More cheap movies would be made, usually by indie filmmakers and the big budget crap blockbusters would die out. That sounds great!
How come? What exactly is wrong with Lord of the Rings-trilogy, the original Star Wars-trilogy, the Matrix, Raider of Lost Ark etc. etc.? If some movie has a high budget, does it automatically mean that it sucks, whereas a movie with $200 budget will automatically kick ass? Is there something magical in low budgets that makes those movies better? What exactly?
Well, ideally there would be one initial sync in which you iPod is synced with your collection, using USB or FireWire. After that it would merely be incremental updates. Hell, what Apple could do is to offer a wireless access-point with Bluetooth. You then pair that AP with your iPod. And when you come home in the evening, the iPod automatically connects via Bluetooth to your network, and syncs the music. So yes, it might be slow, but since it would start syncing the moment you stepped through the door, does it matter? And it would sync without any intervention from the user. Syncing would be 100% transparent. you wouldn't even have to plug your iPod to your computer, it would simply always be up-to-date.
a) it's the music you actually want to listen and b) it's the cheapest price there is
Really, $.99 is not much. It really isn't. You get something that can bring you joy for years to come, works very well and is very convenient. Hell, when I buy a piece of candy, it costs over $.99 and it give me maybe 5 minutes of joy. But still we have people complaining that "$.99 is way too much for years of entertainment!"
no, $.25 is not a "good deal", if the music they offer is something I'm not interested in. It could be $.02, and it would still not be a good deal. If you claim that "$.99 is not a good deal", you are clearly mistaken. It's A LOT lower than it would cost elsewhere, so it IS a "good deal". Yes, $.25 is cheaper, but it's irrelevant if the music is not something they want to listen to. Pet rock is a lot cheaper than cat is, does that mean that it's a "good deal"? Maybe if you want a pet rock instead of a cat. But most people want a cat, so it doesn't matter how cheap the damn rock is.
That's pushing it. Apple computer is on extremely shaky ground as it is. When sued by Apple music they promised to stay out of the music biz, so the trademarks wouldn't conflict. And now they're hugely into music.
Just because they happen to sell music and devices that can play music, does not mean that they are "in music-business". I would say that with ITMS Apple is in the retail-business. They are selling music. They do not have a record-label of their own, they do not publish music, they do not produce music, they merely re-sell music. So they are not in the music-business.
Wrong. Telemarketing as a business act, yes. Telemarketing as a political outreach tool, no.
Bullshit. As I said, you have no god-given right to get your opinions published in local newspaper for example, even if those were political opinions. So what makes you think that you have some right to push those opinions on my phone?
Seriously, since you are unwilling to honor people's wishes, it means that you are a sleazebag. You will fit right in to politics, I can tell you that!
Because it's a lot easier to tell everyone at once to not call them, than to tell each and everyone individually to not call them. More stupid questions?
There is the entire issue of government powers, and how far they should extend with regard to communication.
People are asking for government's help here. And doing it in a centraliced way is a lot easier and simpler than having everyone doing it solo to every possible company/party/organisation that calls them.
You just whining because the DNC-list is TOO effective. Admit it. I bet regular people feel your pain. Or maybe not.
You don't have to pick up the phone. You can have a ring of distinction for your family and friend. You can have caller ID. You can press your telco to provide private filtering service a la DNC.
Those services might not be available. Or they could cost money. You just want to place the burden on the regular Joe. Sorry, but you are NOT earning any sympathy from me.
Posters are a physical object, with permanence. There is real property that is being defaced, and possibly damaged.
Well, if you don't like those posters, you can take them down and ask me to not put them there anymore. And I might have to be in your property, but when you call me, you are there in a way as well, maybe not physically though. And you calling about some political crap reduces the quality of my phone-service, since it would be used to harass me, instead of some meaningful communication.
Re: shared medium, there was a capital investment for telephone medium that I, as a customer of the telephone monopoly, and as a taxpayer, have paid for. It is no less mine than yours.
