I'm seriously beginning to question the ability of any open source project to challenge Apple on the user experience front. Come on, look at these JuK screen shots and compare to iTunes screen shots.
Now, I will fully admit to never actually using JuK, but just from its appearance, I don't want to. I do use iTunes extensively (on a Mac, I only use UNIX-based OSs). So, on iTunes, I have 3 control buttons, a pretty status meter, and a search field. That is it. Now look at JuK. There is a crapload of buttons making the interface completely suck. Why is there a save button? I never save in iTunes, when changes get made, they automatically are propagated through the library. Easy. Why are there cut and paste butttons? Do they need to take up screen space. Leave them buried in a menu. How often are they used in the main interface screen? In iTunes, I rarely go to the menu's. About the only time is when I want to create a new smart playlist. The three buttons and the search field take care of 98% of what I want to do on the interface. This is what makes Apple user friendly and pretty to look at.
If open source wants to be the peoples' desktop, they have to start considering the interfaces they design. There is a reason why people like to use Macs and proclaim the interface as the superior solution: it is. There are things to be learned here, but time and time again, with each new release of a new program, the user interfaces continue to suck.
2^8 is still a valid hex number. What are you saying in this post? You'd prefer the price of goods to rise exponentially by powers of 2. Yeah, that be great if I could expect the price of everything I buy to double every quarter/year, whatever. You are an idiot.
All this guy does is make posts saying we should start speaking lojban and use a hexadecimal number system. I've replied to him many times and he remains utterly serious. He also refuses to see why copyright can actually be a good thing.
So, I suspect that the parent was not a joke, and you should quit asuming. You know, ass of you, ha ha. Get a life.
You are an idiot. I am a computer engineer, and when I need to work on binary data (aka, that inside the machine) I will use hex. However, the real world does not operate on binary data, it operates on base-10 data, because that is the way everyone was taught in school. So, it is real world number given in real world base units.
But, what can you expect from the guy who wants us to use lojban as our language just so computers can understand us better. Hell, we should switch our number system to base 16 of course. While we are at all these radical changes, we should also ban copyright laws. (Check his post history.) Please take your rabid ideology elsewhere. Technology is created to make our lives easier, not the other way around.
I'd counter that and say that the vision they had was a direct byproduct of the environment they wanted to change. In the past 50 years in this county, arguably the most visionary leader would be Martin Luther King, Jr. He gains this title because of the strife and turmoil of the circumstances he was involved in. It would be much harder for you or I to be regarded as visionary, because our country is pretty decent. Sure, there are always injustices, but they are minor in comparison.
Did some people do their best to drive out/discourage black leadership in the 60's. You bet your ass they did. Count the number of burtal murders and crossburnings. MLK was assasinated. Did Britian do their best to quelch rebeillion in the Union. Sure thing there too (and at the time an ocean between was a much more significant hurdle than it is now).
Stageringly visionary leaders are regarded so because their vision stands as something staggeringly different from the norm.
Yep, we can't fund the space program because we are running up a bill for the wars we are waging. Pretty soon other government programs will see the axe.
After all, terrorists hate us. Why do they hate us? Because we like to attack their country and tell them how they should run their government. Sure, some of the citizens, mabey even most, don't like their current government. But, you will always have those that hate us for it. As you build up more and more hate, you get more and more terrorists, and more and more wars to wage to fight them.
The biggest problem is that most of the governments we install become dismal failures. Why?, you ask. We had to work for our democracy. We saw that the situation was bad, we wanted a change, and we faught to get it. The problem with Iraq, Afgahnistan, etc, is that the people, by and large, did not have to fight to get their democracy. It was handed to them by us. When we turn over control, they don't know what it takes to really make it work, so some dictator will exploit this vulnerability and turn the country into a shit hole again. This breeds more hate towards us by the people we were trying to help because they think we packed up bags and left them stranded. It is a vicious cycle.
We could grow up, however, and realize that people in different places of the world share different opinions than ours. We could accept this and let them go about their business. If they decide they want a change, let them work for it so they respect it and know how to handle it. If we did this, we could save our money to fix the problems within our country. We would probably have less of a terrorist problem to (or at least they wouldn't hate us for being arrogant pricks.)
