The point was that the author of the article implied that music tracks/downloads are now free. My question was, "Where is all this FREE music (not DRM Free-but free, as in beer). I tried to ward off some obvious responses by stating that yes, I know that some stores (like iTunes) do give away "free as in beer" music (at least one single a week and during the Christmas season they were also giving away a free holiday song as well). I never said that iTunes = no DRM. In fact, I'll bet that the tracks I downloaded for free are still probably DRM enabled. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
From TFA: "Giving up control of content and giving it away free "
Uh...who is giving away free music? Ok, iTunes has some free tracks every week and I am sure there are others but here is the point: Removing DRM != Giving Away Music For Free.
More from TFA: "So now it's a good idea to give away music in the hope that people will think you're so cool that they'll pay anyway." Sometimes that works. Again, not many people are doing that. The argument is against DRM.
From TFA: " Sure, we could copy some pages out of a book at the library's photocopy machine, and some people created mix tapes from their favorite albums, and others got in the habit of recording movies from TV to VHS. These were not rampant problems, and no one panicked."
Uh...actually, there was panic. From Wikipedia:
"In the early 1980s, the film companies in the USA fought to suppress the device in the consumer market, citing concerns about copyright violations. In the case Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the device was allowable for private use, thereby guaranteeing market acceptance. In the years following, the film companies found that videorecordings of their products had become a major income source. However, television networks found the widespread use of this device was threatening their advertising business model because viewers then have the ability to either fast forward through television commercials, or pause recording when they are broadcast." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCR
Again, TFA: "The music industry's moves have been terrified reactions to staunch the bleeding of millions of dollars in revenue down the drain." So? What caused the drop in revenue? Crappy product maybe? I dunno. Sounds to me like the industry is already crumbling and it has NOTHING to do with them "giving it away for free".
TFA: "For maybe a year, music companies thought they had the situation under control, but then album sales tumbled. Retailers, musicians, and some music-industry execs thought DRM was the culprit, and they soon joined the chorus of consumers calling for its head. " And what has been the result? We don't know yet. I think it is a good thing. I would rather pay a reasonable price for a single song than be forced to pay an outrageous price for an entire album. "Everyone" likes that. Why does he think iTunes has been such a hit?
Get a clue, Lance.
He projects the end of the music industry and blames it on DRM-free tracks. Sorry, the end of the music industry started well before DRM-Free music.
A mathematical--but controversial--idea for fixing the flaws in voting. Dec 17, 2007 | Updated: 5:57 p.m. ET Dec 17, 2007
In the history of U.S. elections, the fall of 2000 is notorious for the debacle that occurred in the country's attempt to elect a president that year. But if a compelling new book is to be heeded, an even more significant election development occurred in the month before America went to the polls that November: the launching of the "Hot or Not" Web site.
"So, yes, on that dedcution, Dr Watson, I would say that if the stock is struggling then the company itself is struggling." If the stock is low, it could just be undervalued. Conversely, if the stock is worth a lot of money, then the company must be doing swimmingly and what on Earth could go wrong? Hmmm...let me think...Oh yeah. The dot-com bust of 2001. Those stocks were over-valued. The value of the stock is not a sure-fire indicator of the health of a company. It is only an indicator of the demand for the stock, which is a good indication of peoples confidence in the company. A stock can plummet one day because they didn't get a patent approved or they posted a quarterly loss. Stock price is merely a measure of demand-not solvency.
"Or am I missing something in the obviously God-like charisma of Steve Jobs that causes share prices to fall while his company makes record profits?" How do explain Microsoft's drop in stock price? I think the stock was simply over-valued. Now it isn't. Is there anything THAT different about Microsoft now than when their stock price was closer to $80 a share?
When will you admit that your comment had incorrect and misleading information in it? Apple was not insolvent or about to be insolvent. If you think everyone else is wrong, post your source.
"I'm not supposed to believe an article from a fairly respectable technology news site"
I didn't say don't believe it, just comprehend it. Just because a stock is "struggling" doesn't mean the company is. You extrapolated that little bit yourself.
