"Every song on my hard drive is also in my CD collection."
I'm cool with that. I'm cool with copying all my music to my hard drive for easy searching. I'm also cool with people making custom CDs with these songs.
I'm not cool, however, with the general practice of downloading. Chances are that if you're downloading you music you don't own it (otherwise, you'd just stick the CD in your drive and click rip).
I'd consider you more the minority than the majority. Most prior Napster users were teenagers who simply didn't want to shell out a few bucks to get the latest Britney album. Most aren't adults, and most certainly DO NOT share your view of expanding one's musical horizon.
It's almost answer a realistic problem with a philosophic argument. It looks nice on paper, but real life dictates otherwise.
Most geeks I know have several thousand MP3s of several hundred bands. Do you think they're going to go to each and every one of these bands' concerts?
Or, more likely, they are going continue to save their money by not paying for anything at all?
"Good to see they're fighting for the artists, n'est-ce pas?"
I'm glad someone is. Though I agree with the idea that record companies aren't the elite "doers of good" in the industry, the fact remains that many geeks (myself included) have basically been fucking over the artists by downloading free music. Admit it. The first time you saw someone download something from Napster/GNUtella/whatever, you had a pang in your gut that said "Isn't there something wrong with this?" It's called guilt.
There are hundreds of record labels that get screwed over by these practices - there are millions of artists who get the same. Unfortunately, without a massive revamping of the entire industry, you can't fuck one and not the other.
Re:They support MacOS X style app wrappers!
on
ROX Desktop Update
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The problem with this system is that often space is wasted. You can have hundreds of copies of the same library in all the installation directories.
True, DLL Hell isn't much better, but there has to be a clever median between the two.
"People (typically) buy Macs because they like them and like MacOS."
*Buzz* Most consumers could care less about the operating system. Many don't know what it is. All they've been told is that Macs are a) easy to use and b) a revolutionary design. Either are subjective opinions.
"People often buy Wintel because they feel they have no choice."
I totally disagree, and as a person who worked part-time at a CompUSA in one year of college, I can assure you that people don't choose PCs for software reasons. They use PCs because their friends use them, they use them, and they like them. They take one look at the Mac section, say "Ooh, pretty", then go into near-hypothermic shock when they look at the price.
"Windows users are forced to upgrade to newer versions of Windows that are generally slower and very expensive."
Every computer user, on every platform, is constantly upgrading their software. MacOS 7 was perfectly fine for most people - so why did Apple force upgrades? Mainly to make money, like everyone else. Don't just fault Microsoft on this.
"While you have the same gripe with Apple, but there are not very many of you."
I can think of a great number of people I've talked to who think Apple's are pretty, but outside this are pieces of junk. I've heard everything from "Macintrash. Crapintosh." from the crude to "Apple simply doesn't utilize the power of its hardware" from intelligent people. The consensus is the same: Apple's computers are toys for artists and "the cult" and rarely does anyone give an objective view when they only buy one products (I, personally, own a Windows XP box I built, an original iMac, and a Dell laptop that boots between XP and Linux).
You should have seen my earlier sig, which counters an argument most "Mac addicts" make: "Windows makes you press a Start button to shutdown. Apple makes you press a piece of fruit to get to the control panel. Is either really intuitive?"
"Microsoft's products (in general) suck, but people are forced to use them anyway (for various reasons). Apple's products (in general) are quite good, and nobody is forced to use them unless they want to."
I buy a Mac and I'm forced to use a version of MacOS, which I personally despise. How is this choice? It's not like there are as many used Macs with blank hard drives (to install Linux/FreeBSD) as there are used PCs with blank hard drives on eBay.
Um, there's no evidence that Walmart is actually saving consumers money on these machines. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see them making a profit.
Oh I agree. For a web server Windows 2000 isn't too hot. For a domain controller/file server it has stuff I wish Linux would have. If all you have to do is serve pages, FreeBSD is probably king.
On the desktop I use a mix of Linux and Windows XP Pro, although I tend to gravitate more to Windows XP Pro.
Actually, creating a language isn't too difficult (most college students who take CS, including myself, have done language and compiler design). The difficult part is getting the compiler to parse and recognize it.