Technology is supposed to adapt to us, not the other way around. If I'm forced to relearn most of what I was taught, just to upgrade to new technology, I'm much more likely to just stick with what I have.
If you're blaming a language, the finger is pointed in the wrong direction. The best hope for this tech to succeed is to get the tech to simplify life, not complicate it.
Imagine that, offering up a download from a reasonably popular band. Huh, who woulda guessed?
Hoobastank made a significant amount of airtime on MTV a year and a half ago, or so. It was their first album, and I assume this single is from their second (possibly forthcoming?) album. Not sure the name of the single, but I'd look it up if I was at my main computer. Descent CD too, real Incubus sounding (though you probably aren't aware of that name either).
building apps that are easier to use than Outlook.
Apple has it right, they build incredibly intelligent apps, with a minimalistic approach to user interface that has only the options people want. The result is that the apps are very easy to use and they look pretty to boot.
Do yourself a favor, switch to Mac now, you won't regret it. You'll have a easy to use desktop system with strong UNIX underpinnings. Plus, three years between OS releases is a long enough time to significantly erode Microsofts market share.
I've said this before, and I will say it. I have no problem with you're opinion, and I respect it in certain ways. However, at least you have mathematics to back you up on 1+2 != 4.
You never give any justification for your stance on copyright however. This is why you get modded troll. If you are going to take a controversial position, you need back up or you will be seen as a fanatic. I've seen countless controversial posts get modded insightful, but they do that by giving justification for their beliefs. Progress happens when brilliant people really challenge the status quo. You don't challenge anything by spouting trite, unfounded propaganda.
Again, I respect you're views. I don't respect your methods. If you could positively contribute to the copyright argument, you might find your views taken seriously, or at least considered rather than disregarded outright.
I agree with you here. I'm not actually going to blow them all on this guy. There are people who can justify their position who need to be modded up. However, evaluating on a post by post basis, this guys posts come up trollish a good portion of the time. If I find they lack the appropriate moderation, I will waste no time doing the job myself.
Even in the presence of messed up italic tags, I can understand what you mean.
I kinda thought it was a good marketing department and a better legal department.
Then your understanding is as flawed as any I've seen. Umpteen judges certainly didn't seem to buy the notion that Microsoft owed it's monopoly to it's marketing skill.
No, they didn't understand marketing at all, but they did understand their legal department which I said was better. In any case, the guy I was replying was against copyright, and that is perfectly legal so their is no misunderstanding in the courtroom about that. The case was monopolistic practices of forcing their OS and software onto computers or none at all, plus some other side issues such as pricing, etc. I hate Microsoft as much as anyone. My understanding of the case is most certainly not flawed.
Shit, most of the open source world spends their time coming up with alternatives that are almost exact clones of what Microsoft does.
Yeah, right. Like Linux, Apache, Gnome, Gimp, MySql, vi, emacs, GCC and all those other office-style products. Talk about the clueless pot calling the kettle... sheesh.
OK, most is probably exagerated. I'm the biggest fan of open source you will ever find. I've quit using Microsoft completely. Gnome is, however, an attempt to come up with a decent desktop environment. This is needed to compete with microsoft. The interface is different, of course. My point is open source is trying to rectify its average user inadequacies that microsft has had for over seven years. It is we how are behind in this. vi, emacs, and gcc are not office-style products, period. Geeks can use geek products, end users cant. You're mom would die trying to use vi, unless she has some sort of technical degree. OOo is an office style product, again trying to come up with an alternative to MS. Linux, Apache, MySQL, all beat hands down MS's products. Open source and unix are far supierior in the server room. They are not easy enough for the front office though.
In case you have not realized, you get modded troll because you have no real opinion.
Of course he has a real opinion. You may not agree with him, but his opinion is stated clearly in his post. He disagrees with the notion of copyright and doesn't think it's a useful idea. That's a perfectly respectable opinion, whether you agree with him or not.
You are right here. He has a strong opinion. I see it as more akin to a religion, however. He has no (or at least presents no) real ground on which to base his opinion. He mindlessly just states what he thinks, real drone-like. Go back and look at his post history. One or two sentances, copyright = bad, no justification. To me, if someone is going to have an opinion, they better be able to justify it. You can go to my post history to see my justifactions against this guy. I've asked him to justify his position, but he hasn't, and I beleive he is incabable of doing so.