You said, "... don't forget that MS pumped in a whole heap of money into Apple at one point to basically keep them solvent."...which is simply wrong. They DIDN'T do that to keep them solvent. Again, you are reaching conclusions not supported by facts. You appear to be relying on one article and drawing many inaccurate conclusions.
"but I am expected to believe the religious spoutings of some fervent, frothing-at-the-mouth Apple acolyte"
Uh...you can check Microsoft's stock price yourself-I didn't make it up. It's called "the internet". Try it out sometime. If you can't figure out how to do that, go by a newspaper.
PC World reputable? Sure, fine. I can't find any example that disputes that-but just because a magazine or newspaper has a history of being reputable, doesn't meant that the people they hire to write their stories are honest. Plus, you can't always depend on the editors to be able to check all the facts-that's the reporters job. Seriously, if you believe everything you read, you must be a REALLY confused person-because different authors will slant stories differently. Some are completely unbiased and write pure, good, well-balanced articles. But come on! Where have you been?
Here is an article that was published on December 7th, 2007 in the New York Times (a reputable publication)
Jack Kelley, a star foreign correspondent at USA Today before he resigned earlier this year, appears to have fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major articles in the last 10 years, including one that earned him a finalist nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in 2002, the newspaper reported yesterday.
Oh wait! Did I say that the NYT was a reputable publication? I better check my facts!
Jayson Blair, the former New York Times reporter who was found last year to have fabricated or plagiarized portions of more than three dozen articles, admits many of his deceptions in a forthcoming memoir but writes that they were fueled by ambition, cocaine and alcohol abuse and an undiagnosed condition of manic depression.
These took about 10 seconds to find. There are more. Sure you want to believe everything you read?
Just because the an article says something doesn't mean it's true. Besides, the adjective was amplifying "stock" not Apple Computer. As many people have mentioned previously, Apple had BILLIONS in the bank. By your logic, Microsoft is now "struggling". Their 52-week high for their stock is only $37.50! OH NO! Microsoft is struggling! Oh my! Somebody better bail them out! Heavens! Lordy! Lordy! Microsoft is going out of business!
Get a clue, Troll.
Well, duh (But at least now we proved it)
on
Can Time Slow Down?
·
· Score: 1
This seemed so obvious as to not be worth the effort to test it, but many times (insert citation here-I'm too busy trying to look busy to look it up) scientists have studied many of these types of "things that are so obvious it isn't worth the time and expense to test" experiments only to be quite surprised when the results show something quite different from what was expected. So yeah, pretty obvious this time but what if it the results had been different? oooh! (cue spooky music)
"Instead of testing individual theories by leaving stakes sitting around, how about getting a definite answer by leaving a webcam?"
THANK YOU! Oh my god! And these are actually "scientists" studying these things? Sure, maybe hooking up to the internet is a little dicey in Death Valley, but there are other ways. They need some college kid hyped up on caffeine to wire together a solar-powered, weather proof DVR and finally solve this mystery. I mean, come on! How long have we known about these tracks? Decades?
Sorry, I tend to get a little touchy when there is a mystery and 1) the experiment that could solve it is REALLY simple and 2) The mystery has been around for years. I think it would make a good thesis...no, I think it would make a decent term paper for some high-school senior interested in Geology.
FTFA: "How could this email possibly have been sent?" an Israeli diplomat told the Jerusalem Post. "These journalists have sparked a major incident."
Get real. If you are so shallow and thin skinned as to take offense at what is obviously a mistake in translation then you really need to re-think your career choice. "Diplomat"? How about "ass-hat". As for the journalists who were too lazy to get a proper translation (or at least to include the English text of the email), you need to Grok the phrases, "attention to detail" and "due diligence". I recommend my new book that will be hitting the store shelves soon: "How not to look like a total ass-clown in written correspondence".
Ok, wait a minute-I read a lot of comments here that are slamming the press for this tactic because they tried to gather "information" for a story using techniques that are forbidden by the Press/Media agreement that journalists are supposed to sign before gaining access to DefCon.
