The WiFi is also in the iPhone; the iPod Touch is seen as the iPhone without the phone function. So that's why it got ignored, mainly because (as far as the press is concerned) it's a "castrated iPhone". The issue of not including iChat or Skype compatibility has been addressed, but maybe the SDK scheduled for release this week will help.
D&D has its roots in the wargaming scene, evolved out of a fantasy option for a game of medieval combat. A way to add heroes to the skirmishes. Thus the concept of levels, from army ratings of Green, Veteran, Elite and so on. It was a surprise success, and personalities now were getting bolted on to the Level 8 Magic-User that was giving the pikemen fire support...
D&D was always a game, first and foremost. Not a storytelling aid, but a combat simulator that grew personality options. You are right that the World of Darkness series is better in that direction, but that's geared for a different type of player. Many ur-D&D players tended to enjoy having many decisions made for them by the rules, and were happy to fight and solve puzzles with only the trappings of storytelling. But it was new, and in the late 1970's and early 1980's it was all we had (except for Traveller, and that was harder to find).
Me, I prefer the middle ground that GURPS offers. Rules with scalable resolution that accommodate both simulation fans and dramatic storytellers, depending on which optional "advanced" ruled you use. Heck, I even have the GURPS adaptations of Vampire: the Masquerade and Mage: the Awakening. You may now scorn me.;)
There's the issue of the Berne Convention, really. A scheme like this would have to be implemented by the WIPO, as all Berne Convention signatories would respect the rights of the country where the copyright/author's rights were registered. If it enters public domain there, it is in the public domain for all signatory nations.
It has been interesting discussing this with you, but it's time to move on. Needless to say, though, copyright and author's rights are in need of reform, and this solution is one you and I can agree upon.
You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding, and that you knew all along that the water is returned in the form of vapour. Steam.
Now, if you meant condensing the water into potable form instead of letting it escape, then I can see what you are trying to say. Might as well work on cheaper desalination technology so that shoreline cities can get their water that way. Dubai, with its sunny climate and its Persian Gulf location, could remain a net energy exporter...
I'd have to say you're wrong there. The scientific theory of evolution is concerned only with the process of how part of a species can adapt and change over time, until they are no longer a breed of the species but a new species itself (difference between species and breed being blurry, of course). How this happens, whether through random mutation or steered by an intelligence is not important, only the process.
"Intelligent Design" is a declaration that does not bother to address the process, only to state that there was a guiding hand. It is not testable or provable. It does not compete with evolution at all, as it's about "who", not "how".
Well, sure. I'm not wedded to the time frame. We agree that previous profits should set the period, and I was simply thinking of the original copyright term limit.
The other part, the "publish or perish" stipulation can have its own term lengths. In the end, it balances the desire of the public to access abandoned works with the desire of some publishers to "run out the clock" and snatch a work after it lapses into public domain, or kill an artwork by buying the rights and then doing nothing with them.
The only real problem I see is that this is a global issue: for this to be implemented, a critical mass of nations have to sign on (much like the Berne agreements). If this is seen as a tax, international projects way end up causing squabbles between governments, as to who gets to collect revenue for maintaining copyright, and preventing tax evasion yet respect copyright treaties that were signed before this system was activated.
I too had a similar idea, but with slight changes:
1. I like the idea of a grace period, where the creator gets full copyright protection for no charge. Let's say 14 years. In this time, the creator can sell the rights to make commercial copies, granting his chosen publisher exclusive rights (so to say). In this revised system, copies for private use are allowed, but all other distribution must be authorised by the creator.
2. At the end of the grace period, the value of the work is assessed. This is done by either a government institution or a government-certified auditor, according to a set of rules. The creator must pay this fee to keep all rights, else the work in question is reassigned a Creative Commons-like status that allows non-commercial duplication of his work. Commercial publishers must still negotiate with the creator. This fee is levied on a yearly basis. Thus the creator may decide that the full rights are no longer profitable, and let his work lapse into the CC-license.
3. If the creator distributes no copies at all, then the work is considered "abandoned". Abandoned works are free to distribute under the CC-license, and if the creator does not react within a set time then it enters full public domain status.
.
By this system, Disney could keep Steamboat Willie like before, but they have to keep making it available lest it be labelled Abandoned, and keep paying the rights tax. This would make copyright more like stewardship, where the interests of the community are balanced against the interests of the rights owner. Ideally, the copyright owner would eventually let the work lapse into the CC-license due to it no longer being profitable, with the noncommercial clause reassuring the rights holder that competitors won't just slam out cheap knock-offs.