Back up your retorhic with a pursuasive argument and you may finally be taken seriously
Learn to spell and people might begin to assume that you're something other than a 14 year old schoolboy living in his mother's basement.
Jeez, man, that is harsh. Check out the time on that post. I just got back from having a fun night out, and my spelling is no good in the first place, and the night's activities certainly didn't help.
I'm sure you can find errors in this post. If you like to use spelling to discredit logical arguments, that's fine with me. I judge them on the actual statements, however. This is Slashdot, you should be used to the misspellings by now. If I were typing a formal report, I'd try harder on the spelling issue, with the help of a spell checker. Here, I just don't care enough. (I will always get my tags right though).
Check out Ani DiFranco and her song/poem Self Evident. It is on her live album So Much Shouting, So Much Laughter. It's one of my favorites, and I'm sure you would like it.
Seems funny. I kinda thought it was a good marketing department and a better legal department. Shit, most of the open source world spends their time coming up with alternatives that are almost exact clones of what Microsoft does. Seems like they could make a good copyright case if they really wanted to. Even if they didn't have a case, they have the money to suffocate any open source project that they set their eyes upon.
In case you have not realized, you get modded troll because you have no real opinion. Back up your retorhic with a pursuasive argument and you may finally be taken seriously. The next time I get mod points, I'm using them all to mod you down. Unless you change your ways and make a real statement. I respect your opinion, and admire it in some cases, but you make an ass out of yourself and the rest of the people who share your beliefs by being a complete fool
-Paying user burning karma to advocate abolishment of "intellectual property" laws.
Should read:
-Paying user burning money to brign to light the fact that he has no real foundation upon which to base his opinions.
Seriously, all you do is post a sentance or two on every story that say copyright is horrible. Ban it now! Arguments like these are ignored by anyone who has the power to change them. Why? Because people with power were, in most cases, smart enough to achieve their postions on their own merit. They did this by presenting ideas and backing them up. Until you do that, you are just a fanatic who will be summarily ignored. Troll on or grow up.
I'm not. I just got my first Mac less than a month ago. This is after being a long time Windows user, then giving Windows up almost exclusively for Linux about 2 years ago. I dabbled in other unix-ish OSs like *BSD, QNX, Solaris, etc.
If you are going to point at iTunes on Windows and say haha, I just feel sorry for you. Mac OS X is by far the easiest, most enjoyable desktop os I have ever used.
Coming from the same person who relentlessly advocates abolishing copyright, what do you plan for everyone to do once you've eliminated their jobs and then taken away incentive for them to put spend time pursuing creative works. Come on!
I used to think somewhat like you. If the unions weren't standing in the way, lots of manual labor could become automated. If you can eliminate copyright, more freeflow of ideas could occur.
Its a real chicken and egg thing though. You've just made everyone in the lower income brackets unemployed, and taken the value out of most other industries, such as the media and software developers. So, no one is going to make any money. However, it cost a great deal of money to implement those automated systems, and it takes money to buy the raw material to fashion goods from. You have succeeded in reducing operating expenses, and possibly the retail price of these goods, but only once you've regained your inital capital outlay. The problem is, you can't do that because now no one is making the money to buy your product. What you advocate isn't all that different from Karl Marx. His name is tarnished because of what happened in communism, but their is genuinely good thinking there. The problem is, there will always be someone their who will take advantage of the system, bring the whole thing down and thus necessitating a change, which is why democracy and an open economy has done better. Its an economic arms race, and equilibrium will always be achieved at some balance of free economy and socialism. Too much of one will always fail as exploitations occur.
The basics of what you advocate have in large part already occured, and then been adjusted to find the correct balance of what works. Human nature would have to become radically different for true socialism to be realized, but that is simply not going to happen. Thousands of years of political, economic, and social change has gone into forming what we currently have. Change will indeed occur in the future. But the ideals you hold are probably unrealistic.