I never understood the logic about this. Yes, you can leave your money in a PayPal account to earn a (tiny) amount of interest. But why would anyone do that if they're not a bank and not FDIC-insured. I generally withdraw my money out of my account as soon as I make it on an eBay auction, and for that purpose PayPal serves me just fine.
I think anyone who's using PayPal as a bank account is either a) lazy or b) just plain stupid. Like the people who invest in "great opportunities" only to be burned -- you've got to do your research.
I agree totally on the non-activation versions. You can get them practically anywhere, and they offer the same functionality without all the activation tomfoolery.
The things you mention are free with monetary, paper money, but they are all limited resources (even love) and thus have a cost. If I give a considerable portion of my love to a girlfriend, and thus time, energy, and experiences away from other people and things, I lose those secondary experiences. At the most basic level, you can assign values to "time" and "energy" and decide what is most worthwhile (3 time, 1 energy to play videogames = 5 happy, 1 time, 2 energy to do dishes = 4 cleanliness).
"Having a useless "Privacy Policy" is a common tactic by commercial web sites to decieve users."
Can you name a site for reference? Generally, I have found most high-end commercial sites (like Yahoo, CNet) are pretty straight-forward about "Yes, we sell all your information" or "No, we only sell some of it". I've never seen one that was intentionally deceitful.
I agree with you. It's actually the same argument as the "base system" theory.
For example, when a base system has a CD-ROM (as they do now), ALL software and hardware manufacturers can support it. They no longer have to worry about whether or not the user has it, so they can create an improved experience.
Same thing as XBox with the built-in hard drive and broadband. A lot of game players were like "Why bother with a hard drive. Memory cards are adequate." They didn't realize how beneficial the hard drive can be for load time. Now *every* game can use that cache, without having to worry about whether or not the cache even exists (like the optional hard drive in PS2).
Base system options get pushed to the mass market, expecially if they're already popular. We saw it with floppy drives, CD-ROM's, 56K modems - and no one argued that those devices didn't benefit computing in the long run. Now we're seeing new advances like 802.11 built-in and hard drives on consoles, and if they prove successful everyone benefits.
Same can be said with the "base model" of OS software, as you mentioned. Everyone benefits.
"I mean, with enough hacking, you can get OS/2 to emulate Windows, or Linux."
I have no numbers to back me up, but I'm assuming as is the situation with emulating hardware, the more low-level information you have, the easier it is.
"I'm sorry Mr. Woz, Mr. Jobs, but IBM thought of the idea of a small computer hooked to a television first and you can't make that. Sorry, but the PC revolution will have to wait until IBM decides it will happen".
Except this never, ever happens. See my post in this thread on South Park to see how the little guys use IP to bend their way.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm cool with that. I'm cool with copying all my music to my hard drive for easy searching. I'm also cool with people making custom CDs with these songs.
I'm not cool, however, with the general practice of downloading. Chances are that if you're downloading you music you don't own it (otherwise, you'd just stick the CD in your drive and click rip).
It's almost answer a realistic problem with a philosophic argument. It looks nice on paper, but real life dictates otherwise.
Or, more likely, they are going continue to save their money by not paying for anything at all?
I'm glad someone is. Though I agree with the idea that record companies aren't the elite "doers of good" in the industry, the fact remains that many geeks (myself included) have basically been fucking over the artists by downloading free music. Admit it. The first time you saw someone download something from Napster/GNUtella/whatever, you had a pang in your gut that said "Isn't there something wrong with this?" It's called guilt.
There are hundreds of record labels that get screwed over by these practices - there are millions of artists who get the same. Unfortunately, without a massive revamping of the entire industry, you can't fuck one and not the other.
True, DLL Hell isn't much better, but there has to be a clever median between the two.
Interesting? Maybe.
Catering to the whims of the Slashdot crowd: precisely.
*Buzz* Most consumers could care less about the operating system. Many don't know what it is. All they've been told is that Macs are a) easy to use and b) a revolutionary design. Either are subjective opinions.
"People often buy Wintel because they feel they have no choice."
I totally disagree, and as a person who worked part-time at a CompUSA in one year of college, I can assure you that people don't choose PCs for software reasons. They use PCs because their friends use them, they use them, and they like them. They take one look at the Mac section, say "Ooh, pretty", then go into near-hypothermic shock when they look at the price.