Consider it in relation to the rights that accompany physical property: in most communities, you may own the lot your house stands upon, but you have to let the community maintain a sidewalk across it, and cannot prevent people from crossing your property as long as they stay on the sidewalk. But you can prevent them from engaging in commercial practice: the kid next door can't put ads for his lemonade stand on your part of the sidewalk. Some communities even have regulations that can strip you of certain rights if you abandon or otherwise let your property go fallow, so why not introduce stewardship responsibilities into copyright as well?
Actually, I think this could be managed with a "property tax" system quite well, but with a grace period for, say, fourteen years. In that period, you have to report income earned from sales of reproduction rights, but not pay taxes. If you wish to renew, then you must pay an annual percentage in taxes.
If you do not maintain your property by selling rights to reproduce, or if those who purchased rights do nothing with them, then the "property" is "abandoned" and enters a Creative Commons state where non-commercial copying is allowed (electronic transfer, say, or a printer only charging for paper, ink and labour). Full public domain only kicks in after a set time in the CC-License mode. If you refuse to pay taxes, then your work is considered "voluntarily abandoned".
The goal, eventually, is to set up a system that ensures that as long as a work is profitable, the "property" goes to support the community. If Disney still pays the taxes for their works, and more importantly maintain those works by making them available, then by all means let them keep their "property". The other goal is to provide for a better balance of the rights of the artist and the audience, much like physical property rights also make provisions for things like sidewalks: I am allowed to enter your property id I am merely using the sidewalk, but I cannot set up a lemonade stand there (use it commercially) without your permission, nor do I have a right to camp out there; my only guaranteed usage right is transit. It's the same with copying media: I have a right to make copies for personal use, as long as I do not sell them (lemonade stand) or even give them away such as to keep others from buying (camping out).
All this is just a brainstorm I had. I also think "Intellectual Property" is much like what Corey Doctorow says: a misnomer, since ideas do not behave like physical objects, and are not subject to the same limitation. Perhaps a better term would be "Intellectual Estate", to equate it with real estate?
You know, sometimes I wonder if companies patent stuff like this mainly to head off patent trolls. Apple has been stung by quite a few of these, and so it's no surprise that they are now patenting stuff that really shouldn't be patentable. (Yes, I'm one of those idiots who feel software patents are harmful, as software is instructions, but not an invention in and of itself.)
It would be nice if Apple could come forward and state that anybody may use their patents for stuff like this free of charge, but their history with the iPod scroll wheel interface is not very encouraging.
Dude, if you're getting modded down "troll" or "flamebait" enough to inspire your sig, maybe it's because your posts are caustic.
Geez it wouldn't possbily be because trolling has increased dramatically on the last couple of years on slashdot. If you look through my history not all my posts are 'caustic' but when I read something as stupid as 'my lap can't take an extra kilogram' you bet I'll be caustic. How about we stick to the argument instead of attacking me? (Or if you prefer latin snobbery cut out the ad hominem). Otherwise I'll save arguing back and just label you a Mac apologist. Right, I'm going to ding you for misuse of the term "ad hominem" right there. He was commenting on the tone of your post and your sig, not you. And his ribbing was valid, in that your caustic tone makes reasoned discussion hard when you have this huge chip on your shoulder. (Besides, Slashdot has always been full of trolls and flame-baiters. The absolute number has grown, yes, but the proportion has remained steady.)
You do seem to be extremely angry at Mac owners, almost resentful at them. Very much a "look at them, they think they're so cool" grumpiness. Thus I suspect that your sneering at the MacBook Air is due not to any real concerns about weight or design, but a spiteful prejudice.
You need to calm down and get some more fresh air, man. You're starting to sound like Ann Coulter.:)
I was only considering the price difference between the MacBook and the MacBook Air, really. The combination of better component parts and the development that went into making something so thin and yet viable. Apples to Apples.
But as another post points out, the Lenovo (ThinkPads aren't IBM any more) offering costs roughly the same as the MBAir, meaning that Lenovo, Sony and the others in this niche are all competing at about the same price as the MBAir, which reinforces my argument that making things radically thinner and lighter yet still robust raises the price by a bit.