As an aside, I've encouraged you to form a well drawn out argument advocating you're position. I do this because I'm intrigued and think you are passionate about what you say. However, all you do is say what you think, but you provide no reasoning. It seems more like a religion you believe in on blind faith and unfounded ideals. Once you really analyze the situation, you will probably find all sorts of problems. By reasoning through these problems, you can strengthen you're argument. Or come to realize you are simply wrong, as I did when I believed what you did (which was when I was ignorant and in middle school/high school).
Put you'r money towards a Mac and you will get the same thing plus more. My new dual 2.0GHz G5 system can rip a CD in 4-5 minutes. You can rip to MP3/AAC/AIFF/WAV and it streams through any IP based network, wired or wireless. If audio quality is you're goal, rip to AIFF and use the built in optical audio ports.
I would imaging iTunes beats hands down any interface embeddeded into a dedicated server. Plus OS X is rock solid, so if you really want a device that just rips and streams, throw the system in a closet and forget about it. If you want more for you're money, you've got some of the best hardware and software you're gonna find on this side of the moon.
I'm sure this thing is terrific, but think about you're options. There are alternatives.
I beleive your theory is based on a novel goal, but when placed in the context of reality, is completley absurd and the rationalizations reduce to ignorance.
Copyright law protects a multitude of professions, but I want to consider two specifically: musicians and authors.
In both cases, there is a great deal of pride that goes into a creative work of art. Copyright protects their ownerships of this and ensures that no one else can take the work and claim it as their own. I don't know if you've ever done any creative work, like songs, poetry, etc., but I have, and I would be very pissed if someone else were to take credit for my creation. This protection has noting to do with money, but of due credit. This is very important.
Secondly, there is the money issue. Your ideals seem to disregard this, but it is important. What incentive is their for people to create creative works, if they will not be compensated. There is an argument to be made about musicians, and making money from concerts, but this is not my main point. Look at it from an authors standpoint. It takes a tremendous amount of time to write and edit a novel. If their was no copyright, there would be no reason to publish the book, as anyone could reproduce and redistribute the work for free. Why then would anyone invest their time in writing? There is very little value available to an author other than revenue generated for books. Sure, you can do book signings and lectures, but generally these things are not very lucrative and done only for book promotional reasons. Your donation concept only goes so far. If creative works are seen as a charity, the value in them will decrease exponentially. If the book is available for free, I'm not likely to donate once I have a copy of it. Purchasing the copy ensures the value of the material to both the author and the consumer.
I've had discussions here on Slashdot on one other occasion, but you fail to prevent any credible logic to back up your ideals. I would really like to see you think though your theory, analyze the consequences (both good and bad), and present a logical argument, but you constantly spout rhetoric.
I'm too lazy to open another browser and find decent information for you, so you'll have to do the hunting yourself.
The protocol is called DAAP. It stands for Digital Audio Application Protocol, or something similiar to that. I'm sure their are clients and servers abundant on the net.
Now that you know the name, it should be a good place to start. Happy hunting.
I'd suggest you are paying for both information and service, probably weighted more heavily on the information side.
I went to school and learned a great deal more than I could read in a book. My professors were all very qualified and imparted on my much knowledge.
If all that was required for information was a book, the only qualification needed to be a professor would be the ability to read. This is not the case, however. Why do you suppose that is?
Also, go into a job interview and say all your qualifications come from what you've read at the library. I doubt you will be hired.
Yep, you're right. I encourage actually paying for information. This, in your warped view, means I would encourage not paying for labor.
It is your view that would bring a return to this form of thinking by not paying a segment of people their true value. Slavery was bad and is bad precisely because it takes advantage of people by depriving them of the worth of their actions (in this case labor). Your theory is an extension of this. You would unfairly eliminate the value of those who are knowledgable, creative, or expirienced. In other words, just about everybody.
I suggest you take a step back and really rationalize your viewpoint. When you formulate a logical argument, rather than just accusing me of ignorance, then I will consider what you have to say.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm seriously beginning to question the ability of any open source project to challenge Apple on the user experience front. Come on, look at these JuK screen shots and compare to iTunes screen shots.