MY telephone-service is mine. The phone is mine. So what the hell are you doing in my phone? Just because you happen to be a taxpayer does not mean that you have god-given right to harass me via MY phone and MY phone-service!
You have granted permission to the telephone company to forward incoming calls to your house. You can do what you like with those calls when you get them.
And you were granted eyesight and ears by evolution. Therefore I will place a 10 meters by 10 meters sign in front of your house and start blasting my message with a megaphone. You can do with that message what you want when you receive it. Dont like my message? Well, look the other way and buy some earbuds. And if you tried calling the cops for disturbance of peace, I would start whining about "government restricting communications".
the government is not on your phone, they are on the other guy's phone. Seriously, you seem to think that you have a right to harass others by phone.
Yada yada yada. Stop repeating yourself, and address what I'm saying. The government is enforcing adherence to the list. There is potential for abuse.
People ASK to be put on the list. It's 100% voluntary. No-one is forced to join it, or leave it. So what "abuse" are you referring to? That telemarketers are required to check the list? Boo-fucking-hoo! Government also expects that you do not break the speed-limits and that you do not shoot at people, are you whining about "government oppression" because of those things ("Take the government out of my car!")? then why is this different?
Seriously, people express their feelings on this matter quite clearly. They have a central place they could use to express their feelings on this matter. And you think that telemarketers should be free to disregard their feelings. Don't try to dispute that claim, it's true. you try to sugar-coat your opinion, but it boils down to that. You want to pe able to push some political BS on people against their wishes. It really is as simple as that.
Why the hell do you assume I'm a telemarketer, or spammer, or whatever, just because I believe in a broad definition of free speech, and strict limitation of government powers
Because it's usually telemarketers who whine about any limit to their "god given right to spout BS". And you did say (IIRC) that you have been involved in this type of "political discourse".
Just because it's popular, and you don't want any intrusions into your safe little basement, doesn't mean that the government should be involved in restricting communication.
Again, it's not the government doing, it's the people doing it. The government offers them a tool, and they take advantage of that tool. And they do so by free choice. If the people don't want to "restrict communication", they will not join that list!
You don't have to open your gate (which separates your property from public property, if placed properly) to those people
I don't have a gate. Should I buy one at my own expense, just to keep the sleazebags away?
In the same way, you don't have to pick up the phone.
yes I do. It might be my wife calling. It might be a friend of mine, or a relative. And if I don't pick it up, it will ring, and ring and ring....
You never answered my post: Do I have the right to put political posters on your living-room windows? If I don't have that right, what gives you the right to push your bullshit to my phone? You say that I can always hang up the phone. And you can always pull those posters down. And those posters would be "public medium", since they would travel over "shared medium" (visible light is most certainly "shared medium").
Nope. I would belong to "American people's front", whereas the second guy would belong the "Peoples front of America". The third guy would belong to "Popular front of America".
And there is no reasonable way for you to block out the noise, whereas with a phone, you don't have to listen.
If the phone rings, I most certainly have to listen to it ring. Or I can go pick up the phone, only to find out there some politico pushing his agenda on the other end of the line.
We fundamentally disagree on whether the government should be allowed to stifle communication, with or without permission, that can be used for political discourse.
It's not the government doing it, it's the people who ask to be put on the DNC-list. You should not bother people with your BS, no matter if it's political, religious or commercial. If they are on the DNC-list, they are NOT INTERESTED!
Seriously, take your political BS off of people telephones!
Because it is a government-subsidized and regulated monopoly. Because your correspondence travels over a shared medium.
Uh-huh. By that logic, everything apart from sharing DNA-sequances via exhanging bodily-fluids is "public medium", since it travels over a shared medium.
It's not a 1-to-1 service either.
Oh yes it is. There's the caller, and there's the receiver.
I never said that, you asshat. You are protected from harassment by law, and I have no problem with that.
Oh yes, I'm "free from harassment" as loing as I tell each individual harassing me to not do it.
Actually, you do have that right, until I ask you to stop.
Nope, I would be trespassing on private property.
I don't have a problem with people letting it be known that they don't want to be called -- I have a problem with government administering a function that has the potential to limit political communication.
