act in its own best interests to reach its stated goal of making money when people actively choose to get information from them or remain willfully ignorant of alternative sources? So, it's Microsoft's fault that people are stupid and easily leveraged for cash flow? Christ man... if you're going to bash Microsoft for being the Evil Empire go ahead, but at least pick one of the 82 million things that they actually ought to be blamed for.
Your mindset seems to be that if something is legal then it's beyond reproach. I don't agree. There should be ongoing evaluations of how well the public good is being served by corporations, and when legalities have given way to corruption.
as much as you hate your lousy IT job, there are 10 other people who would fill it given the chance
That can't be true of everyone in IT, or even nearly everyone in IT, as it would suggest an unemployment rate in the 90%+ range. Not trying to be pedantic, but I don't want people to feel less empowered as a group than they are.
Yes, it stinks that some people used to do this without problems, and now they're not so lucky. But the bottom line is that nobody should ever have used a Mac iPod on a PC in the first place.
If I understand correctly then there's a "Mac ipod" and a "Windows ipod"? I've browsed the apple store and certainly not had this distinction leap out at me. If Apple is relying on people reading this fine print in order to avoid buying "the wrong kind" of ipod, I'd say that it's Apple responsibility to do far better than that. I hope my understanding is inaccurate, but if not then it's just like a car dealer forcing car buyers to read fine print to see if the car includes the "reverse" gear, something they'll probably not catch otherwise.
Exactly. This headline is way over-sensational. And in particular, the article eventually gets around to mentioning:
Only unencrypted MP3 files are easily captured and copied using the MyTunes software, however. Songs purchased from Apple's iTunes store, which are protected by the company's proprietary digital rights management technology, do not work with Zeller's software.
What would have been news would be if someone had figured out how to make unencrypted mp3s from iTunes music without the round trip to a burned CD.
Exactly which government do you imagine has the money to implement a scheme which places covert RFID scanners outside people's houses?
The answer depends in large part on precisely how much it would cost to manufacture scanners, and how many end up getting distributed. If a cheap, battery or solar powered standalone unit of small dimensions becomes possible, then it could be financially feasible for a government to place them at various chosen locations. A given government might decide it's only interested in 1% of its population, or one tenth of 1%. I don't know how much spare money the governments of Opec nations have lying around, but it's a poignant region to theorize about in this regard.
Exactly how do you imagine that said government will manage to place covert RFID scanners outside the houses of the general populace without people learning of this and revolting?
Some governments can rely on their grip on people. The people under the Taliban or Saddam didn't revolt, yet I think they endured greater indignities and pains than being tracked. And for the part of the people in the US, they didn't revolt when the DMCA was passed, or when the "patriot" act was passed, or when the "war on drugs" was initiated, or prostitution illegalized. Prohibition was repealed because it gave rise to organized crime, not because the people rose up and cast it off.
Aside from this paranoia, if you're so worried about what the RFID tag's going to do to your privacy, why wouldn't you just remove it right outside the store after your purchase?
As of a year ago, the technology had already reached the point where rfid tags were smaller than a grain of sand. A consumer may be completely unaware of the tag. Even if they are aware, they may be unable to find it. If they can find it, they may not be equipped to remove or disable it.
The article didn't even supply a picture. If they want the public to help them find this thing then they'd better start pumping out those "have you seen me?" ads on milk cartons. Otherwise, common folks everywhere won't know to report it when they see a seemingly ordinary helicopter next to a dumpster behind their favorite restaurant, or with the lions in their cage at the zoo, or in their teenager's room.
I'm under the impression that my point didn't get across. The post to which I responded asserted that rfid tags will not reveal any more information on a person than a credit card:
If "Big Brother" cared enough about you to track you, they would bring up your credit/debit card purchases and find everything about you that an RFID tag would tell them.
My response was that for a privacy-conscious consumer who makes it a point to rarely if ever use a credit card, rfid tags provide a wealth of information that cash never would, against the will or choice of the consumer. If I pay cash for rfid tagged clothes, then walk past a covertly placed scanner outside my house, then the folks collecting data know that the purchaser of clothing #455356 went into 100 Main Street; all they need do is look up the resident. Alternate method: if I do ever pay with a credit card for tagged clothes, then wear those clothes to another store and pay cash, an overarching system still has enough information to match the second purchase to my id: person ID'd by credit card #xyz paid for clothes #abc, then person wearing clothes #abc bought clothes #def, it's simple logic.