Ah, so comfort has no value to you, gotcha. The idea that weight and warmth could be a distraction that slows down work must also be novel to you. But hey, your needs are different than mine, so what the heck. I spend most of my time at work making web sites, and even in my free time I use my PowerBook for writing. But it's better to just accept this is not a binary, that the weight factor is "less annoying" and not "make or break".
I guess it's just a question of whether ergonomics are important for you or not. Some people choose BMW over GM due to the design and ergonomics, so why not accept that the same principle applies to computers?
Of course, the fact that it's more expensive to make things lighter and smaller doesn't register, nor the metal versus polycarbonate case. Or other little things like the automatic adjustment to meet ambient lighting conditions, or the quality of the screen...
The price of the MacBook Air doesn't surprise me. To make something that thin and yet so sturdy takes a lot of R&D, a lot of precision engineering that the more basic MacBook doesn't require.
It is progress away from a business model that assumes that making a copy is an expensive venture, where the publisher needs to have his investment protected. Copyrights were for the benefit of the publisher, to grant him legal protection from other publishers.
Thus assumption no longer fits an age where large volumes of information can be easily duplicated across an international network, and where the cost of recording and producing music is also plummeting. The audio file itself is no longer expensive to duplicate or distribute, yet the business models of the publishers rely upon their for-profit media being the sole source.
Many artists are moving away from relying upon publishers for their source of income, and publishers will have to come to terms with the fact that they no longer control the "oxygen" of the artists.
You have hit upon the irony here, that Prince actually changed his name (and back again) because of draconian trademark and copy rights. He tried to fight "the Man", and now is convinced that every copy has equal value. Every unauthorised copy that exists on a hard drive or in the flash ROM, whether it's your home computer or an iPod, means one less CD sold to him. Yes, he does seem to believe the hype that each copy means a lost sale.
But in the end, it doesn't surprise me. After all, his fight has always been not about money but control. If it weren't for performance rights being protected, he would have been successful in preventing Tom Jones and Art Of Noise from recording "Kiss". Thus it is only logical that he would hate file sharing, a medium that he cannot control.
Why workflow? Well, because in a job like mine (web and print design), you work on sets of processes in a team. Pictures are developed by one, programming by another, writing and copy editing by a third, and so on. Lots of little processes that often mean having 4 or 5 apps open at the same time, and flipping back and forth, and having to keep the hand-offs in mind.
That's the real advantage of the Mac for many of us: it reduces the time spent in menus and dialog boxes. For a longer process, this savings of a few seconds may not seem important, but when you're doing it about once a minute, it all adds up. Even the Fitt's Law factor of whether the menu bar is on top of the screen or the window plays a role when you have to access formatting commands more often.
But ultimately, the term "workflow" is older than computers. It's all about the connection of processes, how the work moves from beginning to finished product. Assembly lines are static workflows, where the work flows in a channel. Jobs like mine are more fluid and open, with currents and eddies and so on.
But the biggest reason for "workflow"? It's a known term that's shorter than "interplay of individual tasks in the job".;)
Thin is in, but mostly only with those who do a lot of travelling. Reporters, sales reps and others who are often on the road feel that every ounce matters, and a laptop you can place in your briefcase with your papers and books counts for a lot among these people.
I feel Lenovo and Apple are aiming to two different sorts of professional users. Apple is geared more towards the writers and mobile creatives, and the workflow the MacBook Air is supposed to fit into is one where the user has a larger "mothership" computer that he can sync with, or already works in a MacBook-friendly environment. The Lenovo looks and feels more like a device that tries to be as light as possible but still be a "full-featured" notebook computer.
So what is the difference between the two? Apple's notebook looks and feels like it was designed around a task, a need, and Lenovo's laptop looks more like it was designed around the tech specs.
The issues I do not see addressed when comparing these two notebook computers are not many, but they do play a role:
Case design: which case is more robust? Is Apple's metal case better suited for a thin notebook or is Lenovo's ThinkPad design better suited for fitting in your briefcase? Oh, and what about the power brick? Those few minutes untangling a power cord when setting up for a long meeting can be important. Design means not only looks, but also workflow and durability of the components.
Apropos meetings: which of the two is easier to use to make a presentation with a strange beamer? How about logging into a free WiFi hotspot? Sharing files?
Workflow: which job type would benefit from which computer? Although reporters and writers seem to be the target of both computers, what about sales reps? Developers and support techs who go to their clients? If your company uses Lotus Domino servers, will the MacBook Air make your IT staff nervous?
