ipod battery replace ipod battery ipod battery problem
...or anything similar, and it's the number one hit (and dozens of other sites that sell and service iPods and batteries follow).
To say nothing of the fact that Apple's own iPod battery replacement programs are thoroughly documented on its own pages, and can be found out about instantly by calling Apple, visiting any Apple store or service provider, or asking anyone who knows remotely anything about iPods.
So, nice try, but it's not an "obscure faq", and it's utterly ridiculously simple to find out how to replace a battery in an iPod. Your cell phone and digital camera likely don't use AA batteries, and yet, miraculously, people can figure out where to buy those. It's really no different with an iPod. And if you're honestly telling me that people should correctly assume that they must throw their iPod away simply because it doesn't have an obvious battery door, without doing ANYTHING to determine whether the battery is replaceable, well, I find that "unbelivable" (sic).
'The iPod is far and away the most popular tech gadget with our panellists - however, for the first time we are hearing negative feedback about the iPod from some panellists,' said the organisation's spokeswoman, Carla Avruch. 'Panellists cite that the batteries are not replaceable, so when they die the entire player must be replaced,' she said. 'We have heard from some conspiracy theorists that the batteries are made to die soon after the warranty ends.
I can't believe this is rearing its head again.
1. The batteries are replaceable, both by Apple and numerous third parties for as little as $25. Apple's replacement is $60. Yes, Apple's replacement is not self-service, but the cost of an OEM battery, even if it was "user-replaceable" (which it actually still is) could still be in that ballpark, as evidenced by OEM battery prices compared to high-quality third party replacements on nearly EVERY DEVICE UNDER THE SUN that uses lithium ion batteries.
2. The batteries are made by leading battery OEMs. How on earth could they be "designed" to last only until the warranty runs out? I know they acknowledge it as a conspiracy theory, but *come on*.
Not to mention how many other devices in the iPod's class also have had batteries sealed in the enclosure. The difference with the iPod, as compared to some of the other products, is that you actually CAN get the battery replaced, direct from Apple, not to mention from any of many, many third party reputable vendors.
Some of the third parties even do the replacement for you overnight, some with higher capacity batteries than the OEM equipment, and for cheaper than Apple's own official replacement.
This battery crap has been so thoroughly debunked it's unbelievable. I have answered nearly every question I can think of about iPod batteries here:
Please note that this is my site, and the main index page DOES feature Google ads. The above link DOES NOT contain ads. I have nothing to do with Apple and have never worked for Apple, nor do I sell iPods, anything iPod related, or anything having to do with batteries. I do not receive money or products from anyone related to Apple or any iPod accessory maker. The only ads on the site (which are NOT on the above URL) are via Google. If you find anything inaccurate in that FAQ, which has stood for almost 4 years, please let me know as soon as possible. In fact, I challenge someone to find something inaccurate about the FAQ.
(If you think you're going to say some witty remark about bad PR forcing Apple's hand, or iPod's Dirty Secret, or some other tripe, please read the FAQ first.)
In sum:
The batteries in ALL models of iPod are replaceable, both by Apple, or via several third parties for as little as $25. Third parties offer do-it-yourself kits, and some will also do the replacement for you. The warranty on the iPod is one year, it DOES cover the batteries, and can be extended to two years for $60. Many first generation iPods are still in use with their original batteries. ALL lithium ion batteries have a finite lifetime. The case isn't sealed for "planned obsolescence" or failure; it's because any mechanisms to allow acceptable user-access to batteries would significantly increase the size of the case. Yes, significantly. Even if it's a millimeter, that can be a killer for a device whose thickness is *measured* in millimeters. No, it can't just use screws and doors: the decision was made such that the device would have the sleek design and appearance that makes it so attractive in the first place. And even if you believe that it still was a conspiracy to get people to buy new iPods when the batteries wore out, even if that were the case, the batteries are replaceable via numerous channels, including Apple itself, for anywhere from $25 to $60. They don't last any shorter or longer than any other high-quality lithium ion batteries out there.
...Roland Piquepaille submission allowing him to pimp his blog, just three days after this doozy about "nanotechnology", no less? (Hint: it wasn't about nanotechnology at all, and didn't address even the basic "safety" questions it fallaciously purported to address.)
While I'll concede that this particular submission actually appears accurate and interesting (no doubt by accident, judging from his prolific (and annoying) submission history), when will we be able to filter this guy out?
...is hardly the same as using nanotechnology to repair your brain or otherwise ingest.
And aside from that, I'd hardly call this "nanotechnology" just because a hair dye process deemed effective by ancient Egyptians coincidentally happened to generate particle small enough to meet the definition of "nanoparticle".
Additionally, this is yet another questionable Roland Piquepaille submission.
Well, you're forgetting a couple of things. One, for months, many rumor sites, analysts, and the prevailing best educated guesses have reiterated that there is definitely a "real" video iPod on the way (i.e., with a bigger screen and better video decoding capabilities), and that neither the video iPod nor the iTunes movie store would be launched until both were ready. So there may indeed be a new iPod alongside this announcement anyway. Two, even the current iPod can play up to 480x480 (albeit MPEG-4 Part 2), so this suggests that the decode capability just wasn't powerful enough on the current generation iPods. There's no reason higher resolution content can't be played back on a lower resolution screen: some of the detail will just be lost.
Of course, you are correct about the disparity in general between watching something on a portable device, versus a nice big TV. Hopefully Apple handles this gracefully, because people won't want 320x240 movies (though, even the 320x240 TV shows are not bad on a standard def TV, for most peoples' tastes).
Actually (and yes, I've seen and heard all the stories about caps and warnings from ISPs, etc.), *most* US DSL and cable providers don't have caps of any type. They may contact/warn a customer if they deem them to be "abusive" (which are, comparatively, VERY isolated incidents), but there are definitely not caps in the vast majority of markets, and definitely not any official caps (unless an agreement says so specifically). To reiterate, yes, we've all seen the stories entitled "'Unlimited serivce' not really unlimited" and so on. But, again, most US home broadband providers selling "unlimited" service *do not* have caps. (For the record, I have downloaded well over 100GB in given months at various times, by simply moving DVD data images from my office to home.)
This is (part of) what raised all of the Network Neutrality stuff: US based home broadband providers have been overselling their services horrendously, because the majority of their customers just surf the web and check email, and maybe watch an occasional streaming video. Now what happens when thousands - or millions - customers start downloading multi-gig files every day, virtually overnight? I commented on this issue here and here.
So, no, US-based customers will DEFINITELY not be charged for going over anything, especially if it wasn't spelled out in the terms of the agreement. Will some operators warn customers on what turns out to be perfectly legitimate usage, because someone's movie downloads sets off some kind of automated monitoring tool somewhere? I'm positive there will be stories about that.