It's the PEOPLE who are limiting that communication, not the government. They choose to not receive that communication, and you should just learn to accept that fact.
BS. Don't assume you know why I do not like the universal DNC, especially when your supposed reasoning has nothing at all to do with what I have posted.
You oppose the list because it give "government the control to limit free speech"? But it's not the government doing it. The government doesn't force anyone on the list, the people themselves decide to join it. It's 100% voluntary.
you said that you support people's right to filter phone-calls. Then why do you oppose the most effective way of doing it? Because it's too effective?
The problem I have with your "simple solution," I'll repeat, is that the government should not be involved in regulating individual pieces of correspondence
Why not? because that would be so effective way of fixing this problem that people like you would be out of job? What harm does that list cause (apart from causing few sleazebags to lose their jobs)? It makes it very easy for people to express their wishes on this matter, why is that a bad thing? Since it's the people in question that must ask to be added to that list, it's not the government who "control free speech", it's the people who are expressing their decision to not wanting to listen what you have the say. People have given the government the control over many different things (police, fire department etc.), why get panties in a bunch over this thing? And in this case, the people voluntarily give the government control. They ask to be added to the list, government doesn't force them to do anything.
Apple might be behind in some areas (no radio for example), but that doesn't mean that the player is bad. For starters, no other company offers the ease of use of iTunes + iPod-combo. It just works. Second, the UI on the iPod is magnificent. 5 buttons and the wheel. No more, no less. And yet, even with those uber-simple controls (or maybe it's because of them?) navigating the system is very, very easy. There are no dinky button, everything is smooth and easy. It takes about 10 seconds to learn how it works, and you could then use it with your eyes closed.
Maybe some other mp3-player would have been a bit lighter than my Mini. But the Mini is light enough. Maybe some other player would have been a bit smaller. But Mini is small enough (it fits my "coin-pocket" (or whatever that tiny pocket is called) perfectly). I don't think there are mp3-players of this size that offer more space than the 6GB on my Mini. While some players might offer some features that are bettern than on the iPod, I can honestly say that iPod is better than the sum of it's parts. If you merely looked at the specs of the players, iPod might seem average. But in actual use, it's way ahead of the competition.
Not true. There are valid groups out there working for solutions to real problems.
And your group just happens to be one of them? Like it or not, many people think that your organisation (whatever it might be) is an annoying pain in the ass.
But, I cannot support legislation that stops people from attempting to communicate.
Does that mean that I should have the right to shout my "message" to you through your front-door with a megaphone? I mean, I'm "communicating", and that should not be stopped, right? Espesially since I'm "working on solutions to real problems". When you tell me to stop, I'll jsut pass the megaphone to my coworker. After you tell him to stop, we will send a third person to do the "communicating". And you will have to tell each of them to stop communicating with you.
You have said that you support people's rights to filter their phone-calls. Then why can't you accept the fact that many of them choose to do that filtering through the DNC-list? Because "it places the right to filter calls to the government"? I'm sorry but it does not. the person must make a conscious decision to place his number on that list. The government doesn't decide to filter the calls, the person does! The government merely offers a convenient tool to do it.
I believe that an individual has the right to have an organiztion stop contacting them.
How many of those "organizations" are there? A thousand? even more? And instead of telling them all collective to "leave me alone!", you think the person should tell each and every one individually to stop harassing him? Why? Seriously? What do the people gain from such a system? What benefits would it offer over an universal DNC-list?
This is called 'freedom of speech'.
No it is not. Telemarketing has NEVER been about "freedom of speech". You do not have some god-given right to have your comments posted in a local newspaper. You do not have some god given right to post posters in private premises. Then what makes you think that you DO have some god given right to push your agenda to others using their private telephones which they are paying for out of their own pockets? Seriously?
Do I have the right to post political posters on your living-room windows? I mean, if you don't want them there, you can always remove them, right? And you can tell me to not post any such posters. In that case, I would just ask my co-worker to do it instead. Since you haven't told HIM to not post any posters, it would be 100% OK, right?