Now, I really don't know the answers, but these questions are what I feel makes the decision important. I own both a PowerBook and a ThinkPad, and though the ThinkPad is newer and has a better screen, etc., I still prefer to work with the PowerBook. It simply fits my workflow better.
I am glad to see you did not take too much umbrage at my comment.
Still, I refuse to call an infringement on another's right to make copies "theft". If anything, it is more like "trespassing", or a milder form of bootlegging. Making something without permission. And that is also why I refuse to call it "piracy", as it has little to do with what men in small boats with machetes and machine guns are doing today.
But no, I don't think audio files are more or less deserving of protection than the written word. Part of why I choose to use books as my main example is to highlight that I treat all art equal, no matter the media. However, I do think copyrights, the duration of copyrights and the definition of fair use need to be re-examined to consider the needs of the audience and the artist, not just the publisher. The natural desire of the artist is to see his work make available, but the publisher's natural desire is to hoard. For far too we have let the hoarders steer legislation.
Oh, how little you know. The "1's and 0's which are represented as two distinct physical states" you reference as "existing in the real world" are marks on the media, and were never taken. Instead, somebody arranged another set of states on a separate piece of media to imitate those bits.
Put another way, Magritte was right. It was not a pipe. It was a picture of a pipe.
Consider it this way: if you copy a poem by hand that you see on a poster, have you taken the poster? No, it is still there. But a person hoping to sell the poster will now complain that you didn't pay him for the poster, because you took the information. What the Pirate Bay did was even murkier, as they didn't even let you make copies of anything, really: they merely told you where you could find people willing to let you make a copy of information they have.
The problem lies in how you view information. Take a less complex form, say a haiku. What if a company had the only right to print the haiku: would you be stealing if you wrote it in a handmade greeting card? How about if everybody repeated it like this?
Information is not property. It does not behave like property. It grows with each retelling, with each copy that is made. You can't even call it forgery or plagiarised goods, since there is no attempt to foist it off as the original. The poem is repeated, and through it, the artist gains a wider audience than if only those who bought the book from the publisher could read it. Many will even thank the publisher by buying the book anyway.
Programs are not physical objects, but information. Information can be valuable, like trade secrets. But secrets cannot remain secret forever, and secrets are the opposite of what an artist wants (yes, I consider game designers artists).
You are approaching this the wrong way. The value of a right to make copies is not like the right to sell a physical product, but like the right to tell a secret. The more people that know the info tidbit, the less valuable the tidbit becomes, yet the pool of those who will recompense the original teller increases.
Pirate copies merely sped up the process a little, and showed how quickly the value of a right to sell copies can devalue despite efforts to make it harder to repeat the secret verbatim. Once a secret's out, it's out. But here's the kicker: some people who hear the secret this way will recompense the original teller, since they value it and would never had known it existed before then.
These are the same sorts of arguments that were used against public libraries, against tape recorders and VCR's, or people watching Cubs games from the roofs of their houses rather than pay for admission to Wrigley Field. It is the argument of the gatekeeper, not that of the artist.
You see, the publisher buys an exclusive right to make for-profit copies, and then thinks that right loses value every time a copy is made by somebody other than him. The artist, however, fears obscurity more than loss of profit. Piracy (what we now call warez) was one of the first forms of viral marketing, and companies like Infocom profited from it, as we rushed to buy their tchotchke-packed originals.
So the grandparent you relied to buys this fallacy, that the publisher holds not merely a right to all commercial copying rights, but rights to profit all viewings period. To him, every time you borrow a book from the library, you're cheating the publisher of a sale.
Considering the quality of most of those heads, my guess is that they were made by engineering students. Butt-ugly, but able to survive the parade long enough to reach the symbolic burning (where the non-engineering street performers then injure themselves with the pyrotechnics...)
I don't want to accuse you of setting up a false binary, but... you're setting up a false binary. There are alternatives to the two choices of maintaining the status quo or abolishing copy rights entirely. Instead, copyright duration should be re-evaluated to better match the needs of the community, to better balance the right of the artist and his sponsoring publisher to compensation against the cost of enforcement (social cost as well monetary).
The other thing is that fair use needs to be better defined, as the current system stifles the innovation it was supposed to encourage. Excessive copyright enforcement is now used to prevent distribution, and publishers like Tor/Baen have shown that explicitly allowing non-commercial distribution actually helps the commercial publisher. The service the publisher provides shifts from monopolising the artwork to providing a version of the artwork that has (physical) value. Even Radiohead's latest experiment seems to be a success.