So what if I wanted to bring in a hidden camera? I am not a member of any news organization. Would there be a similar outcry if I brought in a hidden camera and became taping the events and conversations that were occurring? Is there a similar set of rules that non-journalists must sign when they buy their tickets to DefCon? Would it make a difference if I put the video on YouTube, kept it for my own personal video library or turned it over to a news agency for free or for money?
Everyone here (every comment I have read so far-which is only about 9 or 10) cries out against the evil journalist! How unethical she/they are! The end of democracy is on the horizon! Repent now! Is she really that evil? Really that un-ethical? If journalists let their actions be stymied by every sign, agreement or verbal contract to NOT bring cameras in to places where things are occurring that should not be occurring, we wouldn't capture some crooks or help to end "bad things" that are happening to good people. I believe it's called, "investigative journalism".
Wait! I don't mean that DefCon is one of those places where nefarious things goes on or where "bad things" happen to "good people" and Evil Bosses turn children into mortar for their Slum Lord cousins. I admit that comparing infiltrating DefCon and hiding a camera to catch a crook or reveal a wrong being committed is not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison.
Actually, I have to back track a little-if a journalist agrees to not bring in a camera during an interview or agrees that something is "off the record", then they absolutely should not bring in a camera and should not print or report on what was "off the record". If they do, then they should be drawn and quartered (Connie Chung). But this is different: if a journalist "gives their word" to do something or not to do something and then does the opposite, then yes, they are unethical and slimy and I will be the first one to call them a slimy retard and promptly begin sharpening my..uh... quartering pen. Pencil. My...you know-so we can draw and quarter them.
However, in this case, the only thing the journalist did was to avoid signing an agreement that people in her profession were supposed to sign before gaining entrance to DefCon. Personally, I think that is "moderately slimy" because she purposely avoided agreeing to restrictions that the organizers of DefCon put in place for journalists and that she was WELL AWARE of.
What if she just wanted to go and see the event? You know, just as herself-no camera, no agenda to write a story-but she just wanted to go see it. Should she have been required to sign the Press agreement? (I say no).
Just food for thought and some opinion. Let the flames begin.
"1. "many" European states. The UK is "one" European state."
Uh, yeah, I know. I didn't say your facts were wrong, just that GB has chosen to use Windows 2000. GB is one of the European states, hence the comment was relevant (at least I thought so).
"Practically speaking, the UK armed forces purchase many of the same components and systems as the US armed forces do."
Not aware of too many military systems being windows based. In fact, I only know of one and it is used in the Naval Coastal Warfare community and that was, uh, sort of recent. We first saw it "upgraded" from a Unix base OS to Windows 2000 in 2002 or 2003. All other systems that I am familiar with in the Navy (no Army, Marine or Air Force experience) are not based on a Windows OS. I have been out of the active duty side of the Navy since 2000 (not counting a recall to active duty since then in late 2001) so I am not as up to speed on what the new US ships are going to be running. I really hope they aren't going to Windows based apps also.
Of course, my knowledge of computer systems employed on board Navy warships is limited to my experiences and training as an Operations Specialist (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjob1/a/os. htm) and being Surface Warfare Specialist qualified. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Warfare_Badge and check out the "Enlisted Specialist" section for more information. And, as I mentioned, I am not up to speed on what the U.S. Navy is planning for new ships being built.
Slashdot Mirror
Haskell? Eddie Haskell? Wow! Braver programmer than I! That guy scares me.
;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Haskell
I've been saying this for years!
Darn. Should have patented it.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for the difference between free as in beer vs free as in speech if you're curious.
The point was that the author of the article implied that music tracks/downloads are now free. My question was, "Where is all this FREE music (not DRM Free-but free, as in beer). I tried to ward off some obvious responses by stating that yes, I know that some stores (like iTunes) do give away "free as in beer" music (at least one single a week and during the Christmas season they were also giving away a free holiday song as well). I never said that iTunes = no DRM. In fact, I'll bet that the tracks I downloaded for free are still probably DRM enabled. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
From TFA: "Giving up control of content and giving it away free "
Uh...who is giving away free music? Ok, iTunes has some free tracks every week and I am sure there are others but here is the point:
Removing DRM != Giving Away Music For Free.