Now, I will fully admit to never actually using JuK, but just from its appearance, I don't want to. I do use iTunes extensively (on a Mac, I only use UNIX-based OSs). So, on iTunes, I have 3 control buttons, a pretty status meter, and a search field. That is it. Now look at JuK. There is a crapload of buttons making the interface completely suck. Why is there a save button? I never save in iTunes, when changes get made, they automatically are propagated through the library. Easy. Why are there cut and paste butttons? Do they need to take up screen space. Leave them buried in a menu. How often are they used in the main interface screen? In iTunes, I rarely go to the menu's. About the only time is when I want to create a new smart playlist. The three buttons and the search field take care of 98% of what I want to do on the interface. This is what makes Apple user friendly and pretty to look at.
If open source wants to be the peoples' desktop, they have to start considering the interfaces they design. There is a reason why people like to use Macs and proclaim the interface as the superior solution: it is. There are things to be learned here, but time and time again, with each new release of a new program, the user interfaces continue to suck.
2^8 is still a valid hex number. What are you saying in this post? You'd prefer the price of goods to rise exponentially by powers of 2. Yeah, that be great if I could expect the price of everything I buy to double every quarter/year, whatever. You are an idiot.
Man you are a hypocrite. You denounce the use of decimal in favor of hex, but yet you prefer to give numbers in decimal:
2^16 = 2^10h
Follow your own damn rules before telling the rest of the world what they should do.
All this guy does is make posts saying we should start speaking lojban and use a hexadecimal number system. I've replied to him many times and he remains utterly serious. He also refuses to see why copyright can actually be a good thing.
So, I suspect that the parent was not a joke, and you should quit asuming. You know, ass of you, ha ha. Get a life.
You are an idiot. I am a computer engineer, and when I need to work on binary data (aka, that inside the machine) I will use hex. However, the real world does not operate on binary data, it operates on base-10 data, because that is the way everyone was taught in school. So, it is real world number given in real world base units.
But, what can you expect from the guy who wants us to use lojban as our language just so computers can understand us better. Hell, we should switch our number system to base 16 of course. While we are at all these radical changes, we should also ban copyright laws. (Check his post history.) Please take your rabid ideology elsewhere. Technology is created to make our lives easier, not the other way around.
I'd counter that and say that the vision they had was a direct byproduct of the environment they wanted to change. In the past 50 years in this county, arguably the most visionary leader would be Martin Luther King, Jr. He gains this title because of the strife and turmoil of the circumstances he was involved in. It would be much harder for you or I to be regarded as visionary, because our country is pretty decent. Sure, there are always injustices, but they are minor in comparison.
Did some people do their best to drive out/discourage black leadership in the 60's. You bet your ass they did. Count the number of burtal murders and crossburnings. MLK was assasinated. Did Britian do their best to quelch rebeillion in the Union. Sure thing there too (and at the time an ocean between was a much more significant hurdle than it is now).
Stageringly visionary leaders are regarded so because their vision stands as something staggeringly different from the norm.
Yep, we can't fund the space program because we are running up a bill for the wars we are waging. Pretty soon other government programs will see the axe.
After all, terrorists hate us. Why do they hate us? Because we like to attack their country and tell them how they should run their government. Sure, some of the citizens, mabey even most, don't like their current government. But, you will always have those that hate us for it. As you build up more and more hate, you get more and more terrorists, and more and more wars to wage to fight them.
The biggest problem is that most of the governments we install become dismal failures. Why?, you ask. We had to work for our democracy. We saw that the situation was bad, we wanted a change, and we faught to get it. The problem with Iraq, Afgahnistan, etc, is that the people, by and large, did not have to fight to get their democracy. It was handed to them by us. When we turn over control, they don't know what it takes to really make it work, so some dictator will exploit this vulnerability and turn the country into a shit hole again. This breeds more hate towards us by the people we were trying to help because they think we packed up bags and left them stranded. It is a vicious cycle.
We could grow up, however, and realize that people in different places of the world share different opinions than ours. We could accept this and let them go about their business. If they decide they want a change, let them work for it so they respect it and know how to handle it. If we did this, we could save our money to fix the problems within our country. We would probably have less of a terrorist problem to (or at least they wouldn't hate us for being arrogant pricks.)