"Windows users are forced to upgrade to newer versions of Windows that are generally slower and very expensive."
Every computer user, on every platform, is constantly upgrading their software. MacOS 7 was perfectly fine for most people - so why did Apple force upgrades? Mainly to make money, like everyone else. Don't just fault Microsoft on this.
"While you have the same gripe with Apple, but there are not very many of you."
I can think of a great number of people I've talked to who think Apple's are pretty, but outside this are pieces of junk. I've heard everything from "Macintrash. Crapintosh." from the crude to "Apple simply doesn't utilize the power of its hardware" from intelligent people. The consensus is the same: Apple's computers are toys for artists and "the cult" and rarely does anyone give an objective view when they only buy one products (I, personally, own a Windows XP box I built, an original iMac, and a Dell laptop that boots between XP and Linux).
You should have seen my earlier sig, which counters an argument most "Mac addicts" make: "Windows makes you press a Start button to shutdown. Apple makes you press a piece of fruit to get to the control panel. Is either really intuitive?"
I buy a Mac and I'm forced to use a version of MacOS, which I personally despise. How is this choice? It's not like there are as many used Macs with blank hard drives (to install Linux/FreeBSD) as there are used PCs with blank hard drives on eBay.
Um, there's no evidence that Walmart is actually saving consumers money on these machines. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see them making a profit.
Apple creates a monotone monopoly on their hardware. They charge shitloads of money for their products. Everybody loves them.
Somebody explain this to me again?
Way too late. Windows NT/2000/XP stopped using legacy DOS code years ago.
On the desktop I use a mix of Linux and Windows XP Pro, although I tend to gravitate more to Windows XP Pro.
Of course, you could just, you know, grant that Windows 2000 is a pretty good OS.
Except, um, their servers can handle being Slashdotted. Kind of takes the wind out of the argument that Win2000 sucks.
Actually, creating a language isn't too difficult (most college students who take CS, including myself, have done language and compiler design). The difficult part is getting the compiler to parse and recognize it.
"Would you like help in fragging someone?
0 Railgun
0 Rocket Launcher
0 Shotgun
0 Please tell me how to turn this feature off"
I think anyone who's using PayPal as a bank account is either a) lazy or b) just plain stupid. Like the people who invest in "great opportunities" only to be burned -- you've got to do your research.
I agree totally on the non-activation versions. You can get them practically anywhere, and they offer the same functionality without all the activation tomfoolery.
He forgot to mention evil.
The things you mention are free with monetary, paper money, but they are all limited resources (even love) and thus have a cost. If I give a considerable portion of my love to a girlfriend, and thus time, energy, and experiences away from other people and things, I lose those secondary experiences. At the most basic level, you can assign values to "time" and "energy" and decide what is most worthwhile (3 time, 1 energy to play videogames = 5 happy, 1 time, 2 energy to do dishes = 4 cleanliness).
Can you name a site for reference? Generally, I have found most high-end commercial sites (like Yahoo, CNet) are pretty straight-forward about "Yes, we sell all your information" or "No, we only sell some of it". I've never seen one that was intentionally deceitful.
For example, when a base system has a CD-ROM (as they do now), ALL software and hardware manufacturers can support it. They no longer have to worry about whether or not the user has it, so they can create an improved experience.
Same thing as XBox with the built-in hard drive and broadband. A lot of game players were like "Why bother with a hard drive. Memory cards are adequate." They didn't realize how beneficial the hard drive can be for load time. Now *every* game can use that cache, without having to worry about whether or not the cache even exists (like the optional hard drive in PS2).
Base system options get pushed to the mass market, expecially if they're already popular. We saw it with floppy drives, CD-ROM's, 56K modems - and no one argued that those devices didn't benefit computing in the long run. Now we're seeing new advances like 802.11 built-in and hard drives on consoles, and if they prove successful everyone benefits.
Same can be said with the "base model" of OS software, as you mentioned. Everyone benefits.
I have no numbers to back me up, but I'm assuming as is the situation with emulating hardware, the more low-level information you have, the easier it is.
Wow, people still use that term?
Except this never, ever happens. See my post in this thread on South Park to see how the little guys use IP to bend their way.