But now the no-cap US providers are going to have to figure out how to provide these 3, 5, and 10Mbps "unlimited" download services they've promised for $30-$60/month when the real cost to operate them if peoples' use of those pipes increases by several orders of magnitude is much higher. Naturally, they're going after the Apples and the Googles first, rather than saying to their subscribers "Hey, we've got to jack up your rate to $175/month." It's part greed, part poor planning, part easy way out, and part panic.
They should have been building out networks to support themselves as movers of bits years ago instead of desperately trying to hang onto their traditional markets, which will be supplanted by services (such as movie downloads) exactly like these. Others have suggested that maybe there SHOULD be caps in the US, if that's what it takes to recoup fees to build out the networks to support the traffic.
I haven't looked into these services recently, but it does intrigue me. Will the DRM that holds the files down enable me to put the video file on my 2 TB storage server in the basement and stream it to my media player of choice?
Perhaps.
If your "choice" happens to coincide with QuickTime, iTunes, or an iPod for playback when using the Apple store, or a Windows Media-compatible playback solution if using one of the Windows Media DRM stores.
But you can certainly put the files physically on any type of NAS or SAN or storage server or whatever storage device you see fit.
There are of course various tools for stripping the DRM from iTunes DRM (FairPlay) and Windows Media DRM encumbered files.
The cost of fuel notwithstanding, why don't I just buy the physical DVD (or get it shipped to me), and get the video file myself?
Well, if it's that important to you that it be completely DRM-free in the context of your own entertainment equipment and uses, future applications, etc., then sure - get the DVD and rip the video. The problem is that this is technically "illegal" in certain jurisdictions, and that a great many people will think it's "too complicated". If you're talking about it from a purely technical point of view, someone like yourself probably should just buy and rip the DVD.
I realize it's a convenience thing, non-tech users can't do it, etc.
That's the key: Convenience. Impulse. (Almost-)instant gratification. Total vertical integration. In the context of Apple's iTunes store, it "just works".
You hit the nail on the head.
But really, how hard is it to install some software and follow some short instructions? I'd bet that even non-tech users would be willing to follow the process if they can get additional value out of something they own with relatively minor frustration.
You might think that, but it's simply not true. They're not going to be downloading DVD ripping tools and uploading video files to their 2TB in-house media server and then setting up MythTV on their new Linux media center. They're going to get a Mac mini, hook its DVI connector up to their HDTV, click on the movie poster in iTunes, click "Download" automatically charging their credit card $9.99, and then plop down on their couch and watch it with the nice little remote control. All without having to know how to do anything, and trust me: that's how the majority of people want things.
First of all, the Vareity article (which doesn't necessarily know anything for certain) says:
"The only studio that will definitely [emphasis added] be part of Apple's movie store at launch is Disney.
So that still doesn't preclude other studios being on board at the time of launch. Even so, it still goes on to say:
"Other studios will likely join iTunes in the next year."
Further:
"The reason Amazon will have content from most major studios, while Apple may have only one, comes down to price, insiders said. Because it also sells DVDs, Amazon has agreed to studio demands that digital wholesale prices not undercut those of DVDs. [emphasis added] As a result, Amazon.com's digital download prices are expected to range from $9.99 to $19.99 -- about the same as those for other online retailers such as CinemaNow, Movielink and AOL.
Initially, Apple was pushing to sell all films for $9.99, just as it sells songs for a flat price of 99 and all TV shows for $1.99. But due to studio pressure, it will launch with two price points: $9.99 for library titles, $14.99 for new pics in the DVD window."
Not only is this the same type of behavior we saw to a certain extent with iTunes in the context of music, and moreso with television programming, I'm quite glad that Apple is pressuring the industry on the price issue, similar to the way they took a significant part in pressuring MPEG LA for reasonable licensing terms, which made the MPEG-4 family of protocols, including H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10, actually usable by normal people for content creation, broadcasting, and playback without the encumbrances of royalties and per-use/per-time fees that would have all but killed MPEG-4 and H.264 on anything but OEM devices and commercial broadcast services.
Then there's the question of usability: the same thing that has made the iTunes universe so attractive to users is still there as it has transitioned to video. It's not just a simple "download a media file and do with it what you will" service (though it can be treated as such; note I'm not talking about this in the context of DRM, I'm speaking in terms of the process via which you download something and play it) - it's a completely integrated system that normal people can actually use that has a pleasant user experience. With things like Front Row now shipping on all of Apple's systems, they've created an end-to-end solution that actually makes viewing, using, or listening to the content a tightly integrated experience that "just works". The turnkey nature of iTunes/iPod/Front Row has been one of the key reasons for its continuing success.
No, dumbass, I was saying "legitimate" in the context of the reasons I mentioned before, like "it just works" or "I just like using it", not legal vs illegal. Your tinfoil hat needs some adjustment.
I would say this does raise another valid point, though: as systems and media age, it's actually quite an interesting question how all of this data that isn't transferred to modern day systems will be dealt with, both from a technological and machine- and media-aging point-of-view. And in the context of criminal investigations, what happens if evidence is "lost" (or simply unrecovered) from a 25-year-old computer in a murder investigation which has no statute of limitations? It's an equally difficult question for governments, corporations, and academic institutions that actually *want* to keep the data but are having trouble instituting standards, policies, and mechanisms for data retention.
Could this be the latest in the criminal world's security strategy? Can we expect to see Spectrums, Archimedes, and Atari STs turning up in police investigations soon?
Um, no. This was an aberration; nothing more, even if its use for those reasons was deliberate on his part.
But here's an actual question:
I can absolutely understand and appreciate that people value some of the features and functionality of things like the Commodore 64 and Newton, and many other machines that were considered to be state-of-the-art in their time.
But why would someone go out of their way to continue to use it? I can understand practical and pragmatic answers like "It's still functional for me" or "I just like it better and I haven't had any problems". But are there other reasons?
I mean, you can literally get systems for free (or next to nothing) that are capable of running various modern operating systems, including various versions of Windows, Mac OS and Mac OS X, myriad Linux distributions to your heart's content, BSD distributions, and so on, that would be much more functional and capable, particularly in the context of the internet and associated applications.
So what's the draw? Why keep running on something like a Commodore 64? Even considering legitimate reasons for continuing to use it, I don't see how sticking with something exceedingly obsolete can be functional when viewed alongside semi-modern systems. I understand people collect all manner of antiques for a variety of reasons, including other things that may be nearly impossible to service or repair easily; is the reason for using obsolete computing equipment the same?
Status? Hobby? Entertainment? Eccentricity? Just to "do it"?