More from TFA: "So now it's a good idea to give away music in the hope that people will think you're so cool that they'll pay anyway."
Sometimes that works. Again, not many people are doing that. The argument is against DRM.
From TFA: " Sure, we could copy some pages out of a book at the library's photocopy machine, and some people created mix tapes from their favorite albums, and others got in the habit of recording movies from TV to VHS. These were not rampant problems, and no one panicked."
Uh...actually, there was panic. From Wikipedia:
"In the early 1980s, the film companies in the USA fought to suppress the device in the consumer market, citing concerns about copyright violations. In the case Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the device was allowable for private use, thereby guaranteeing market acceptance. In the years following, the film companies found that videorecordings of their products had become a major income source. However, television networks found the widespread use of this device was threatening their advertising business model because viewers then have the ability to either fast forward through television commercials, or pause recording when they are broadcast." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCR
Again, TFA: "The music industry's moves have been terrified reactions to staunch the bleeding of millions of dollars in revenue down the drain." So? What caused the drop in revenue? Crappy product maybe? I dunno. Sounds to me like the industry is already crumbling and it has NOTHING to do with them "giving it away for free".
TFA: "For maybe a year, music companies thought they had the situation under control, but then album sales tumbled. Retailers, musicians, and some music-industry execs thought DRM was the culprit, and they soon joined the chorus of consumers calling for its head. " And what has been the result? We don't know yet. I think it is a good thing. I would rather pay a reasonable price for a single song than be forced to pay an outrageous price for an entire album. "Everyone" likes that. Why does he think iTunes has been such a hit?
Get a clue, Lance.
He projects the end of the music industry and blames it on DRM-free tracks. Sorry, the end of the music industry started well before DRM-Free music.
I welcome our new Second Foundation overlords!
Hey! Get that Mule out of here!
How about this way...
The 'Hot or Not' Solution
A mathematical--but controversial--idea for fixing the flaws in voting.
Dec 17, 2007 | Updated: 5:57 p.m. ET Dec 17, 2007
In the history of U.S. elections, the fall of 2000 is notorious for the debacle that occurred in the country's attempt to elect a president that year. But if a compelling new book is to be heeded, an even more significant election development occurred in the month before America went to the polls that November: the launching of the "Hot or Not" Web site.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/78467
In Canada, the ballots are so fast, they count you!
Me too. He kept eating all my quarters and then swearing at me.
"Four Qubits should be enough for anyone."
"Seven! It does seven maths!"
You forgot the maniacal laughter ala "The Count" on Sesame Street.
Q: What kind of room is it kept it?
A: A Qubicle
Q: How big is it?
A: About four Qubit meters.
Q: Qubit? Wasn't that an early arcade game with a little guy jumping around changing the quantum state of a bunch of Qubes?
I have OBVIOUSLY had too much Qaffeine.
Wasn't Noah's ark 300 qubits? Noah was the man! Take that Silicon Devil!
Best comment today! ;) Thanks for the chuckles.
"So, yes, on that dedcution, Dr Watson, I would say that if the stock is struggling then the company itself is struggling." If the stock is low, it could just be undervalued. Conversely, if the stock is worth a lot of money, then the company must be doing swimmingly and what on Earth could go wrong? Hmmm...let me think...Oh yeah. The dot-com bust of 2001. Those stocks were over-valued. The value of the stock is not a sure-fire indicator of the health of a company. It is only an indicator of the demand for the stock, which is a good indication of peoples confidence in the company. A stock can plummet one day because they didn't get a patent approved or they posted a quarterly loss. Stock price is merely a measure of demand-not solvency.
"Or am I missing something in the obviously God-like charisma of Steve Jobs that causes share prices to fall while his company makes record profits?" How do explain Microsoft's drop in stock price? I think the stock was simply over-valued. Now it isn't. Is there anything THAT different about Microsoft now than when their stock price was closer to $80 a share?
Yeah, but you did say, "keep them solvent." (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=388483&cid=21687524)
Which, as the previous poster pointed out, someone who is not solvent is bankrupt. Look it up. Here's the link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insolvent&x=0&y=0
When will you admit that your comment had incorrect and misleading information in it? Apple was not insolvent or about to be insolvent. If you think everyone else is wrong, post your source.