</rant>
Technology is supposed to adapt to us, not the other way around. If I'm forced to relearn most of what I was taught, just to upgrade to new technology, I'm much more likely to just stick with what I have.
If you're blaming a language, the finger is pointed in the wrong direction. The best hope for this tech to succeed is to get the tech to simplify life, not complicate it.
Imagine that, offering up a download from a reasonably popular band. Huh, who woulda guessed?
Hoobastank made a significant amount of airtime on MTV a year and a half ago, or so. It was their first album, and I assume this single is from their second (possibly forthcoming?) album. Not sure the name of the single, but I'd look it up if I was at my main computer. Descent CD too, real Incubus sounding (though you probably aren't aware of that name either).
building apps that are easier to use than Outlook.
Apple has it right, they build incredibly intelligent apps, with a minimalistic approach to user interface that has only the options people want. The result is that the apps are very easy to use and they look pretty to boot.
Do yourself a favor, switch to Mac now, you won't regret it. You'll have a easy to use desktop system with strong UNIX underpinnings. Plus, three years between OS releases is a long enough time to significantly erode Microsofts market share.
I've said this before, and I will say it. I have no problem with you're opinion, and I respect it in certain ways. However, at least you have mathematics to back you up on 1+2 != 4.
You never give any justification for your stance on copyright however. This is why you get modded troll. If you are going to take a controversial position, you need back up or you will be seen as a fanatic. I've seen countless controversial posts get modded insightful, but they do that by giving justification for their beliefs. Progress happens when brilliant people really challenge the status quo. You don't challenge anything by spouting trite, unfounded propaganda.
Again, I respect you're views. I don't respect your methods. If you could positively contribute to the copyright argument, you might find your views taken seriously, or at least considered rather than disregarded outright.
I agree with you here. I'm not actually going to blow them all on this guy. There are people who can justify their position who need to be modded up. However, evaluating on a post by post basis, this guys posts come up trollish a good portion of the time. If I find they lack the appropriate moderation, I will waste no time doing the job myself.
Even in the presence of messed up italic tags, I can understand what you mean.
I kinda thought it was a good marketing department and a better legal department.
Then your understanding is as flawed as any I've seen. Umpteen judges certainly didn't seem to buy the notion that Microsoft owed it's monopoly to it's marketing skill.
No, they didn't understand marketing at all, but they did understand their legal department which I said was better. In any case, the guy I was replying was against copyright, and that is perfectly legal so their is no misunderstanding in the courtroom about that. The case was monopolistic practices of forcing their OS and software onto computers or none at all, plus some other side issues such as pricing, etc. I hate Microsoft as much as anyone. My understanding of the case is most certainly not flawed.
Shit, most of the open source world spends their time coming up with alternatives that are almost exact clones of what Microsoft does.
Yeah, right. Like Linux, Apache, Gnome, Gimp, MySql, vi, emacs, GCC and all those other office-style products. Talk about the clueless pot calling the kettle... sheesh.
OK, most is probably exagerated. I'm the biggest fan of open source you will ever find. I've quit using Microsoft completely. Gnome is, however, an attempt to come up with a decent desktop environment. This is needed to compete with microsoft. The interface is different, of course. My point is open source is trying to rectify its average user inadequacies that microsft has had for over seven years. It is we how are behind in this. vi, emacs, and gcc are not office-style products, period. Geeks can use geek products, end users cant. You're mom would die trying to use vi, unless she has some sort of technical degree. OOo is an office style product, again trying to come up with an alternative to MS. Linux, Apache, MySQL, all beat hands down MS's products. Open source and unix are far supierior in the server room. They are not easy enough for the front office though.
In case you have not realized, you get modded troll because you have no real opinion.
Of course he has a real opinion. You may not agree with him, but his opinion is stated clearly in his post. He disagrees with the notion of copyright and doesn't think it's a useful idea. That's a perfectly respectable opinion, whether you agree with him or not.
You are right here. He has a strong opinion. I see it as more akin to a religion, however. He has no (or at least presents no) real ground on which to base his opinion. He mindlessly just states what he thinks, real drone-like. Go back and look at his post history. One or two sentances, copyright = bad, no justification. To me, if someone is going to have an opinion, they better be able to justify it. You can go to my post history to see my justifactions against this guy. I've asked him to justify his position, but he hasn't, and I beleive he is incabable of doing so.