And to reiterate, I can understand collecting pristine Commodore 64s or similar in working order, and even making TCP/IP stacks and such work, just for the sake of doing it. But using it as a primary system exclusively? Some people may own and spend a great deal of time on something like, say, a Model T, but they don't use it as their daily driver...
On another note, I do agree that his system being a Commodore 64 will "complicate investigators' efforts"; but to say that it would be difficult to transfer files "without loss" is disingenuous at best. Do they mean "transfer files" to include possibly-deleted files (in which case I agree there may be "loss")? Do they mean contextual loss, because modern applications may or may not be able to open files and represent context-sensitive features like position, text styles, and so on? Or are they talking about "loss" in that they won't be able to run their standard forensic tools that package everything up with a nice little bow? If they're talking about files representing images and text, I don't care what it is: if it's functional and intact, there's no reason for there to be "loss". I don't care if it takes resorting to eBay, digging up old company engineers, or weirdos on web forums...they should be able to recover anything they need to.
But the home broadband providers aren't trying to "slow down the internet", though I agree that might be the end result.
What they're trying to do is get more revenue to build out their networks so they can actually provide the service that they've promised if people actually start using it. Right now, individual customers can max out their 3, 5, 10, etc., Mbps connections just fine (and yes, I'm fully aware there have been incidents of caps, or "unlimited" not being unlimited, and so on, but for the most part, individual customers can max out their connections occasionally with no problems).
The problem is that they're all so hopelessly oversold that they can't actually hope to service their customers with the promised bandwidth if everyone suddenly (where "suddenly" is over a period of a few years) started downloading gigs upon gigs of movies and TV shows and watching live 1Mbps (or higher) live streaming content instead of just browsing web pages and checking email.
I'm not saying it's *good* that they're oversold, but it's typical practice to not have every single ounce of that bandwidth dedicated to everyone. You build a model whereby almost all customers are served almost all of the time and try to stay ahead of the curve. But if the curve suddenly changes people's use by several orders of magnitude overnight (in business terms, anyway), what do you do?
Some people say "well, they should either respond, or go out of business". It's not *quite* that simple. And that's not really fair, either. It's easy to sit here and say that they should be able to provide 5Mbps simultaneously to every single customer who pays for it 24 hours a day, but I have a feeling people would be stunned by how much a dedicated 5Mbps connection would *actually* cost compared to how the home broadband industry structures pricing so that it's affordable.
Ideally, the solution would have been for the ISPs to recognize this about five years ago, and move wholesale to building out massive data networks. But they didn't do that, and now they're scrambling to find a way to pay for all the extra bandwidth they are going to need to start supporting movie download services and content owners offering TV shows directly to end consumers without jacking up their subscription rates to 3 or 4 or 5 times what they are now.
To respond to your questions generally, this isn't about companies that get dedicated internet services from commercial providers. This isn't about dark fiber. This is about the home broadband providers who have the "Last Mile" of coax or twisted pair connectivity into peoples' homes. Millions upon millions of homes. They can't support the coming growth at the current subscription rates. Some might say "well, they should get more efficient, then." I'm sure they will. But they'll ALSO look for ways to try to subsidize their operations in the meantime, which is what you're seeing now.
These aren't the guys hoarding dark fiber. The big backbone providers and people like Google are doing that, not home broadband providers. There are a lot of factors here, but this isn't about creating "artificial scarcity". This is because home broadband ISPs are scared shitless that they won't be able to support the coming onslaught. As a commercial entity getting commercial internet connectivity, you don't have anything to really directly worry about in this context (unless, of course, you're getting massively underpriced services from cable/DSL providers and expecting to service your company with it - consider that in many markets, a T1 (1.5Mbps symmetric) is still $450-500/month or more...compare that against broadband providers selling "5 Mbps" service for $50/month - there's obviously a disconnect somewhere).
I agree with you completely, and as I said, my original post was only Devil's advocate.
Sure, Google's provider can charge them more if they need to. And they may.
And your local provider can as well. But what if it's $150 or $200/month? In some areas, it's still $450/month or more to get a T1! Yes, there are other factors there, but that's closer to the actual cost in some markets of providing that as a *dedicated* service. With improvements in efficiency and a change to a focus on providing data services, that cost can decrease drastically. But the point is, many customers may not be willing to pay 2 or 3 times as much for a home broadband connection, even if that's "what it takes" to support things like movie downloading. So they're going after the guys with the big pockets.
It shouldn't be rocket science for a business to adapt to meet customer needs. But this is complicated by the Last Mile: it's these guys who own the physical wiring into millions of homes, and it's not easy for someone else to just spring up and start providing services. Should there be government subsidies? Should all physical wiring, whether it's twisted pair, coax, or fiber, into everyone's homes be opened up for any provider to use? (In some ways, this has happened with telephone deregulation in some areas.)
The home broadband providers see the writing on the wall, and they're trying to get out in front of something that they see as massively increasing their own costs, AND that their customers won't want to shell out to pay for if all the costs are transferred to them. Personally, I'd say they should have thought of this five years ago, and concentrated on becoming first rate data providers. But they didn't do that, and now here we are.
I forgot to include an important counterpoint to my devil's advocate.
The cable and telephone operators - the entities that own by far the majority of the "last mile" into millions of homes - currently are stuck in mentalities that revolve around their traditional businesses. Namely, provision of television content and telephone services. Their unique position of owning wires that physically reach everyone's homes placed them in a unique position to also deliver data services. However, the burgeoning data business is still playing second fiddle to what many of these providers see as their declining core businesses.
As more and more customers shift to obtaining things like entertainment content and voice/video communications capability from internet-based services, the less customers will patronize cable and telephone operators in their traditional markets.
What the home broadband providers need to do more than anything is to start seeing themselves as movers of bits, and nothing more, and concentrate on becoming damned good at that. Instead of trying to engineer mechanisms for charging "large" content providers to subsidize their operations, they should be building out and investing in better and better IP data networks. There will be a day when I may elect to get CNN á la carte directly from CNN, obtain my TV shows and movies directly from publishers or commercial aggregators like iTunes, and my communications services from a combination of my wireless carrier and the internet. Some of these are already possible today, and are growing.
Traditional, regimented television delivery and landline telephones in many large markets are at the beginning of being on the way out. Yes, for many readers here, they already are. But for the vast majority of people, particularly those in the US, we haven't even scratched the surface in some of these areas. The home broadband operators are in the best position to move these bits we'll all need moved. The sooner they realize that's their future, the better it will be for everyone - them included.
It's not that it's hard to understand. Here are the problems:
The large "source" providers have already paid money. That is they are connected to ATT, or MCI, or whoever. How many times do they have to pay?