"I'm not supposed to believe an article from a fairly respectable technology news site"
...which is simply wrong. They DIDN'T do that to keep them solvent. Again, you are reaching conclusions not supported by facts. You appear to be relying on one article and drawing many inaccurate conclusions.
I didn't say don't believe it, just comprehend it. Just because a stock is "struggling" doesn't mean the company is. You extrapolated that little bit yourself.
You said, "... don't forget that MS pumped in a whole heap of money into Apple at one point to basically keep them solvent."
"but I am expected to believe the religious spoutings of some fervent, frothing-at-the-mouth Apple acolyte"
Uh...you can check Microsoft's stock price yourself-I didn't make it up. It's called "the internet". Try it out sometime. If you can't figure out how to do that, go by a newspaper.
PC World reputable? Sure, fine. I can't find any example that disputes that-but just because a magazine or newspaper has a history of being reputable, doesn't meant that the people they hire to write their stories are honest. Plus, you can't always depend on the editors to be able to check all the facts-that's the reporters job. Seriously, if you believe everything you read, you must be a REALLY confused person-because different authors will slant stories differently. Some are completely unbiased and write pure, good, well-balanced articles. But come on! Where have you been?
Here is an article that was published on December 7th, 2007 in the New York Times (a reputable publication)
USA TODAY FINDS TOP WRITER LIED
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00EEDA1131F933A15750C0A9629C8B63
By JACQUES STEINBERG
Published: March 20, 2004
Jack Kelley, a star foreign correspondent at USA Today before he resigned earlier this year, appears to have fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major articles in the last 10 years, including one that earned him a finalist nomination for a Pulitzer Prize in 2002, the newspaper reported yesterday.
Oh wait! Did I say that the NYT was a reputable publication? I better check my facts!
Ex-Reporter For The Times Tells in Book Of Deceptions
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DF113CF934A15751C0A9629C8B63
By JACQUES STEINBERG
Published: February 27, 2004
Jayson Blair, the former New York Times reporter who was found last year to have fabricated or plagiarized portions of more than three dozen articles, admits many of his deceptions in a forthcoming memoir but writes that they were fueled by ambition, cocaine and alcohol abuse and an undiagnosed condition of manic depression.
These took about 10 seconds to find. There are more. Sure you want to believe everything you read?
Just because the an article says something doesn't mean it's true. Besides, the adjective was amplifying "stock" not Apple Computer. As many people have mentioned previously, Apple had BILLIONS in the bank. By your logic, Microsoft is now "struggling". Their 52-week high for their stock is only $37.50! OH NO! Microsoft is struggling! Oh my! Somebody better bail them out! Heavens! Lordy! Lordy! Microsoft is going out of business!
Get a clue, Troll.
This seemed so obvious as to not be worth the effort to test it, but many times (insert citation here-I'm too busy trying to look busy to look it up) scientists have studied many of these types of "things that are so obvious it isn't worth the time and expense to test" experiments only to be quite surprised when the results show something quite different from what was expected. So yeah, pretty obvious this time but what if it the results had been different? oooh! (cue spooky music)
Damnit! And me with no mod points.
"Instead of testing individual theories by leaving stakes sitting around, how about getting a definite answer by leaving a webcam?"
THANK YOU! Oh my god! And these are actually "scientists" studying these things? Sure, maybe hooking up to the internet is a little dicey in Death Valley, but there are other ways. They need some college kid hyped up on caffeine to wire together a solar-powered, weather proof DVR and finally solve this mystery. I mean, come on! How long have we known about these tracks? Decades?
Sorry, I tend to get a little touchy when there is a mystery and 1) the experiment that could solve it is REALLY simple and 2) The mystery has been around for years. I think it would make a good thesis...no, I think it would make a decent term paper for some high-school senior interested in Geology.
About freakin' time that some judge pulled his/her head out of their butt and asked validation of the cost. Can't we just nuke RIAA headquarters?