But I believe it's their right to try and contact me
What makes you think that they have such a "right"?
The selfish thing to do is to not allow any groups to contact me at all.
Well, that is the choice those people have made. Selfish or not, it's their choice. Which is more selfish: to tell everyone not to call him, or to disregard that wish and call him anyway in order to push your product/agenda? Seriously, why is it "selfish" to tell everyone not to call anymore? Because those telemarketers are working for the greater good, and not listening to what they are pushing this time would be "selfish"?
Maybe things are like that in the Parallel Universe, but it's not like that in the Real World
I still stand by my belief that the government should not be involved in pre-emptively restricting communication.
So, is it the government or the people who voluntarily put their number on that list, who are "pre-emptively preventing communication"? Since the list is 100% voluntary, and the people have to knowingly put their number there, I would say that it's the PEOPLE who are "pre-emptively preventing communication". Tough luck for you and other telemarketers, but that's just the way it is.
Serious question: why should the computer be up & running (and consuming electricity) when you are not using it? So you could show off your uptime-figures? And my computer is pretty loud so I don't want to have it running when it's not needed.
Slashdot Mirror
How come? What exactly is wrong with Lord of the Rings-trilogy, the original Star Wars-trilogy, the Matrix, Raider of Lost Ark etc. etc.? If some movie has a high budget, does it automatically mean that it sucks, whereas a movie with $200 budget will automatically kick ass? Is there something magical in low budgets that makes those movies better? What exactly?
Those wireless headphones would be bulky because they would need batteries for power.
Well, ideally there would be one initial sync in which you iPod is synced with your collection, using USB or FireWire. After that it would merely be incremental updates. Hell, what Apple could do is to offer a wireless access-point with Bluetooth. You then pair that AP with your iPod. And when you come home in the evening, the iPod automatically connects via Bluetooth to your network, and syncs the music. So yes, it might be slow, but since it would start syncing the moment you stepped through the door, does it matter? And it would sync without any intervention from the user. Syncing would be 100% transparent. you wouldn't even have to plug your iPod to your computer, it would simply always be up-to-date.
Um, that would be 16Gb, not 16GB.
$.99 is a good deal if
a) it's the music you actually want to listen
and
b) it's the cheapest price there is
Really, $.99 is not much. It really isn't. You get something that can bring you joy for years to come, works very well and is very convenient. Hell, when I buy a piece of candy, it costs over $.99 and it give me maybe 5 minutes of joy. But still we have people complaining that "$.99 is way too much for years of entertainment!"
no, $.25 is not a "good deal", if the music they offer is something I'm not interested in. It could be $.02, and it would still not be a good deal. If you claim that "$.99 is not a good deal", you are clearly mistaken. It's A LOT lower than it would cost elsewhere, so it IS a "good deal". Yes, $.25 is cheaper, but it's irrelevant if the music is not something they want to listen to. Pet rock is a lot cheaper than cat is, does that mean that it's a "good deal"? Maybe if you want a pet rock instead of a cat. But most people want a cat, so it doesn't matter how cheap the damn rock is.
Just because they happen to sell music and devices that can play music, does not mean that they are "in music-business". I would say that with ITMS Apple is in the retail-business. They are selling music. They do not have a record-label of their own, they do not publish music, they do not produce music, they merely re-sell music. So they are not in the music-business.
But that doesn't mean that "nobody wants it". The company who publishes the music wants it, and that's enough (unfortunately).
Last time I checked, iPod was not a monopoly.
Bullshit. As I said, you have no god-given right to get your opinions published in local newspaper for example, even if those were political opinions. So what makes you think that you have some right to push those opinions on my phone?
Seriously, since you are unwilling to honor people's wishes, it means that you are a sleazebag. You will fit right in to politics, I can tell you that!
Because it's a lot easier to tell everyone at once to not call them, than to tell each and everyone individually to not call them. More stupid questions?
People are asking for government's help here. And doing it in a centraliced way is a lot easier and simpler than having everyone doing it solo to every possible company/party/organisation that calls them.