Yes, they paid to be connected to a backbone provider. But what about your local broadband provider? You're paying them for your connection, you say? Yes, and that price has been so far structured on use to date. What happens when the use starts shifting from web browsing and email checking to people *routinely* downloading/obtaining all of their TV shows, movies, and so on, via legal commercial channels? Tough shit? What if their current pricing and usage model doesn't support that? Yes, you're paying for "unlimited" 5Mbps cable modem service, or whatever. And *you* can get and use that, *today*. And you can keep that pipe full 24/7 in many markets without raising an eyebrow. As long as you're one of the "1%" customers: the small group of customers that use a majority of the resources. What happens when that "1%" grows to 15? 25? 50? What happens when $50/month for 5Mbps service no longer covers their costs?
What about DSL providers whose operations may largely be supported by telephone business? What happens if they lose a quarter, third, or half of their paying $30/month landline customers to VoIP? You might argue they're already losing them to cell phones, and so on, and I'd agree. But the bottom line is, they're looking for ways to continue to support their operations five years down the road. If charging large source providers (like a forthcoming iTunes Movie Store) or "taxing" VoIP traffic are ways to continue to do it, is it surprising that they're trying to explore that avenue?
Once all companies can make more money by charging the other side, they will have no incentive for competeting to get your business. After all, they still get to charge the other side. This is a nice way to remove true market competition.
Yeah, because the competition for my home broadband connection right now (and that of MANY others) is truly dizzying.
...
The "source" provider today, is Google, yahoo, etc (from tellcos POV). But with p2p growing faster, the source will be everybody. So are they saying that they will shortly split our costs based on upload/download?
p2p "growing faster"? What, you mean legitimate p2p? I wouldn't say it's "grown" since they heyday Napster. And large commercial providers like YouTube, Google, Apple, and so on don't use p2p; they use commercial content distribution networks and their own distributed services. Not p2p. So then, the "source" is "Akamai", but the content still originates from "Apple", or whomever, and that's who they're looking to charge. Even if Apple decided to distribute all the HD movies on the next generation movie store via BitTorrent, the point is they'd still want to recoup costs from Apple, for the reasons I outlined above.
This isn't Level3 and Qwest and AT&T that are doing this (at least from the backbone side). This is Comcast and TimeWarner and the local telephone providers. The companies who have MILLIONS of broadband customers paying anywhere from $25 to $50 or so dollars a month on these broadband services, and they can see a day when, as new commercial media services evolve, that their overall network usage could increase a hundredfold, a thousandfold, or more.
It's easy to sit here and say Google already pays to be connected to Level3 or Cogent and I already pay to be connected to Charter. But what if I and a hundred thousand others all of a sudden start downloading a few 1 gig movies from a legitimate commercial provider every other night between 6 and 10pm? How can they support that? What kind of buildout to the headends and COs is required by the cable and telephone operators to support this massive surge in use that isn't compatible with their current pricing and service delivery model?
There's all kinds of arguments from both sides. I'm sure greed is ALWAYS involved to an extent. But the point is, this didn't just come out of nowhere.
I actually spoke to this in a couple of my other responses.
I believe that version-flagging will be seen as less "drastic" than protection, and, over time, will be applied more than protection would have been.
So when you say "some pages", what if "some" is "x" for 5, and "10x" for 7?
I'd agree that if version-flagging was never used more, or more quickly, than protection/semi-protection would have been, which is a future that I guess can't necessarily be predicted until we see what happens with the German team's proposal, that you could argue it to be "more wiki". But if far more pages are version-flagged than ever would have been protected, which is what I believe will happen, and significantly so, it's not "more wiki".
What you're missing in your rush to defend it, and to disagree with me (even though I think the plan is a good idea), is that most wikipedia users ARE "random" not-logged-in anonymous users. They're not registering accounts. They're not editing pages. They're using wikipedia as a resource. Those people will never see anything but the most recent "approved" page on version-flagged pages, and that takes away a certain amount of the "wiki" nature, at least from those pages.
And also, I didn't say it was being applied site-wide. In fact, I spoke to that fact specifcially, and noted that precisely because version-flagging will be viewed as less drastic than protection or semi-protection, my personal feeling is that it WILL be applied to more pages. The more pages that don't publish edits immediately, the less of a "wiki" it is.
Now, that may not be a bad thing. But it's still incorrect to say it's "more of a wiki", and that's my only point. And if you want to nitpick, what's better: protected pages, or version-flagged pages? If they're the same amount, I guess I'd agree and say version-flagged. But what if there are double the amount of version-flagged pages as there were protected pages. Ten times? Fifty times?
I should also note that I understand the argument that the new move is "more open", and thus "more wiki", than protection and semi-protection.
That's debatable.
Protection and semi-protection only applied to a very small proportion of pages. This new mechanism of "approving" the page that is default-visible will now likely be applied to many more pages than protection or semi-protection ever did, precisely because it's so tempting to use. Yes, I realize that there are ways to see the most recent edits. That's irrelevant to most people. They'll be seeing the latest "approved" page, and that's it.
Now, I still say that this may be a good thing.
But it's at most misleading, and at least subjective, to say this makes it "more wiki".
There's been quite a lot of discussion about this article over on the Wikipedia mailing lists, and as a result the details of what the German group are proposing to do are a lot clearer.
Rather than hold any pending edits until they are approved, edits will still be allowed to any unlocked page on the site.
Unregistered users will not automatically see these pages when they visit, so that the chances that someone will inadvertently come across a vandalised page should be reduced, but the pages will still be available if someone wants to see them.
There's no decision yet as to who will be able to "approve" a page, and of course the English-language Wikipedia is simply watching what happens in Germany and seeing how it works, so there will be no change for those of us who use the English version.
This clarifies a number of the points I raised in the article. I was wrong to say that "Under the new approach, page edits will no longer be immediately applied to pages", since the changes will be there, and someone who wants to see the latest edits will be able to do so.
However for most users, the page they see will not be the latest edit but the latest approved page, so my wider point that this would mark a significant shift in the "wikiness" of the site if it was universally adopted still holds.
In the end, the success of Wikipedia depends on the willingness of large numbers of us to write, edit, fix and expand articles all over the site.
Whether the technology which makes this possible is a wiki or a more conventional editorial process is less important than the project itself, which has provided millions of people with a (mostly reliable) source of information that can transform their lives - or just help with their school projects.
Wales didn't "set the record straight".
If anything this is not becoming more "open" or "wiki" than ever before. It is, however slightly, less wiki than it was. Now, make no mistake, this plan may ultimately be a very good thing, but to say that restricting and approving edits, and having the default page visible to normal people browsing only be the latest "approved" page, is becoming "more of a wiki" is a little bit disingenuous. It would be more accurate to say that it might be a better model, and we're exploring it.
