Jezus McBagel! You're describing something that even Windows 95 supported, and was even common back in the Win3.1 days! Take a few minutes out from worshipping at the cult of Apple and pickup any PC laptop made in the last decade.
> I've been sort of surprised not to see this implemented
No, I've been around enough to remember what you are talking about. But Slashdot was taken over by Apple Zealots some years ago, and the "Linux & OGG on the iRiver" crowd is non-factor around here nowdays. You could figure that out if you checked the posts & moderation on this story -- there's only an extreme minority who has anything negative to say about the iPod.
Eh bullshit. The entire NFL halftime show today was sponsored by a company selling business wireless services. They weren't marketing the Treo, because for CIOs in the 0.1% of the audience that is targetted by these commercials, the device doesn't sell, the results sell. Just as how IBM runs commercials for "e-Business" and not "Z-Series Mainframes". Just because they aren't shoving "iPod" and "Drink Coke" in your face doesn't mean they aren't spending tons of money selling it.
Geez, I guess butts are still too sore for a little joke at crappy ol' MacOS's expense. Macintosh -- Most Applications Crash, If Not, The Operating System Hangs. badoom*boom*
(PS: System 7 drove me away, OS X brought me back.)
According to copyright office, *copying* DVDs for personal use does not fall under the DMCA circumvention provision. It would only be illegal if you somehow accessed content you didn't have the right to access (think pay-per-view divx disks).
Not really, the point was that pinpointing your general location is inherant to cellular phones, and a privacy risk you accept as soon as you turn one on. So when you get into your White Bronco to run from the cops, it's wise to turn the phone off. If the phone company reports "5000 people drove down this strech of freeway with their phones on", they are simply making use of information that people have chosen to offer.
I have to assume this is correct. The existance of Spam is driven by the supply side (various pyramid schemes other get rich quick scams) and not the demand side (people buying the products).
The parent is pushing an idealistic Perfect Market approach to elimniating spam, but that violates the Sucker Born Every Minute rule.
Just because Treos/Blackberrys aren't packaged and marketed towards Apple's coffeeshop demographic doesn't mean there's any problem with the marketing. Nobody would accuse Apple of having poor marketing even with their complete inability to sell business systems of any sort.
The difference being that Linux was vindicated as a server platform a long time ago, crushed netware and solaris, and now basically splits the market with Windows. Whereas despite whatever was going on, the iPod is the first real unqualified proof of Apple/Jobs product philosophy since the Apple ][.
Good point, it doesn't really matter, it doesn't add to the price of the device, no loss if video is not a hit feature.
However, Steve Jobs himself told everyone that video on an iPod was a terrible idea, and that argument was echoed by appleturfers all over this board. (Remember "As Seen On TV", the fake apple insider who flamed anyone who mentioned video ipods?)
Since the point of the parent post was to point out that "Apple is always right, opponents are always wrong", it's only fair to point out that Video iPods are something that Apple + their followers have turned a 180 on.
You're both right, so settle down. You are correct that one can rip DVDs for fair use purposes. Tepples is correct that it's illegal for someone to sell or give you software which actually performs this task.
Since we're talking about an integrated product line from a major corporation, it is correct to point out that the DMCA prevents Apple from selling a "Rip. Mix. Burn." setup for DVDs.
It's very true... people want to pick apart (some people, I mean) the guy/gal/company/team/country on top. It's some sort of mechanism to either defend that they haven't backed the wrong horse or that they somehow identify with the "underdog."
A poignant observation in an Apple thread. Especially seeing how the popularity of the iPod seems to function as Ultimate Vindication for those who may have 'backed the wrong horse' in the PC platform wars.
No, I understand the point and it's simply a lie. Cherry-picking a few minority gripes and miscasting them with a ridiculous strawman argument ("Apple is through") is a completely dishonest bag of defensive apple fanboy crap.
Besides, most of these *opinions* aren't even a matter of right or wrong. If someone prefers the ipod mini over a nano, who cares?
The nature of cellular makes it quite easy to track you without GPS or anything fancy. Every time you enter a new "cell", your phone announce itself to the station. If the records show you entering and leaving cells along a major highway, you are most likely driving down that highway. Aggregating this data for traffic monitoring doesn't really introduce any privacy problems.
This approach was used to find OJ Simpson's White Bronco ten years ago, so it's nothing new.
With the exception of the original iPod (which was perhaps rightly ripped for being dependant on Macs and Firewire) there simply is no "anti-iPod" faction out there making these complaints. The machines have a run-away hit ever since PC support was added and 99% of the people on this board and elsewhere have been drooling over them.
Nobody is saying "Big flop.. Apple is through" -- that is purely a delusional fantasy that you or some other "embattled fanboy" apparently invented. So, quit jousting at windmills.
Yes, I initially assumed the same thing -- Apple would sell SD-quality video suited for TV viewing -- and iTunes would automatically reencode it for use with the iPod.