If this kind of thinking comes across as paranoid then by all means make the arguments about how the government (or whoever) would never do such a thing etc. But my point is that rfid tags take these data collecting decisions out of the hands of the consumer.
If "Big Brother" cared enough about you to track you, they would bring up your credit/debit card purchases and find everything about you that an RFID tag would tell them.
Really? What about the clothes I always pay cash for? What about the hooker I always pay cash for? What about the fact that after buying groceries I went to the gym, then strolled down main street? These things are NOT on my credit card bill, yet are discernable via RFID technology. What you're missing is that with a credit card, I can make a conscious and informed choice about when to use it. Not so with RFID tags.
I should come clean: my post was intended as *very* tongue-in-cheek. And without getting specific about the points you raise, I like (and agree with) where I think they lead as a line of inquiry. It's a tricky question, that of at what point a person may be unduly promoting something that they at least initially were objective about. To rephrase the spirit of my initial post more plainly, I'd probably write that there are good reasons for people to like things (linux included) and I didn't feel that the parent post had done a sufficient job of differentiating between structured criticism vs abject advocacy bashing.
I love the biased nature of the summary.
As if Linux people don't "hype" things against Windows, either.
It's great, isn't it. What I love is watching people talk about *anything* they believe in. They're always biased in favor of the stuff they believe in, arguing in its favor and presenting it in a good light. It's horribly un-objective.
Why is that quote hilarious? Isn't that what we've been saying here all along?
Consider this analogy. Many people have wanted George Bush to stay out of Iraq. If tomorrow GWB anounces that a new government has been appointed so it can go about rebuilding Iraq, and GWB says "it's called leaving Iraq alone and minding our own business", the irony will not be lost on everyone, not even those who wanted GWB to never go to Iraq in the first place.
Why anyone feels sorry for someone who knowingly and willingly breaks the law so that they can save themselves from buying a $15 CD (face it, 95% of the people downloading are doing it for selfish reasons) is beyond me.
Some people download, others share. When the downloaded or shared material are copyrighted then both are violations of the law, but it's difficult to argue that the sharers are doing so for selfish reasons. As for the downloaders, you make it sound like $15 is all that's at stake; but in terms of money it's $15 times the number of albums downloaded which can be quite a lot, and in terms of worldview there are those who believe either that copyright laws shouldn't exist or that they have excessive human cost excused in the name of their enforcement. This is why people break the law and why others sympathize with them. Why did Rosa Parks rebel over a piddly bus seat? Why would anyone sympathize with her selfishness?
Okay, I found the first usage a little hokey but as a literary device to incite interest, I excused it. Page 1:
When 3dfx released their first card in October of 1996, it hit the computer world like a right cross to the face.
Then 50% through the not terribly long article, on page 3:
In October of 1999, NVIDIA dealt the final blow to 3dfx with the introduction of the Geforce 256. As 3dfx didn't have anything to immediately combat the new card with, they took the blow right to the face.
At least make the second one be "to the nuts", or *something* different. People are free to write whatever they like, but repetition is boring.
I'd say it sounds quite wasteful, even if the phone is recyclable.. (how many will recycle it?)
Unknown, but one things for sure: if you live in a community where low-income people trash-can dive for 5-cent soda cans, they will make damned sure they dive for these things.
My theory is that movies with colons in the title are bad. Its like the studio knows the movie is crap but hopes that one part of the title or the other might attract some paying customers.
I have a similar distaste for parentheses in song titles. Like "(Don't Fear) The Reaper", or "Hey Girl (I Love You)", etc. Some good songs have parens, but the parens always bother me anyway. It says to me that the music industry had to try and parlay greater title recognition into more impulse buys, rather than letting titles be shorter and more poetic.
Black Bart (holding gun to his own head): Nobody move! Nobody move or the nigger gets it! Woman onlooker: Somebody help that poor man! (Bart drags himself behind a building and out of view of the mob) Bart (to self): Oh baby, you are so *talented*.