Slashdot Mirror
The WiFi is also in the iPhone; the iPod Touch is seen as the iPhone without the phone function. So that's why it got ignored, mainly because (as far as the press is concerned) it's a "castrated iPhone". The issue of not including iChat or Skype compatibility has been addressed, but maybe the SDK scheduled for release this week will help.
D&D has its roots in the wargaming scene, evolved out of a fantasy option for a game of medieval combat. A way to add heroes to the skirmishes. Thus the concept of levels, from army ratings of Green, Veteran, Elite and so on. It was a surprise success, and personalities now were getting bolted on to the Level 8 Magic-User that was giving the pikemen fire support...
;)
D&D was always a game, first and foremost. Not a storytelling aid, but a combat simulator that grew personality options. You are right that the World of Darkness series is better in that direction, but that's geared for a different type of player. Many ur-D&D players tended to enjoy having many decisions made for them by the rules, and were happy to fight and solve puzzles with only the trappings of storytelling. But it was new, and in the late 1970's and early 1980's it was all we had (except for Traveller, and that was harder to find).
Me, I prefer the middle ground that GURPS offers. Rules with scalable resolution that accommodate both simulation fans and dramatic storytellers, depending on which optional "advanced" ruled you use. Heck, I even have the GURPS adaptations of Vampire: the Masquerade and Mage: the Awakening. You may now scorn me.
There's the issue of the Berne Convention, really. A scheme like this would have to be implemented by the WIPO, as all Berne Convention signatories would respect the rights of the country where the copyright/author's rights were registered. If it enters public domain there, it is in the public domain for all signatory nations.
It has been interesting discussing this with you, but it's time to move on. Needless to say, though, copyright and author's rights are in need of reform, and this solution is one you and I can agree upon.
You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding, and that you knew all along that the water is returned in the form of vapour. Steam.
Now, if you meant condensing the water into potable form instead of letting it escape, then I can see what you are trying to say. Might as well work on cheaper desalination technology so that shoreline cities can get their water that way. Dubai, with its sunny climate and its Persian Gulf location, could remain a net energy exporter...
I'd have to say you're wrong there. The scientific theory of evolution is concerned only with the process of how part of a species can adapt and change over time, until they are no longer a breed of the species but a new species itself (difference between species and breed being blurry, of course). How this happens, whether through random mutation or steered by an intelligence is not important, only the process.
"Intelligent Design" is a declaration that does not bother to address the process, only to state that there was a guiding hand. It is not testable or provable. It does not compete with evolution at all, as it's about "who", not "how".
So yeah, bug difference there.
Well, sure. I'm not wedded to the time frame. We agree that previous profits should set the period, and I was simply thinking of the original copyright term limit.
The other part, the "publish or perish" stipulation can have its own term lengths. In the end, it balances the desire of the public to access abandoned works with the desire of some publishers to "run out the clock" and snatch a work after it lapses into public domain, or kill an artwork by buying the rights and then doing nothing with them.
The only real problem I see is that this is a global issue: for this to be implemented, a critical mass of nations have to sign on (much like the Berne agreements). If this is seen as a tax, international projects way end up causing squabbles between governments, as to who gets to collect revenue for maintaining copyright, and preventing tax evasion yet respect copyright treaties that were signed before this system was activated.
I too had a similar idea, but with slight changes:
1. I like the idea of a grace period, where the creator gets full copyright protection for no charge. Let's say 14 years. In this time, the creator can sell the rights to make commercial copies, granting his chosen publisher exclusive rights (so to say). In this revised system, copies for private use are allowed, but all other distribution must be authorised by the creator.
2. At the end of the grace period, the value of the work is assessed. This is done by either a government institution or a government-certified auditor, according to a set of rules. The creator must pay this fee to keep all rights, else the work in question is reassigned a Creative Commons-like status that allows non-commercial duplication of his work. Commercial publishers must still negotiate with the creator. This fee is levied on a yearly basis. Thus the creator may decide that the full rights are no longer profitable, and let his work lapse into the CC-license.
3. If the creator distributes no copies at all, then the work is considered "abandoned". Abandoned works are free to distribute under the CC-license, and if the creator does not react within a set time then it enters full public domain status.
.