However, on second thought, perhaps this wouldn't be technically reasonable. It would take too long (especially on G4 Macs), or may not produce the quality and optimization desired. So, Apple may need to offer downloads with two quality levels.
Also, I'm sure the low quality of the videos played a large roll in getting Disney to back the project.
That companies will tell potential customers to buy VMWare and Windows if they want to run their app?
Companies already do tell Mac users this and have for decades now. Microsoft even bundles VPC with certain versions of MS Office so that they can sell Visio and Project to Mac users without having to port it.
I have to agree with Lars T even though for some reason we're on each other's enemy lists. A well-integrated version of Virtual PC would look make the MacOS look (technically) a lot like OS/2, and we all know how that ended up. (However the marketing would be completely different.)
You also have to consider the enonomics. For a marginally popular package, it might be cheaper for the developer to give away copies of VirtualPC rather than port to Mac.
It doesn't really matter because an iMac is dorm room home theater at best. How far away will you be sitting from a 17" display? The keyboard will be close enough if you need it.
Back in the Usenet days, Germany was portrayed this wierd and wonderful computing utopia where everyone ran DR-DOS, OS/2, Amiga, Atari ST, Atari 8-bit, Linux and you name it.
Then someone checked the numbers and found that Germany's Windows marketshare was only slightly lower than the US's (by like 2-3%). They had some very strong alternative platform usergroups, but the actual market wasn't all that different.
I've read that if a machine in Google's cluster dies, they just leave it in place, because it's cheaper to eventually replace an entire rack than go server-by-server. I also suspect that Google does have some external vendor wrangling hardware for them.
Completely agree about the Cookie Manager, it is way too annoying.
"The site foo.com wants to set a cookie. You already have 3 cookies from this site." -- WTF exactly is the point of this dialog? Is there really anyone who is sitting there rejecting cookies on a one-by-one basis?
Or, "The site foo.yahoo.com wants to set a cookie" "The site bar.yahoo.com wants to set a cookie" -- IE's approach of allow/deny cookies on the TLD is good enough here.
I also would love to see an async approach that you outlined, but imagine it would be difficult with javascript, etc. Maybe FF could just temporarily accept the cookies until the user makes a decision on them.
It would be impossible to understand the politics of the 1960s without making that distinction -- "Progressives" or "the new left" effectively took out the ruling "Liberals".
But the bias-value of the term "Liberal Bias" is so high, it's probably not worthy of discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Jezus McBagel! You're describing something that even Windows 95 supported, and was even common back in the Win3.1 days! Take a few minutes out from worshipping at the cult of Apple and pickup any PC laptop made in the last decade.
> I've been sort of surprised not to see this implemented
And who's fault is that?
No, I've been around enough to remember what you are talking about. But Slashdot was taken over by Apple Zealots some years ago, and the "Linux & OGG on the iRiver" crowd is non-factor around here nowdays. You could figure that out if you checked the posts & moderation on this story -- there's only an extreme minority who has anything negative to say about the iPod.
Eh bullshit. The entire NFL halftime show today was sponsored by a company selling business wireless services. They weren't marketing the Treo, because for CIOs in the 0.1% of the audience that is targetted by these commercials, the device doesn't sell, the results sell. Just as how IBM runs commercials for "e-Business" and not "Z-Series Mainframes". Just because they aren't shoving "iPod" and "Drink Coke" in your face doesn't mean they aren't spending tons of money selling it.
Geez, I guess butts are still too sore for a little joke at crappy ol' MacOS's expense. Macintosh -- Most Applications Crash, If Not, The Operating System Hangs. badoom*boom*
(PS: System 7 drove me away, OS X brought me back.)
According to copyright office, *copying* DVDs for personal use does not fall under the DMCA circumvention provision. It would only be illegal if you somehow accessed content you didn't have the right to access (think pay-per-view divx disks).
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf (first link on google for DMCA)
Not really, the point was that pinpointing your general location is inherant to cellular phones, and a privacy risk you accept as soon as you turn one on. So when you get into your White Bronco to run from the cops, it's wise to turn the phone off. If the phone company reports "5000 people drove down this strech of freeway with their phones on", they are simply making use of information that people have chosen to offer.
I have to assume this is correct. The existance of Spam is driven by the supply side (various pyramid schemes other get rich quick scams) and not the demand side (people buying the products).
The parent is pushing an idealistic Perfect Market approach to elimniating spam, but that violates the Sucker Born Every Minute rule.
Lord knows that Apple would never make a product that crashes all the time and has idiotic memory management :)
Just because Treos/Blackberrys aren't packaged and marketed towards Apple's coffeeshop demographic doesn't mean there's any problem with the marketing. Nobody would accuse Apple of having poor marketing even with their complete inability to sell business systems of any sort.
The difference being that Linux was vindicated as a server platform a long time ago, crushed netware and solaris, and now basically splits the market with Windows. Whereas despite whatever was going on, the iPod is the first real unqualified proof of Apple/Jobs product philosophy since the Apple ][.
The only point seems to be some sort of "Doctrine of Infallibility" argument, so yes I will miss it.