Whenever a company does something so anti-consumer that I vow not to buy from them (like this case), I sometimes have trouble months later remembering whether a company is on my mental list because it's in the "good" category or the "bad" one. Here's my easy way to remember Belkin: the company is now Bilkin' its stockholders out of any further returns.
... but now an aspiring artist can choose to make a deal with someone other than the RIAA. Like Apple. Apple may not be cutting these deals yet, but I doubt they've contractually given up the possibility. And if 2/3 of current revenues go to the RIAA, there's incentive there for Apple to make itself more than the middleman.
A CD is not lossless. Because it is a digital format it cannot reproduce some audio. Go with vinyl.
This has been covered ad nauseum elsewhere, but here it is again: cd's absolutely blow away vinyl in every aspect of sound reproduction. True, there are audible differences between a cd and vinyl, and true, some people prefer the sound of vinyl... but what such people are appreciating is the sound that comes from music that was heavily frequency filtered for mastering on a medium which has a response curve that would make a chiropractor cringe, then retransformed at playback time to try to compensate for errors introduced at mastering. The cd has no pops and clicks, and has a dynamic range that vinyl can't even begin to approach. If the playback from a vinyl record was digitized to cd, the playback of that cd would sound identical to the vinyl record, but believe me the converse it not true. If you appreciate the processed and rewarmed sound of vinyl, then fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But don't pretend that it's high fidelity.
millions of people have deleted all the music files from their computers
Don't know how they can support that claim (notable that no credible support is offered), but in other news, the number of live users of Kazaa as displayed by that software remains smack dab where it was four months ago, just over 4 million at a given time.
Slashdot Mirror
Your mindset seems to be that if something is legal then it's beyond reproach. I don't agree. There should be ongoing evaluations of how well the public good is being served by corporations, and when legalities have given way to corruption.
That can't be true of everyone in IT, or even nearly everyone in IT, as it would suggest an unemployment rate in the 90%+ range. Not trying to be pedantic, but I don't want people to feel less empowered as a group than they are.
If I understand correctly then there's a "Mac ipod" and a "Windows ipod"? I've browsed the apple store and certainly not had this distinction leap out at me. If Apple is relying on people reading this fine print in order to avoid buying "the wrong kind" of ipod, I'd say that it's Apple responsibility to do far better than that. I hope my understanding is inaccurate, but if not then it's just like a car dealer forcing car buyers to read fine print to see if the car includes the "reverse" gear, something they'll probably not catch otherwise.
The answer depends in large part on precisely how much it would cost to manufacture scanners, and how many end up getting distributed. If a cheap, battery or solar powered standalone unit of small dimensions becomes possible, then it could be financially feasible for a government to place them at various chosen locations. A given government might decide it's only interested in 1% of its population, or one tenth of 1%. I don't know how much spare money the governments of Opec nations have lying around, but it's a poignant region to theorize about in this regard.
Exactly how do you imagine that said government will manage to place covert RFID scanners outside the houses of the general populace without people learning of this and revolting?
Some governments can rely on their grip on people. The people under the Taliban or Saddam didn't revolt, yet I think they endured greater indignities and pains than being tracked. And for the part of the people in the US, they didn't revolt when the DMCA was passed, or when the "patriot" act was passed, or when the "war on drugs" was initiated, or prostitution illegalized. Prohibition was repealed because it gave rise to organized crime, not because the people rose up and cast it off.
Aside from this paranoia, if you're so worried about what the RFID tag's going to do to your privacy, why wouldn't you just remove it right outside the store after your purchase?
As of a year ago, the technology had already reached the point where rfid tags were smaller than a grain of sand. A consumer may be completely unaware of the tag. Even if they are aware, they may be unable to find it. If they can find it, they may not be equipped to remove or disable it.
The article didn't even supply a picture. If they want the public to help them find this thing then they'd better start pumping out those "have you seen me?" ads on milk cartons. Otherwise, common folks everywhere won't know to report it when they see a seemingly ordinary helicopter next to a dumpster behind their favorite restaurant, or with the lions in their cage at the zoo, or in their teenager's room.
If this kind of thinking comes across as paranoid then by all means make the arguments about how the government (or whoever) would never do such a thing etc. But my point is that rfid tags take these data collecting decisions out of the hands of the consumer.