By this system, Disney could keep Steamboat Willie like before, but they have to keep making it available lest it be labelled Abandoned, and keep paying the rights tax. This would make copyright more like stewardship, where the interests of the community are balanced against the interests of the rights owner. Ideally, the copyright owner would eventually let the work lapse into the CC-license due to it no longer being profitable, with the noncommercial clause reassuring the rights holder that competitors won't just slam out cheap knock-offs.
Consider it in relation to the rights that accompany physical property: in most communities, you may own the lot your house stands upon, but you have to let the community maintain a sidewalk across it, and cannot prevent people from crossing your property as long as they stay on the sidewalk. But you can prevent them from engaging in commercial practice: the kid next door can't put ads for his lemonade stand on your part of the sidewalk. Some communities even have regulations that can strip you of certain rights if you abandon or otherwise let your property go fallow, so why not introduce stewardship responsibilities into copyright as well?
Actually, I think this could be managed with a "property tax" system quite well, but with a grace period for, say, fourteen years. In that period, you have to report income earned from sales of reproduction rights, but not pay taxes. If you wish to renew, then you must pay an annual percentage in taxes.
If you do not maintain your property by selling rights to reproduce, or if those who purchased rights do nothing with them, then the "property" is "abandoned" and enters a Creative Commons state where non-commercial copying is allowed (electronic transfer, say, or a printer only charging for paper, ink and labour). Full public domain only kicks in after a set time in the CC-License mode. If you refuse to pay taxes, then your work is considered "voluntarily abandoned".
The goal, eventually, is to set up a system that ensures that as long as a work is profitable, the "property" goes to support the community. If Disney still pays the taxes for their works, and more importantly maintain those works by making them available, then by all means let them keep their "property". The other goal is to provide for a better balance of the rights of the artist and the audience, much like physical property rights also make provisions for things like sidewalks: I am allowed to enter your property id I am merely using the sidewalk, but I cannot set up a lemonade stand there (use it commercially) without your permission, nor do I have a right to camp out there; my only guaranteed usage right is transit. It's the same with copying media: I have a right to make copies for personal use, as long as I do not sell them (lemonade stand) or even give them away such as to keep others from buying (camping out).
All this is just a brainstorm I had. I also think "Intellectual Property" is much like what Corey Doctorow says: a misnomer, since ideas do not behave like physical objects, and are not subject to the same limitation. Perhaps a better term would be "Intellectual Estate", to equate it with real estate?
You know, sometimes I wonder if companies patent stuff like this mainly to head off patent trolls. Apple has been stung by quite a few of these, and so it's no surprise that they are now patenting stuff that really shouldn't be patentable. (Yes, I'm one of those idiots who feel software patents are harmful, as software is instructions, but not an invention in and of itself.)
It would be nice if Apple could come forward and state that anybody may use their patents for stuff like this free of charge, but their history with the iPod scroll wheel interface is not very encouraging.
Geez it wouldn't possbily be because trolling has increased dramatically on the last couple of years on slashdot. If you look through my history not all my posts are 'caustic' but when I read something as stupid as 'my lap can't take an extra kilogram' you bet I'll be caustic. How about we stick to the argument instead of attacking me? (Or if you prefer latin snobbery cut out the ad hominem). Otherwise I'll save arguing back and just label you a Mac apologist. Right, I'm going to ding you for misuse of the term "ad hominem" right there. He was commenting on the tone of your post and your sig, not you. And his ribbing was valid, in that your caustic tone makes reasoned discussion hard when you have this huge chip on your shoulder. (Besides, Slashdot has always been full of trolls and flame-baiters. The absolute number has grown, yes, but the proportion has remained steady.)
You do seem to be extremely angry at Mac owners, almost resentful at them. Very much a "look at them, they think they're so cool" grumpiness. Thus I suspect that your sneering at the MacBook Air is due not to any real concerns about weight or design, but a spiteful prejudice.
You need to calm down and get some more fresh air, man. You're starting to sound like Ann Coulter.
I was only considering the price difference between the MacBook and the MacBook Air, really. The combination of better component parts and the development that went into making something so thin and yet viable. Apples to Apples.
But as another post points out, the Lenovo (ThinkPads aren't IBM any more) offering costs roughly the same as the MBAir, meaning that Lenovo, Sony and the others in this niche are all competing at about the same price as the MBAir, which reinforces my argument that making things radically thinner and lighter yet still robust raises the price by a bit.
Ah, so comfort has no value to you, gotcha. The idea that weight and warmth could be a distraction that slows down work must also be novel to you. But hey, your needs are different than mine, so what the heck. I spend most of my time at work making web sites, and even in my free time I use my PowerBook for writing. But it's better to just accept this is not a binary, that the weight factor is "less annoying" and not "make or break".