Good point, it doesn't really matter, it doesn't add to the price of the device, no loss if video is not a hit feature.
However, Steve Jobs himself told everyone that video on an iPod was a terrible idea, and that argument was echoed by appleturfers all over this board. (Remember "As Seen On TV", the fake apple insider who flamed anyone who mentioned video ipods?)
Since the point of the parent post was to point out that "Apple is always right, opponents are always wrong", it's only fair to point out that Video iPods are something that Apple + their followers have turned a 180 on.
You're both right, so settle down. You are correct that one can rip DVDs for fair use purposes. Tepples is correct that it's illegal for someone to sell or give you software which actually performs this task.
Since we're talking about an integrated product line from a major corporation, it is correct to point out that the DMCA prevents Apple from selling a "Rip. Mix. Burn." setup for DVDs.
It's very true... people want to pick apart (some people, I mean) the guy/gal/company/team/country on top. It's some sort of mechanism to either defend that they haven't backed the wrong horse or that they somehow identify with the "underdog."
A poignant observation in an Apple thread. Especially seeing how the popularity of the iPod seems to function as Ultimate Vindication for those who may have 'backed the wrong horse' in the PC platform wars.
No, I understand the point and it's simply a lie. Cherry-picking a few minority gripes and miscasting them with a ridiculous strawman argument ("Apple is through") is a completely dishonest bag of defensive apple fanboy crap.
Besides, most of these *opinions* aren't even a matter of right or wrong. If someone prefers the ipod mini over a nano, who cares?
The nature of cellular makes it quite easy to track you without GPS or anything fancy. Every time you enter a new "cell", your phone announce itself to the station. If the records show you entering and leaving cells along a major highway, you are most likely driving down that highway. Aggregating this data for traffic monitoring doesn't really introduce any privacy problems.
This approach was used to find OJ Simpson's White Bronco ten years ago, so it's nothing new.
What a bullshit post.
With the exception of the original iPod (which was perhaps rightly ripped for being dependant on Macs and Firewire) there simply is no "anti-iPod" faction out there making these complaints. The machines have a run-away hit ever since PC support was added and 99% of the people on this board and elsewhere have been drooling over them.
Nobody is saying "Big flop.. Apple is through" -- that is purely a delusional fantasy that you or some other "embattled fanboy" apparently invented. So, quit jousting at windmills.
Yes, I initially assumed the same thing -- Apple would sell SD-quality video suited for TV viewing -- and iTunes would automatically reencode it for use with the iPod.
However, on second thought, perhaps this wouldn't be technically reasonable. It would take too long (especially on G4 Macs), or may not produce the quality and optimization desired. So, Apple may need to offer downloads with two quality levels.
Also, I'm sure the low quality of the videos played a large roll in getting Disney to back the project.
That companies will tell potential customers to buy VMWare and Windows if they want to run their app?
Companies already do tell Mac users this and have for decades now. Microsoft even bundles VPC with certain versions of MS Office so that they can sell Visio and Project to Mac users without having to port it.
I have to agree with Lars T even though for some reason we're on each other's enemy lists. A well-integrated version of Virtual PC would look make the MacOS look (technically) a lot like OS/2, and we all know how that ended up. (However the marketing would be completely different.)
You also have to consider the enonomics. For a marginally popular package, it might be cheaper for the developer to give away copies of VirtualPC rather than port to Mac.
It doesn't really matter because an iMac is dorm room home theater at best. How far away will you be sitting from a 17" display? The keyboard will be close enough if you need it.
Back in the Usenet days, Germany was portrayed this wierd and wonderful computing utopia where everyone ran DR-DOS, OS/2, Amiga, Atari ST, Atari 8-bit, Linux and you name it.
Then someone checked the numbers and found that Germany's Windows marketshare was only slightly lower than the US's (by like 2-3%). They had some very strong alternative platform usergroups, but the actual market wasn't all that different.
I've read that if a machine in Google's cluster dies, they just leave it in place, because it's cheaper to eventually replace an entire rack than go server-by-server. I also suspect that Google does have some external vendor wrangling hardware for them.
But the question remains why you would accept one cookie from a domain and not another. Everything after the first cookie is technically superfluous.
Completely agree about the Cookie Manager, it is way too annoying.
"The site foo.com wants to set a cookie. You already have 3 cookies from this site." -- WTF exactly is the point of this dialog? Is there really anyone who is sitting there rejecting cookies on a one-by-one basis?
Or, "The site foo.yahoo.com wants to set a cookie" "The site bar.yahoo.com wants to set a cookie" -- IE's approach of allow/deny cookies on the TLD is good enough here.
I also would love to see an async approach that you outlined, but imagine it would be difficult with javascript, etc. Maybe FF could just temporarily accept the cookies until the user makes a decision on them.
It would be impossible to understand the politics of the 1960s without making that distinction -- "Progressives" or "the new left" effectively took out the ruling "Liberals".
But the bias-value of the term "Liberal Bias" is so high, it's probably not worthy of discussion.