You just whining because the DNC-list is TOO effective. Admit it. I bet regular people feel your pain. Or maybe not.
Those services might not be available. Or they could cost money. You just want to place the burden on the regular Joe. Sorry, but you are NOT earning any sympathy from me.
Well, if you don't like those posters, you can take them down and ask me to not put them there anymore. And I might have to be in your property, but when you call me, you are there in a way as well, maybe not physically though. And you calling about some political crap reduces the quality of my phone-service, since it would be used to harass me, instead of some meaningful communication.
MY telephone-service is mine. The phone is mine. So what the hell are you doing in my phone? Just because you happen to be a taxpayer does not mean that you have god-given right to harass me via MY phone and MY phone-service!
And you were granted eyesight and ears by evolution. Therefore I will place a 10 meters by 10 meters sign in front of your house and start blasting my message with a megaphone. You can do with that message what you want when you receive it. Dont like my message? Well, look the other way and buy some earbuds. And if you tried calling the cops for disturbance of peace, I would start whining about "government restricting communications".
the government is not on your phone, they are on the other guy's phone. Seriously, you seem to think that you have a right to harass others by phone.
People ASK to be put on the list. It's 100% voluntary. No-one is forced to join it, or leave it. So what "abuse" are you referring to? That telemarketers are required to check the list? Boo-fucking-hoo! Government also expects that you do not break the speed-limits and that you do not shoot at people, are you whining about "government oppression" because of those things ("Take the government out of my car!")? then why is this different?
Seriously, people express their feelings on this matter quite clearly. They have a central place they could use to express their feelings on this matter. And you think that telemarketers should be free to disregard their feelings. Don't try to dispute that claim, it's true. you try to sugar-coat your opinion, but it boils down to that. You want to pe able to push some political BS on people against their wishes. It really is as simple as that.
Because it's usually telemarketers who whine about any limit to their "god given right to spout BS". And you did say (IIRC) that you have been involved in this type of "political discourse".
Again, it's not the government doing, it's the people doing it. The government offers them a tool, and they take advantage of that tool. And they do so by free choice. If the people don't want to "restrict communication", they will not join that list!
Really, this is not rocket-science!
I don't have a gate. Should I buy one at my own expense, just to keep the sleazebags away?
yes I do. It might be my wife calling. It might be a friend of mine, or a relative. And if I don't pick it up, it will ring, and ring and ring....
You never answered my post: Do I have the right to put political posters on your living-room windows? If I don't have that right, what gives you the right to push your bullshit to my phone? You say that I can always hang up the phone. And you can always pull those posters down. And those posters would be "public medium", since they would travel over "shared medium" (visible light is most certainly "shared medium").
Nope. I would belong to "American people's front", whereas the second guy would belong the "Peoples front of America". The third guy would belong to "Popular front of America".
If the phone rings, I most certainly have to listen to it ring. Or I can go pick up the phone, only to find out there some politico pushing his agenda on the other end of the line.
It's not the government doing it, it's the people who ask to be put on the DNC-list. You should not bother people with your BS, no matter if it's political, religious or commercial. If they are on the DNC-list, they are NOT INTERESTED!
Seriously, take your political BS off of people telephones!
credit-cards, Viagra, politics.... It's all telemarketing.
So fucking what?
And many people think that it IS a function the government could handle.
Cry me a fucking river. If people are interested what you have to say, the will come talk to you.
Such as? People find it too convenient to use, and you will suddenly find that you have no audience left? tough!
You oppose the list because it give "government the control to limit free speech"? But it's not the government doing it. The government doesn't force anyone on the list, the people themselves decide to join it. It's 100% voluntary.
you said that you support people's right to filter phone-calls. Then why do you oppose the most effective way of doing it? Because it's too effective?
Why not? because that would be so effective way of fixing this problem that people like you would be out of job? What harm does that list cause (apart from causing few sleazebags to lose their jobs)? It makes it very easy for people to express their wishes on this matter, why is that a bad thing? Since it's the people in question that must ask to be added to that list, it's not the government who "control free speech", it's the people who are expressing their decision to not wanting to listen what you have the say. People have given the government the control over many different things (police, fire department etc.), why get panties in a bunch over this thing? And in this case, the people voluntarily give the government control. They ask to be added to the list, government doesn't force them to do anything.