FTFA: "How could this email possibly have been sent?" an Israeli diplomat told the Jerusalem Post. "These journalists have sparked a major incident."
Get real. If you are so shallow and thin skinned as to take offense at what is obviously a mistake in translation then you really need to re-think your career choice. "Diplomat"? How about "ass-hat". As for the journalists who were too lazy to get a proper translation (or at least to include the English text of the email), you need to Grok the phrases, "attention to detail" and "due diligence". I recommend my new book that will be hitting the store shelves soon: "How not to look like a total ass-clown in written correspondence".
Ok, wait a minute-I read a lot of comments here that are slamming the press for this tactic because they tried to gather "information" for a story using techniques that are forbidden by the Press/Media agreement that journalists are supposed to sign before gaining access to DefCon.
..uh... quartering pen. Pencil. My...you know-so we can draw and quarter them.
So what if I wanted to bring in a hidden camera? I am not a member of any news organization. Would there be a similar outcry if I brought in a hidden camera and became taping the events and conversations that were occurring? Is there a similar set of rules that non-journalists must sign when they buy their tickets to DefCon? Would it make a difference if I put the video on YouTube, kept it for my own personal video library or turned it over to a news agency for free or for money?
Everyone here (every comment I have read so far-which is only about 9 or 10) cries out against the evil journalist! How unethical she/they are! The end of democracy is on the horizon! Repent now! Is she really that evil? Really that un-ethical? If journalists let their actions be stymied by every sign, agreement or verbal contract to NOT bring cameras in to places where things are occurring that should not be occurring, we wouldn't capture some crooks or help to end "bad things" that are happening to good people. I believe it's called, "investigative journalism".
Wait! I don't mean that DefCon is one of those places where nefarious things goes on or where "bad things" happen to "good people" and Evil Bosses turn children into mortar for their Slum Lord cousins. I admit that comparing infiltrating DefCon and hiding a camera to catch a crook or reveal a wrong being committed is not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison.
Actually, I have to back track a little-if a journalist agrees to not bring in a camera during an interview or agrees that something is "off the record", then they absolutely should not bring in a camera and should not print or report on what was "off the record". If they do, then they should be drawn and quartered (Connie Chung). But this is different: if a journalist "gives their word" to do something or not to do something and then does the opposite, then yes, they are unethical and slimy and I will be the first one to call them a slimy retard and promptly begin sharpening my
However, in this case, the only thing the journalist did was to avoid signing an agreement that people in her profession were supposed to sign before gaining entrance to DefCon. Personally, I think that is "moderately slimy" because she purposely avoided agreeing to restrictions that the organizers of DefCon put in place for journalists and that she was WELL AWARE of.
What if she just wanted to go and see the event? You know, just as herself-no camera, no agenda to write a story-but she just wanted to go see it. Should she have been required to sign the Press agreement? (I say no).
Just food for thought and some opinion. Let the flames begin.
"1. "many" European states. The UK is "one" European state."
. htm) and being Surface Warfare Specialist qualified. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Warfare_Badge and check out the "Enlisted Specialist" section for more information. And, as I mentioned, I am not up to speed on what the U.S. Navy is planning for new ships being built.
Uh, yeah, I know. I didn't say your facts were wrong, just that GB has chosen to use Windows 2000. GB is one of the European states, hence the comment was relevant (at least I thought so).
"Practically speaking, the UK armed forces purchase many of the same components and systems as the US armed forces do."
Not aware of too many military systems being windows based. In fact, I only know of one and it is used in the Naval Coastal Warfare community and that was, uh, sort of recent. We first saw it "upgraded" from a Unix base OS to Windows 2000 in 2002 or 2003. All other systems that I am familiar with in the Navy (no Army, Marine or Air Force experience) are not based on a Windows OS. I have been out of the active duty side of the Navy since 2000 (not counting a recall to active duty since then in late 2001) so I am not as up to speed on what the new US ships are going to be running. I really hope they aren't going to Windows based apps also.
Of course, my knowledge of computer systems employed on board Navy warships is limited to my experiences and training as an Operations Specialist (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjob1/a/os