I guess it's just a question of whether ergonomics are important for you or not. Some people choose BMW over GM due to the design and ergonomics, so why not accept that the same principle applies to computers?
Of course, the fact that it's more expensive to make things lighter and smaller doesn't register, nor the metal versus polycarbonate case. Or other little things like the automatic adjustment to meet ambient lighting conditions, or the quality of the screen...
The price of the MacBook Air doesn't surprise me. To make something that thin and yet so sturdy takes a lot of R&D, a lot of precision engineering that the more basic MacBook doesn't require.
It is progress away from a business model that assumes that making a copy is an expensive venture, where the publisher needs to have his investment protected. Copyrights were for the benefit of the publisher, to grant him legal protection from other publishers.
Thus assumption no longer fits an age where large volumes of information can be easily duplicated across an international network, and where the cost of recording and producing music is also plummeting. The audio file itself is no longer expensive to duplicate or distribute, yet the business models of the publishers rely upon their for-profit media being the sole source.
Many artists are moving away from relying upon publishers for their source of income, and publishers will have to come to terms with the fact that they no longer control the "oxygen" of the artists.
You have hit upon the irony here, that Prince actually changed his name (and back again) because of draconian trademark and copy rights. He tried to fight "the Man", and now is convinced that every copy has equal value. Every unauthorised copy that exists on a hard drive or in the flash ROM, whether it's your home computer or an iPod, means one less CD sold to him. Yes, he does seem to believe the hype that each copy means a lost sale.
But in the end, it doesn't surprise me. After all, his fight has always been not about money but control. If it weren't for performance rights being protected, he would have been successful in preventing Tom Jones and Art Of Noise from recording "Kiss". Thus it is only logical that he would hate file sharing, a medium that he cannot control.
No offense taken. ;)
;)
Why workflow? Well, because in a job like mine (web and print design), you work on sets of processes in a team. Pictures are developed by one, programming by another, writing and copy editing by a third, and so on. Lots of little processes that often mean having 4 or 5 apps open at the same time, and flipping back and forth, and having to keep the hand-offs in mind.
That's the real advantage of the Mac for many of us: it reduces the time spent in menus and dialog boxes. For a longer process, this savings of a few seconds may not seem important, but when you're doing it about once a minute, it all adds up. Even the Fitt's Law factor of whether the menu bar is on top of the screen or the window plays a role when you have to access formatting commands more often.
But ultimately, the term "workflow" is older than computers. It's all about the connection of processes, how the work moves from beginning to finished product. Assembly lines are static workflows, where the work flows in a channel. Jobs like mine are more fluid and open, with currents and eddies and so on.
But the biggest reason for "workflow"? It's a known term that's shorter than "interplay of individual tasks in the job".
Thin is in, but mostly only with those who do a lot of travelling. Reporters, sales reps and others who are often on the road feel that every ounce matters, and a laptop you can place in your briefcase with your papers and books counts for a lot among these people.
I feel Lenovo and Apple are aiming to two different sorts of professional users. Apple is geared more towards the writers and mobile creatives, and the workflow the MacBook Air is supposed to fit into is one where the user has a larger "mothership" computer that he can sync with, or already works in a MacBook-friendly environment. The Lenovo looks and feels more like a device that tries to be as light as possible but still be a "full-featured" notebook computer.
So what is the difference between the two? Apple's notebook looks and feels like it was designed around a task, a need, and Lenovo's laptop looks more like it was designed around the tech specs.
The issues I do not see addressed when comparing these two notebook computers are not many, but they do play a role:
Case design: which case is more robust? Is Apple's metal case better suited for a thin notebook or is Lenovo's ThinkPad design better suited for fitting in your briefcase? Oh, and what about the power brick? Those few minutes untangling a power cord when setting up for a long meeting can be important. Design means not only looks, but also workflow and durability of the components.
Apropos meetings: which of the two is easier to use to make a presentation with a strange beamer? How about logging into a free WiFi hotspot? Sharing files?
Workflow: which job type would benefit from which computer? Although reporters and writers seem to be the target of both computers, what about sales reps? Developers and support techs who go to their clients? If your company uses Lotus Domino servers, will the MacBook Air make your IT staff nervous?
