is not if this situation will change, but how it will change.
Then the country can create their own root server for services they wish to control. Get ISPs in the country to pick up that server, and there's no problem.
The problem is that there's no value without a transaction. If you can't sell copyright, it takes away a lot of the potential value.
Of course, people who don't realize, or fail to protect, that value may end up selling off too much of their valuable copyright when they get "starstruck" by a big corporate record deal, for instance. However, I don't believe it should be the purpose of law to protect people from their own bad judgement, or the purpose of copyright law to protect people from their inability to best monetize their personal creations.