The most open state for a wiki, fundamentally, is to allow, and immediately publish, all edits. If Wikipedia is backing away from that, that's not becoming "more of a wiki".
The most useful state for a wiki like Wikipedia, however, may be some reasonable ratcheting back that makes it the most accurate, functional, and stable source of information for all users.
It seems like they're stuck unnecessarily on trying to defend this decision, when some type of balance like this may ultimately be the best.
I just don't know how to deal with that. Remember those "weapons of mass destruction" supposedly located in Iraq? They never existed. And this guy is worried about a nuclear attack against the US? Delivered how, exactly?
Well, while I agree that there isn't going to be an Islamic ICBM delivering a nuclear weapon anytime soon, there were *hundreds of tons* of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq, post-1998. The intelligence capabilities of most western European nations, notably the UNSEC members, the UN as an organization, the US, UK, and so on, all believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of the WMD that were unaccounted for after 1998 when the inspectors left. After 7 years of utter lack of cooperation, deception, and all manner of lies from Iraq about its WMD programs, there was zero reason to believe anything changed for the better once it was left unsupervised. Over 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq since March 2003. Entire fleets of fighter aircraft were found *completely buried* in remote areas of the desert. There is no reason to believe the hundreds of tons of remaining WMD that was unaccounted for with absolutely no acceptable proof of its disposition, combined with Iraq's lies and deception, didn't remain in Iraq's possession. Likely, it is now in the hands of nations like Syria.
The Iraq strategy isn't about "Iraq". It was about picking a nation for which a case could be expeditiously made to the American people, allowing a great number of resources, both monetary and military, to be brought to bear, on an omnibus strategy of political change in the mideast. It was a VERY RISKY proposition, but the threat of Panislamic radicalism is a very, very real one. And no, it's not something we "created". It's something that has come to this point for a variety of reasons, but the US and/or West isn't exclusively or even mostly to blame. (Is it impossible for people to believe that there are factions of people in the world who disagree about a great many things and who desire to kill those who don't agree with them?) And, FYI, we know we have problems with Saudi Arabia, but we hope for a domino affect, and also, we don't overtly attack official allies (for those who ask "Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, then?").
The big differences are intent. E.g., intent to kill innocent civilians vs not. Intent to allow people to live in a free(r) society vs not. These are very important distinctions to people who aren't pure moral relativists who think that everyone is just as "right" or justified in doing something as someone else.
While WMD wasn't the real "reason" we went to Iraq - the reasons were MUCH broader and not about "iraq" per se - it's quite reasonable that the administration and planners would expect to find caches of WMD there, thus justifying the action on its face.
I realize you're talking more about nuclear, here, but if you're going to make incorrect claims about Iraq with regard to WMD, you should take a look at the following and educate yourself:
And as for nuclear problems, we now have Iran to worry about as well. If you choose to "blame" the US or US policy on any troubles we have with Iran, feel free. I'm just somewhat dumbfounded by the view that others outside the US are apparently incapable of doing "bad" things on their own without provocation of the evil US, especially given the thousands of years of human history.
And as an aside, no, dealing with "terrorists" (I realize that is a vague term), especially in other nations, is not a problem for civil authorities and courts. It is a military problem, and one of critical national defense interests. Perhaps one day Europe will wake up, too, since they've got the growing ranks of militiant Panislamic radicals practically on their doorstep.
They talk about how far-fetched and difficult it might be to pull off.
But couldn't we have made all these drawn out "first they'd have to learn how to fly commercial jetliners, not necessarily knowing which types they'd eventually board, then they'd have to successfully get to the cockpit without being incapacitated, and THEN they'd have to make the pilots think they were hijacking the plane, then kill them, and if all that weren't enough, then they'd have to actually divert the planes successfully to their targets as inexperienced pilots, AND hit them once there"-type things about 9/11, too?
Who would have believed that before it happened? Who wouldn't have said that someone had been "watching a few too many Hollywood movies"?
These were determined people who had been planning for months, if not years (depending on which reports and which of the people you're talking about). Only one person really had to succeed. And even if the actual loss of life on one plane would be negligible, the economic and other impacts would again be immeasurable - that's the point, theirs and ours.
"Developing story: The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that it will appeal a federal judge's ruling that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional."
Then why are you posting every ten minutes about how poor Apple is just the victim of dumb laws that force them to sue random companies that use the word "pod" in a product?
Because idiots like you don't seem to know how trademark law works, and even though it sucks for companies like these, Apple isn't "evil" for doing it. They're not the "victim" of anything, and anyone can see I never said that. I explained exactly why Apple is doing what it's doing.
To turn this question around, why don't we see stories on slashdot every 10 minutes when any other company goes through the same, tired old motions to defend their own marks?
Do you agree that, in a sane world, Apple would lose these cases just as Apple Records lost theirs?
Yes, absolutely (in cases of things like Profit Pod and TightPod).
But the little companies probably won't have the resources to defend themselves. But if Apple doesn't do this, they *could* be in the position of losing the mark at some point in the future, so they choose to act with broad strokes.
On the other hand, the name of Rendezvous changed because TIBCO owned the mark, defended it, and won: now we have Bonjour.
In any case, if anything, we should be talking about US trademark law in the context of dilution.
As I've already said in several other comments now:
That DOESN'T MATTER. This isn't about whether something else predates the iPod. pods.com and Line 6 chose, for whatever reason, to NOT defend their marks against iPod. That is THEIR CHOICE. Apple IS defending the iPod mark against NEW products that it feels could be construed as infringing. This isn't even about whether Apple believes someone could really mistake a Profit Pod for an iPod. It's about whether some other entity at some point in the future can successfully make the argument that Apple didn't adequately defend its mark. It only takes one person or company to successfully make that argument, or even for it to be mired in appeals for years. The more well known and more important a product is to a company, the more vigorously it will likely defend it, for obvious reasons. Remember, it is defending it so that FUTURE claimants can't claim that the mark wasn't defended at every turn in the past. This is why companies like Apple are overly broad in defense: current law surrounding US trademark dilution encourages it.
Slashdot Mirror
ipod battery
replace ipod battery
ipod battery problem
...or anything similar, and it's the number one hit (and dozens of other sites that sell and service iPods and batteries follow).
To say nothing of the fact that Apple's own iPod battery replacement programs are thoroughly documented on its own pages, and can be found out about instantly by calling Apple, visiting any Apple store or service provider, or asking anyone who knows remotely anything about iPods.
So, nice try, but it's not an "obscure faq", and it's utterly ridiculously simple to find out how to replace a battery in an iPod. Your cell phone and digital camera likely don't use AA batteries, and yet, miraculously, people can figure out where to buy those. It's really no different with an iPod. And if you're honestly telling me that people should correctly assume that they must throw their iPod away simply because it doesn't have an obvious battery door, without doing ANYTHING to determine whether the battery is replaceable, well, I find that "unbelivable" (sic).