Now, I really don't know the answers, but these questions are what I feel makes the decision important. I own both a PowerBook and a ThinkPad, and though the ThinkPad is newer and has a better screen, etc., I still prefer to work with the PowerBook. It simply fits my workflow better.
I am glad to see you did not take too much umbrage at my comment.
Still, I refuse to call an infringement on another's right to make copies "theft". If anything, it is more like "trespassing", or a milder form of bootlegging. Making something without permission. And that is also why I refuse to call it "piracy", as it has little to do with what men in small boats with machetes and machine guns are doing today.
But no, I don't think audio files are more or less deserving of protection than the written word. Part of why I choose to use books as my main example is to highlight that I treat all art equal, no matter the media. However, I do think copyrights, the duration of copyrights and the definition of fair use need to be re-examined to consider the needs of the audience and the artist, not just the publisher. The natural desire of the artist is to see his work make available, but the publisher's natural desire is to hoard. For far too we have let the hoarders steer legislation.
Oh, how little you know. The "1's and 0's which are represented as two distinct physical states" you reference as "existing in the real world" are marks on the media, and were never taken. Instead, somebody arranged another set of states on a separate piece of media to imitate those bits.
Put another way, Magritte was right. It was not a pipe. It was a picture of a pipe.
Consider it this way: if you copy a poem by hand that you see on a poster, have you taken the poster? No, it is still there. But a person hoping to sell the poster will now complain that you didn't pay him for the poster, because you took the information. What the Pirate Bay did was even murkier, as they didn't even let you make copies of anything, really: they merely told you where you could find people willing to let you make a copy of information they have.
The problem lies in how you view information. Take a less complex form, say a haiku. What if a company had the only right to print the haiku: would you be stealing if you wrote it in a handmade greeting card? How about if everybody repeated it like this?
Information is not property. It does not behave like property. It grows with each retelling, with each copy that is made. You can't even call it forgery or plagiarised goods, since there is no attempt to foist it off as the original. The poem is repeated, and through it, the artist gains a wider audience than if only those who bought the book from the publisher could read it. Many will even thank the publisher by buying the book anyway.
Programs are not physical objects, but information. Information can be valuable, like trade secrets. But secrets cannot remain secret forever, and secrets are the opposite of what an artist wants (yes, I consider game designers artists).
You are approaching this the wrong way. The value of a right to make copies is not like the right to sell a physical product, but like the right to tell a secret. The more people that know the info tidbit, the less valuable the tidbit becomes, yet the pool of those who will recompense the original teller increases.
Pirate copies merely sped up the process a little, and showed how quickly the value of a right to sell copies can devalue despite efforts to make it harder to repeat the secret verbatim. Once a secret's out, it's out. But here's the kicker: some people who hear the secret this way will recompense the original teller, since they value it and would never had known it existed before then.
These are the same sorts of arguments that were used against public libraries, against tape recorders and VCR's, or people watching Cubs games from the roofs of their houses rather than pay for admission to Wrigley Field. It is the argument of the gatekeeper, not that of the artist.
You see, the publisher buys an exclusive right to make for-profit copies, and then thinks that right loses value every time a copy is made by somebody other than him. The artist, however, fears obscurity more than loss of profit. Piracy (what we now call warez) was one of the first forms of viral marketing, and companies like Infocom profited from it, as we rushed to buy their tchotchke-packed originals.
So the grandparent you relied to buys this fallacy, that the publisher holds not merely a right to all commercial copying rights, but rights to profit all viewings period. To him, every time you borrow a book from the library, you're cheating the publisher of a sale.
Considering the quality of most of those heads, my guess is that they were made by engineering students. Butt-ugly, but able to survive the parade long enough to reach the symbolic burning (where the non-engineering street performers then injure themselves with the pyrotechnics...)
I don't want to accuse you of setting up a false binary, but... you're setting up a false binary. There are alternatives to the two choices of maintaining the status quo or abolishing copy rights entirely. Instead, copyright duration should be re-evaluated to better match the needs of the community, to better balance the right of the artist and his sponsoring publisher to compensation against the cost of enforcement (social cost as well monetary).
The other thing is that fair use needs to be better defined, as the current system stifles the innovation it was supposed to encourage. Excessive copyright enforcement is now used to prevent distribution, and publishers like Tor/Baen have shown that explicitly allowing non-commercial distribution actually helps the commercial publisher. The service the publisher provides shifts from monopolising the artwork to providing a version of the artwork that has (physical) value. Even Radiohead's latest experiment seems to be a success.