If it locks out the wheel and the buttons, how would you unlock the player?
Apple might be behind in some areas (no radio for example), but that doesn't mean that the player is bad. For starters, no other company offers the ease of use of iTunes + iPod-combo. It just works. Second, the UI on the iPod is magnificent. 5 buttons and the wheel. No more, no less. And yet, even with those uber-simple controls (or maybe it's because of them?) navigating the system is very, very easy. There are no dinky button, everything is smooth and easy. It takes about 10 seconds to learn how it works, and you could then use it with your eyes closed.
Maybe some other mp3-player would have been a bit lighter than my Mini. But the Mini is light enough. Maybe some other player would have been a bit smaller. But Mini is small enough (it fits my "coin-pocket" (or whatever that tiny pocket is called) perfectly). I don't think there are mp3-players of this size that offer more space than the 6GB on my Mini. While some players might offer some features that are bettern than on the iPod, I can honestly say that iPod is better than the sum of it's parts. If you merely looked at the specs of the players, iPod might seem average. But in actual use, it's way ahead of the competition.
And your group just happens to be one of them? Like it or not, many people think that your organisation (whatever it might be) is an annoying pain in the ass.
Does that mean that I should have the right to shout my "message" to you through your front-door with a megaphone? I mean, I'm "communicating", and that should not be stopped, right? Espesially since I'm "working on solutions to real problems". When you tell me to stop, I'll jsut pass the megaphone to my coworker. After you tell him to stop, we will send a third person to do the "communicating". And you will have to tell each of them to stop communicating with you.
You have said that you support people's rights to filter their phone-calls. Then why can't you accept the fact that many of them choose to do that filtering through the DNC-list? Because "it places the right to filter calls to the government"? I'm sorry but it does not. the person must make a conscious decision to place his number on that list. The government doesn't decide to filter the calls, the person does! The government merely offers a convenient tool to do it.
How many of those "organizations" are there? A thousand? even more? And instead of telling them all collective to "leave me alone!", you think the person should tell each and every one individually to stop harassing him? Why? Seriously? What do the people gain from such a system? What benefits would it offer over an universal DNC-list?
No it is not. Telemarketing has NEVER been about "freedom of speech". You do not have some god-given right to have your comments posted in a local newspaper. You do not have some god given right to post posters in private premises. Then what makes you think that you DO have some god given right to push your agenda to others using their private telephones which they are paying for out of their own pockets? Seriously?
Do I have the right to post political posters on your living-room windows? I mean, if you don't want them there, you can always remove them, right? And you can tell me to not post any such posters. In that case, I would just ask my co-worker to do it instead. Since you haven't told HIM to not post any posters, it would be 100% OK, right?
What makes you think that they have such a "right"?
Well, that is the choice those people have made. Selfish or not, it's their choice. Which is more selfish: to tell everyone not to call him, or to disregard that wish and call him anyway in order to push your product/agenda? Seriously, why is it "selfish" to tell everyone not to call anymore? Because those telemarketers are working for the greater good, and not listening to what they are pushing this time would be "selfish"?
Maybe things are like that in the Parallel Universe, but it's not like that in the Real World
So, is it the government or the people who voluntarily put their number on that list, who are "pre-emptively preventing communication"? Since the list is 100% voluntary, and the people have to knowingly put their number there, I would say that it's the PEOPLE who are "pre-emptively preventing communication". Tough luck for you and other telemarketers, but that's just the way it is.
How do you know it's not available? There are other distribution-methods besides the web, you know.
And does the GPL say that the source must be available to everyone, or does it say that the source must be available to the users of the software?
Serious question: why should the computer be up & running (and consuming electricity) when you are not using it? So you could show off your uptime-figures? And my computer is pretty loud so I don't want to have it running when it's not needed.