'The iPod is far and away the most popular tech gadget with our panellists - however, for the first time we are hearing negative feedback about the iPod from some panellists,' said the organisation's spokeswoman, Carla Avruch. 'Panellists cite that the batteries are not replaceable, so when they die the entire player must be replaced,' she said. 'We have heard from some conspiracy theorists that the batteries are made to die soon after the warranty ends.
I can't believe this is rearing its head again.
1. The batteries are replaceable, both by Apple and numerous third parties for as little as $25. Apple's replacement is $60. Yes, Apple's replacement is not self-service, but the cost of an OEM battery, even if it was "user-replaceable" (which it actually still is) could still be in that ballpark, as evidenced by OEM battery prices compared to high-quality third party replacements on nearly EVERY DEVICE UNDER THE SUN that uses lithium ion batteries.
2. The batteries are made by leading battery OEMs. How on earth could they be "designed" to last only until the warranty runs out? I know they acknowledge it as a conspiracy theory, but *come on*.
Not to mention how many other devices in the iPod's class also have had batteries sealed in the enclosure. The difference with the iPod, as compared to some of the other products, is that you actually CAN get the battery replaced, direct from Apple, not to mention from any of many, many third party reputable vendors.
Some of the third parties even do the replacement for you overnight, some with higher capacity batteries than the OEM equipment, and for cheaper than Apple's own official replacement.
This battery crap has been so thoroughly debunked it's unbelievable. I have answered nearly every question I can think of about iPod batteries here:
http://ipodbatteryfaq.com/index-noads.html
Please note that this is my site, and the main index page DOES feature Google ads. The above link DOES NOT contain ads. I have nothing to do with Apple and have never worked for Apple, nor do I sell iPods, anything iPod related, or anything having to do with batteries. I do not receive money or products from anyone related to Apple or any iPod accessory maker. The only ads on the site (which are NOT on the above URL) are via Google. If you find anything inaccurate in that FAQ, which has stood for almost 4 years, please let me know as soon as possible. In fact, I challenge someone to find something inaccurate about the FAQ.
(If you think you're going to say some witty remark about bad PR forcing Apple's hand, or iPod's Dirty Secret, or some other tripe, please read the FAQ first.)
In sum:
The batteries in ALL models of iPod are replaceable, both by Apple, or via several third parties for as little as $25. Third parties offer do-it-yourself kits, and some will also do the replacement for you. The warranty on the iPod is one year, it DOES cover the batteries, and can be extended to two years for $60. Many first generation iPods are still in use with their original batteries. ALL lithium ion batteries have a finite lifetime. The case isn't sealed for "planned obsolescence" or failure; it's because any mechanisms to allow acceptable user-access to batteries would significantly increase the size of the case. Yes, significantly. Even if it's a millimeter, that can be a killer for a device whose thickness is *measured* in millimeters. No, it can't just use screws and doors: the decision was made such that the device would have the sleek design and appearance that makes it so attractive in the first place. And even if you believe that it still was a conspiracy to get people to buy new iPods when the batteries wore out, even if that were the case, the batteries are replaceable via numerous channels, including Apple itself, for anywhere from $25 to $60. They don't last any shorter or longer than any other high-quality lithium ion batteries out there.
I can't *believe* t
...Roland Piquepaille submission allowing him to pimp his blog, just three days after this doozy about "nanotechnology", no less? (Hint: it wasn't about nanotechnology at all, and didn't address even the basic "safety" questions it fallaciously purported to address.)
While I'll concede that this particular submission actually appears accurate and interesting (no doubt by accident, judging from his prolific (and annoying) submission history), when will we be able to filter this guy out?
...is hardly the same as using nanotechnology to repair your brain or otherwise ingest.
And aside from that, I'd hardly call this "nanotechnology" just because a hair dye process deemed effective by ancient Egyptians coincidentally happened to generate particle small enough to meet the definition of "nanoparticle".
Additionally, this is yet another questionable Roland Piquepaille submission.
Well, you're forgetting a couple of things. One, for months, many rumor sites, analysts, and the prevailing best educated guesses have reiterated that there is definitely a "real" video iPod on the way (i.e., with a bigger screen and better video decoding capabilities), and that neither the video iPod nor the iTunes movie store would be launched until both were ready. So there may indeed be a new iPod alongside this announcement anyway. Two, even the current iPod can play up to 480x480 (albeit MPEG-4 Part 2), so this suggests that the decode capability just wasn't powerful enough on the current generation iPods. There's no reason higher resolution content can't be played back on a lower resolution screen: some of the detail will just be lost.
Of course, you are correct about the disparity in general between watching something on a portable device, versus a nice big TV. Hopefully Apple handles this gracefully, because people won't want 320x240 movies (though, even the 320x240 TV shows are not bad on a standard def TV, for most peoples' tastes).
Actually (and yes, I've seen and heard all the stories about caps and warnings from ISPs, etc.), *most* US DSL and cable providers don't have caps of any type. They may contact/warn a customer if they deem them to be "abusive" (which are, comparatively, VERY isolated incidents), but there are definitely not caps in the vast majority of markets, and definitely not any official caps (unless an agreement says so specifically). To reiterate, yes, we've all seen the stories entitled "'Unlimited serivce' not really unlimited" and so on. But, again, most US home broadband providers selling "unlimited" service *do not* have caps. (For the record, I have downloaded well over 100GB in given months at various times, by simply moving DVD data images from my office to home.)
This is (part of) what raised all of the Network Neutrality stuff: US based home broadband providers have been overselling their services horrendously, because the majority of their customers just surf the web and check email, and maybe watch an occasional streaming video. Now what happens when thousands - or millions - customers start downloading multi-gig files every day, virtually overnight? I commented on this issue here and here.
So, no, US-based customers will DEFINITELY not be charged for going over anything, especially if it wasn't spelled out in the terms of the agreement. Will some operators warn customers on what turns out to be perfectly legitimate usage, because someone's movie downloads sets off some kind of automated monitoring tool somewhere? I'm positive there will be stories about that.
But now the no-cap US providers are going to have to figure out how to provide these 3, 5, and 10Mbps "unlimited" download services they've promised for $30-$60/month when the real cost to operate them if peoples' use of those pipes increases by several orders of magnitude is much higher. Naturally, they're going after the Apples and the Googles first, rather than saying to their subscribers "Hey, we've got to jack up your rate to $175/month." It's part greed, part poor planning, part easy way out, and part panic.