Back up your retorhic with a pursuasive argument and you may finally be taken seriously
Learn to spell and people might begin to assume that you're something other than a 14 year old schoolboy living in his mother's basement.
Jeez, man, that is harsh. Check out the time on that post. I just got back from having a fun night out, and my spelling is no good in the first place, and the night's activities certainly didn't help.
I'm sure you can find errors in this post. If you like to use spelling to discredit logical arguments, that's fine with me. I judge them on the actual statements, however. This is Slashdot, you should be used to the misspellings by now. If I were typing a formal report, I'd try harder on the spelling issue, with the help of a spell checker. Here, I just don't care enough. (I will always get my tags right though).
Check out Ani DiFranco and her song/poem Self Evident. It is on her live album So Much Shouting, So Much Laughter. It's one of my favorites, and I'm sure you would like it.
Seems funny. I kinda thought it was a good marketing department and a better legal department. Shit, most of the open source world spends their time coming up with alternatives that are almost exact clones of what Microsoft does. Seems like they could make a good copyright case if they really wanted to. Even if they didn't have a case, they have the money to suffocate any open source project that they set their eyes upon.
In case you have not realized, you get modded troll because you have no real opinion. Back up your retorhic with a pursuasive argument and you may finally be taken seriously. The next time I get mod points, I'm using them all to mod you down. Unless you change your ways and make a real statement. I respect your opinion, and admire it in some cases, but you make an ass out of yourself and the rest of the people who share your beliefs by being a complete fool
It is Friday night, go out, have fun. Drink a lot of beer and tell me how well you can spell. I'm trying here, give me credit.
P.S. I am checking this post extra carefully. I'm sure I'll screw something up, but here's hoping.
I said: in most cases
That was a disclaimer because I know it is not in all cases. Now, try posting thought out arguments to back up your opinions.
-Paying user burning karma to advocate abolishment of "intellectual property" laws.
Should read:
-Paying user burning money to brign to light the fact that he has no real foundation upon which to base his opinions.
Seriously, all you do is post a sentance or two on every story that say copyright is horrible. Ban it now! Arguments like these are ignored by anyone who has the power to change them. Why? Because people with power were, in most cases, smart enough to achieve their postions on their own merit. They did this by presenting ideas and backing them up. Until you do that, you are just a fanatic who will be summarily ignored. Troll on or grow up.
I'm not. I just got my first Mac less than a month ago. This is after being a long time Windows user, then giving Windows up almost exclusively for Linux about 2 years ago. I dabbled in other unix-ish OSs like *BSD, QNX, Solaris, etc.
If you are going to point at iTunes on Windows and say haha, I just feel sorry for you. Mac OS X is by far the easiest, most enjoyable desktop os I have ever used.
Coming from the same person who relentlessly advocates abolishing copyright, what do you plan for everyone to do once you've eliminated their jobs and then taken away incentive for them to put spend time pursuing creative works. Come on!
I used to think somewhat like you. If the unions weren't standing in the way, lots of manual labor could become automated. If you can eliminate copyright, more freeflow of ideas could occur.
Its a real chicken and egg thing though. You've just made everyone in the lower income brackets unemployed, and taken the value out of most other industries, such as the media and software developers. So, no one is going to make any money. However, it cost a great deal of money to implement those automated systems, and it takes money to buy the raw material to fashion goods from. You have succeeded in reducing operating expenses, and possibly the retail price of these goods, but only once you've regained your inital capital outlay. The problem is, you can't do that because now no one is making the money to buy your product. What you advocate isn't all that different from Karl Marx. His name is tarnished because of what happened in communism, but their is genuinely good thinking there. The problem is, there will always be someone their who will take advantage of the system, bring the whole thing down and thus necessitating a change, which is why democracy and an open economy has done better. Its an economic arms race, and equilibrium will always be achieved at some balance of free economy and socialism. Too much of one will always fail as exploitations occur.