Really? What about the clothes I always pay cash for? What about the hooker I always pay cash for? What about the fact that after buying groceries I went to the gym, then strolled down main street? These things are NOT on my credit card bill, yet are discernable via RFID technology. What you're missing is that with a credit card, I can make a conscious and informed choice about when to use it. Not so with RFID tags.
I should come clean: my post was intended as *very* tongue-in-cheek. And without getting specific about the points you raise, I like (and agree with) where I think they lead as a line of inquiry. It's a tricky question, that of at what point a person may be unduly promoting something that they at least initially were objective about. To rephrase the spirit of my initial post more plainly, I'd probably write that there are good reasons for people to like things (linux included) and I didn't feel that the parent post had done a sufficient job of differentiating between structured criticism vs abject advocacy bashing.
It's great, isn't it. What I love is watching people talk about *anything* they believe in. They're always biased in favor of the stuff they believe in, arguing in its favor and presenting it in a good light. It's horribly un-objective.
Consider this analogy. Many people have wanted George Bush to stay out of Iraq. If tomorrow GWB anounces that a new government has been appointed so it can go about rebuilding Iraq, and GWB says "it's called leaving Iraq alone and minding our own business", the irony will not be lost on everyone, not even those who wanted GWB to never go to Iraq in the first place.
Some people download, others share. When the downloaded or shared material are copyrighted then both are violations of the law, but it's difficult to argue that the sharers are doing so for selfish reasons. As for the downloaders, you make it sound like $15 is all that's at stake; but in terms of money it's $15 times the number of albums downloaded which can be quite a lot, and in terms of worldview there are those who believe either that copyright laws shouldn't exist or that they have excessive human cost excused in the name of their enforcement. This is why people break the law and why others sympathize with them. Why did Rosa Parks rebel over a piddly bus seat? Why would anyone sympathize with her selfishness?
(reply to own post) Looks like they do include a jack as an integral part of the design. No speakers or mics on the main unit.
I truly hope they include a headphone jack.
Unknown, but one things for sure: if you live in a community where low-income people trash-can dive for 5-cent soda cans, they will make damned sure they dive for these things.
The site seems to be slashdotted, can someone post the hex translation here on slashdot? ;)
I have a similar distaste for parentheses in song titles. Like "(Don't Fear) The Reaper", or "Hey Girl (I Love You)", etc. Some good songs have parens, but the parens always bother me anyway. It says to me that the music industry had to try and parlay greater title recognition into more impulse buys, rather than letting titles be shorter and more poetic.
Black Bart (holding gun to his own head): Nobody move! Nobody move or the nigger gets it!
Woman onlooker: Somebody help that poor man!
(Bart drags himself behind a building and out of view of the mob)
Bart (to self): Oh baby, you are so *talented*.
Whenever a company does something so anti-consumer that I vow not to buy from them (like this case), I sometimes have trouble months later remembering whether a company is on my mental list because it's in the "good" category or the "bad" one. Here's my easy way to remember Belkin: the company is now Bilkin' its stockholders out of any further returns.
Not that I disagree, but I hope the irony wasn't lost on anyone that ipods are often used to play quality music that was downloaded for free.
... but now an aspiring artist can choose to make a deal with someone other than the RIAA. Like Apple. Apple may not be cutting these deals yet, but I doubt they've contractually given up the possibility. And if 2/3 of current revenues go to the RIAA, there's incentive there for Apple to make itself more than the middleman.
This has been covered ad nauseum elsewhere, but here it is again: cd's absolutely blow away vinyl in every aspect of sound reproduction. True, there are audible differences between a cd and vinyl, and true, some people prefer the sound of vinyl... but what such people are appreciating is the sound that comes from music that was heavily frequency filtered for mastering on a medium which has a response curve that would make a chiropractor cringe, then retransformed at playback time to try to compensate for errors introduced at mastering. The cd has no pops and clicks, and has a dynamic range that vinyl can't even begin to approach. If the playback from a vinyl record was digitized to cd, the playback of that cd would sound identical to the vinyl record, but believe me the converse it not true. If you appreciate the processed and rewarmed sound of vinyl, then fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But don't pretend that it's high fidelity.
Don't know how they can support that claim (notable that no credible support is offered), but in other news, the number of live users of Kazaa as displayed by that software remains smack dab where it was four months ago, just over 4 million at a given time.