They should have been building out networks to support themselves as movers of bits years ago instead of desperately trying to hang onto their traditional markets, which will be supplanted by services (such as movie downloads) exactly like these. Others have suggested that maybe there SHOULD be caps in the US, if that's what it takes to recoup fees to build out the networks to support the traffic.
I haven't looked into these services recently, but it does intrigue me. Will the DRM that holds the files down enable me to put the video file on my 2 TB storage server in the basement and stream it to my media player of choice?
Perhaps.
If your "choice" happens to coincide with QuickTime, iTunes, or an iPod for playback when using the Apple store, or a Windows Media-compatible playback solution if using one of the Windows Media DRM stores.
But you can certainly put the files physically on any type of NAS or SAN or storage server or whatever storage device you see fit.
There are of course various tools for stripping the DRM from iTunes DRM (FairPlay) and Windows Media DRM encumbered files.
The cost of fuel notwithstanding, why don't I just buy the physical DVD (or get it shipped to me), and get the video file myself?
Well, if it's that important to you that it be completely DRM-free in the context of your own entertainment equipment and uses, future applications, etc., then sure - get the DVD and rip the video. The problem is that this is technically "illegal" in certain jurisdictions, and that a great many people will think it's "too complicated". If you're talking about it from a purely technical point of view, someone like yourself probably should just buy and rip the DVD.
I realize it's a convenience thing, non-tech users can't do it, etc.
That's the key: Convenience. Impulse. (Almost-)instant gratification. Total vertical integration. In the context of Apple's iTunes store, it "just works".
You hit the nail on the head.
But really, how hard is it to install some software and follow some short instructions? I'd bet that even non-tech users would be willing to follow the process if they can get additional value out of something they own with relatively minor frustration.
You might think that, but it's simply not true. They're not going to be downloading DVD ripping tools and uploading video files to their 2TB in-house media server and then setting up MythTV on their new Linux media center. They're going to get a Mac mini, hook its DVI connector up to their HDTV, click on the movie poster in iTunes, click "Download" automatically charging their credit card $9.99, and then plop down on their couch and watch it with the nice little remote control. All without having to know how to do anything, and trust me: that's how the majority of people want things.
First of all, the Vareity article (which doesn't necessarily know anything for certain) says:
"The only studio that will definitely [emphasis added] be part of Apple's movie store at launch is Disney.
So that still doesn't preclude other studios being on board at the time of launch. Even so, it still goes on to say:
"Other studios will likely join iTunes in the next year."
Further:
"The reason Amazon will have content from most major studios, while Apple may have only one, comes down to price, insiders said. Because it also sells DVDs, Amazon has agreed to studio demands that digital wholesale prices not undercut those of DVDs. [emphasis added] As a result, Amazon.com's digital download prices are expected to range from $9.99 to $19.99 -- about the same as those for other online retailers such as CinemaNow, Movielink and AOL.
Initially, Apple was pushing to sell all films for $9.99, just as it sells songs for a flat price of 99 and all TV shows for $1.99. But due to studio pressure, it will launch with two price points: $9.99 for library titles, $14.99 for new pics in the DVD window."
Not only is this the same type of behavior we saw to a certain extent with iTunes in the context of music, and moreso with television programming, I'm quite glad that Apple is pressuring the industry on the price issue, similar to the way they took a significant part in pressuring MPEG LA for reasonable licensing terms, which made the MPEG-4 family of protocols, including H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10, actually usable by normal people for content creation, broadcasting, and playback without the encumbrances of royalties and per-use/per-time fees that would have all but killed MPEG-4 and H.264 on anything but OEM devices and commercial broadcast services.
Then there's the question of usability: the same thing that has made the iTunes universe so attractive to users is still there as it has transitioned to video. It's not just a simple "download a media file and do with it what you will" service (though it can be treated as such; note I'm not talking about this in the context of DRM, I'm speaking in terms of the process via which you download something and play it) - it's a completely integrated system that normal people can actually use that has a pleasant user experience. With things like Front Row now shipping on all of Apple's systems, they've created an end-to-end solution that actually makes viewing, using, or listening to the content a tightly integrated experience that "just works". The turnkey nature of iTunes/iPod/Front Row has been one of the key reasons for its continuing success.
No, dumbass, I was saying "legitimate" in the context of the reasons I mentioned before, like "it just works" or "I just like using it", not legal vs illegal. Your tinfoil hat needs some adjustment.
I would say this does raise another valid point, though: as systems and media age, it's actually quite an interesting question how all of this data that isn't transferred to modern day systems will be dealt with, both from a technological and machine- and media-aging point-of-view. And in the context of criminal investigations, what happens if evidence is "lost" (or simply unrecovered) from a 25-year-old computer in a murder investigation which has no statute of limitations? It's an equally difficult question for governments, corporations, and academic institutions that actually *want* to keep the data but are having trouble instituting standards, policies, and mechanisms for data retention.
Could this be the latest in the criminal world's security strategy? Can we expect to see Spectrums, Archimedes, and Atari STs turning up in police investigations soon?
Um, no. This was an aberration; nothing more, even if its use for those reasons was deliberate on his part.
But here's an actual question:
I can absolutely understand and appreciate that people value some of the features and functionality of things like the Commodore 64 and Newton, and many other machines that were considered to be state-of-the-art in their time.
But why would someone go out of their way to continue to use it? I can understand practical and pragmatic answers like "It's still functional for me" or "I just like it better and I haven't had any problems". But are there other reasons?
I mean, you can literally get systems for free (or next to nothing) that are capable of running various modern operating systems, including various versions of Windows, Mac OS and Mac OS X, myriad Linux distributions to your heart's content, BSD distributions, and so on, that would be much more functional and capable, particularly in the context of the internet and associated applications.
So what's the draw? Why keep running on something like a Commodore 64? Even considering legitimate reasons for continuing to use it, I don't see how sticking with something exceedingly obsolete can be functional when viewed alongside semi-modern systems. I understand people collect all manner of antiques for a variety of reasons, including other things that may be nearly impossible to service or repair easily; is the reason for using obsolete computing equipment the same?
Status? Hobby? Entertainment? Eccentricity? Just to "do it"?
And to reiterate, I can understand collecting pristine Commodore 64s or similar in working order, and even making TCP/IP stacks and such work, just for the sake of doing it. But using it as a primary system exclusively? Some people may own and spend a great deal of time on something like, say, a Model T, but they don't use it as their daily driver...
On another note, I do agree that his system being a Commodore 64 will "complicate investigators' efforts"; but to say that it would be difficult to transfer files "without loss" is disingenuous at best. Do they mean "transfer files" to include possibly-deleted files (in which case I agree there may be "loss")? Do they mean contextual loss, because modern applications may or may not be able to open files and represent context-sensitive features like position, text styles, and so on? Or are they talking about "loss" in that they won't be able to run their standard forensic tools that package everything up with a nice little bow? If they're talking about files representing images and text, I don't care what it is: if it's functional and intact, there's no reason for there to be "loss". I don't care if it takes resorting to eBay, digging up old company engineers, or weirdos on web forums...they should be able to recover anything they need to.