The basics of what you advocate have in large part already occured, and then been adjusted to find the correct balance of what works. Human nature would have to become radically different for true socialism to be realized, but that is simply not going to happen. Thousands of years of political, economic, and social change has gone into forming what we currently have. Change will indeed occur in the future. But the ideals you hold are probably unrealistic.
As an aside, I've encouraged you to form a well drawn out argument advocating you're position. I do this because I'm intrigued and think you are passionate about what you say. However, all you do is say what you think, but you provide no reasoning. It seems more like a religion you believe in on blind faith and unfounded ideals. Once you really analyze the situation, you will probably find all sorts of problems. By reasoning through these problems, you can strengthen you're argument. Or come to realize you are simply wrong, as I did when I believed what you did (which was when I was ignorant and in middle school/high school).
Put you'r money towards a Mac and you will get the same thing plus more. My new dual 2.0GHz G5 system can rip a CD in 4-5 minutes. You can rip to MP3/AAC/AIFF/WAV and it streams through any IP based network, wired or wireless. If audio quality is you're goal, rip to AIFF and use the built in optical audio ports.
I would imaging iTunes beats hands down any interface embeddeded into a dedicated server. Plus OS X is rock solid, so if you really want a device that just rips and streams, throw the system in a closet and forget about it. If you want more for you're money, you've got some of the best hardware and software you're gonna find on this side of the moon.
I'm sure this thing is terrific, but think about you're options. There are alternatives.
I beleive your theory is based on a novel goal, but when placed in the context of reality, is completley absurd and the rationalizations reduce to ignorance.
Copyright law protects a multitude of professions, but I want to consider two specifically: musicians and authors.
In both cases, there is a great deal of pride that goes into a creative work of art. Copyright protects their ownerships of this and ensures that no one else can take the work and claim it as their own. I don't know if you've ever done any creative work, like songs, poetry, etc., but I have, and I would be very pissed if someone else were to take credit for my creation. This protection has noting to do with money, but of due credit. This is very important.
Secondly, there is the money issue. Your ideals seem to disregard this, but it is important. What incentive is their for people to create creative works, if they will not be compensated. There is an argument to be made about musicians, and making money from concerts, but this is not my main point. Look at it from an authors standpoint. It takes a tremendous amount of time to write and edit a novel. If their was no copyright, there would be no reason to publish the book, as anyone could reproduce and redistribute the work for free. Why then would anyone invest their time in writing? There is very little value available to an author other than revenue generated for books. Sure, you can do book signings and lectures, but generally these things are not very lucrative and done only for book promotional reasons. Your donation concept only goes so far. If creative works are seen as a charity, the value in them will decrease exponentially. If the book is available for free, I'm not likely to donate once I have a copy of it. Purchasing the copy ensures the value of the material to both the author and the consumer.
I've had discussions here on Slashdot on one other occasion, but you fail to prevent any credible logic to back up your ideals. I would really like to see you think though your theory, analyze the consequences (both good and bad), and present a logical argument, but you constantly spout rhetoric.
I'm too lazy to open another browser and find decent information for you, so you'll have to do the hunting yourself.
The protocol is called DAAP. It stands for Digital Audio Application Protocol, or something similiar to that. I'm sure their are clients and servers abundant on the net.
Now that you know the name, it should be a good place to start. Happy hunting.
I'd suggest you are paying for both information and service, probably weighted more heavily on the information side.
I went to school and learned a great deal more than I could read in a book. My professors were all very qualified and imparted on my much knowledge.
If all that was required for information was a book, the only qualification needed to be a professor would be the ability to read. This is not the case, however. Why do you suppose that is?
Also, go into a job interview and say all your qualifications come from what you've read at the library. I doubt you will be hired.
Yep, you're right. I encourage actually paying for information. This, in your warped view, means I would encourage not paying for labor.
It is your view that would bring a return to this form of thinking by not paying a segment of people their true value. Slavery was bad and is bad precisely because it takes advantage of people by depriving them of the worth of their actions (in this case labor). Your theory is an extension of this. You would unfairly eliminate the value of those who are knowledgable, creative, or expirienced. In other words, just about everybody.
I suggest you take a step back and really rationalize your viewpoint. When you formulate a logical argument, rather than just accusing me of ignorance, then I will consider what you have to say.