You're not confused about this.
But the home broadband providers aren't trying to "slow down the internet", though I agree that might be the end result.
What they're trying to do is get more revenue to build out their networks so they can actually provide the service that they've promised if people actually start using it. Right now, individual customers can max out their 3, 5, 10, etc., Mbps connections just fine (and yes, I'm fully aware there have been incidents of caps, or "unlimited" not being unlimited, and so on, but for the most part, individual customers can max out their connections occasionally with no problems).
The problem is that they're all so hopelessly oversold that they can't actually hope to service their customers with the promised bandwidth if everyone suddenly (where "suddenly" is over a period of a few years) started downloading gigs upon gigs of movies and TV shows and watching live 1Mbps (or higher) live streaming content instead of just browsing web pages and checking email.
I'm not saying it's *good* that they're oversold, but it's typical practice to not have every single ounce of that bandwidth dedicated to everyone. You build a model whereby almost all customers are served almost all of the time and try to stay ahead of the curve. But if the curve suddenly changes people's use by several orders of magnitude overnight (in business terms, anyway), what do you do?
Some people say "well, they should either respond, or go out of business". It's not *quite* that simple. And that's not really fair, either. It's easy to sit here and say that they should be able to provide 5Mbps simultaneously to every single customer who pays for it 24 hours a day, but I have a feeling people would be stunned by how much a dedicated 5Mbps connection would *actually* cost compared to how the home broadband industry structures pricing so that it's affordable.
Ideally, the solution would have been for the ISPs to recognize this about five years ago, and move wholesale to building out massive data networks. But they didn't do that, and now they're scrambling to find a way to pay for all the extra bandwidth they are going to need to start supporting movie download services and content owners offering TV shows directly to end consumers without jacking up their subscription rates to 3 or 4 or 5 times what they are now.
To respond to your questions generally, this isn't about companies that get dedicated internet services from commercial providers. This isn't about dark fiber. This is about the home broadband providers who have the "Last Mile" of coax or twisted pair connectivity into peoples' homes. Millions upon millions of homes. They can't support the coming growth at the current subscription rates. Some might say "well, they should get more efficient, then." I'm sure they will. But they'll ALSO look for ways to try to subsidize their operations in the meantime, which is what you're seeing now.
These aren't the guys hoarding dark fiber. The big backbone providers and people like Google are doing that, not home broadband providers. There are a lot of factors here, but this isn't about creating "artificial scarcity". This is because home broadband ISPs are scared shitless that they won't be able to support the coming onslaught. As a commercial entity getting commercial internet connectivity, you don't have anything to really directly worry about in this context (unless, of course, you're getting massively underpriced services from cable/DSL providers and expecting to service your company with it - consider that in many markets, a T1 (1.5Mbps symmetric) is still $450-500/month or more...compare that against broadband providers selling "5 Mbps" service for $50/month - there's obviously a disconnect somewhere).
I agree with you completely, and as I said, my original post was only Devil's advocate.
Sure, Google's provider can charge them more if they need to. And they may.
And your local provider can as well. But what if it's $150 or $200/month? In some areas, it's still $450/month or more to get a T1! Yes, there are other factors there, but that's closer to the actual cost in some markets of providing that as a *dedicated* service. With improvements in efficiency and a change to a focus on providing data services, that cost can decrease drastically. But the point is, many customers may not be willing to pay 2 or 3 times as much for a home broadband connection, even if that's "what it takes" to support things like movie downloading. So they're going after the guys with the big pockets.
It shouldn't be rocket science for a business to adapt to meet customer needs. But this is complicated by the Last Mile: it's these guys who own the physical wiring into millions of homes, and it's not easy for someone else to just spring up and start providing services. Should there be government subsidies? Should all physical wiring, whether it's twisted pair, coax, or fiber, into everyone's homes be opened up for any provider to use? (In some ways, this has happened with telephone deregulation in some areas.)
The home broadband providers see the writing on the wall, and they're trying to get out in front of something that they see as massively increasing their own costs, AND that their customers won't want to shell out to pay for if all the costs are transferred to them. Personally, I'd say they should have thought of this five years ago, and concentrated on becoming first rate data providers. But they didn't do that, and now here we are.
I forgot to include an important counterpoint to my devil's advocate.
The cable and telephone operators - the entities that own by far the majority of the "last mile" into millions of homes - currently are stuck in mentalities that revolve around their traditional businesses. Namely, provision of television content and telephone services. Their unique position of owning wires that physically reach everyone's homes placed them in a unique position to also deliver data services. However, the burgeoning data business is still playing second fiddle to what many of these providers see as their declining core businesses.
As more and more customers shift to obtaining things like entertainment content and voice/video communications capability from internet-based services, the less customers will patronize cable and telephone operators in their traditional markets.
What the home broadband providers need to do more than anything is to start seeing themselves as movers of bits, and nothing more, and concentrate on becoming damned good at that. Instead of trying to engineer mechanisms for charging "large" content providers to subsidize their operations, they should be building out and investing in better and better IP data networks. There will be a day when I may elect to get CNN á la carte directly from CNN, obtain my TV shows and movies directly from publishers or commercial aggregators like iTunes, and my communications services from a combination of my wireless carrier and the internet. Some of these are already possible today, and are growing.
Traditional, regimented television delivery and landline telephones in many large markets are at the beginning of being on the way out. Yes, for many readers here, they already are. But for the vast majority of people, particularly those in the US, we haven't even scratched the surface in some of these areas. The home broadband operators are in the best position to move these bits we'll all need moved. The sooner they realize that's their future, the better it will be for everyone - them included.
The large "source" providers have already paid money. That is they are connected to ATT, or MCI, or whoever. How many times do they have to pay?
Yes, they paid to be connected to a backbone provider. But what about your local broadband provider? You're paying them for your connection, you say? Yes, and that price has been so far structured on use to date. What happens when the use starts shifting from web browsing and email checking to people *routinely* downloading/obtaining all of their TV shows, movies, and so on, via legal commercial channels? Tough shit? What if their current pricing and usage model doesn't support that? Yes, you're paying for "unlimited" 5Mbps cable modem service, or whatever. And *you* can get and use that, *today*. And you can keep that pipe full 24/7 in many markets without raising an eyebrow. As long as you're one of the "1%" customers: the small group of customers that use a majority of the resources. What happens when that "1%" grows to 15? 25? 50? What happens when $50/month for 5Mbps service no longer covers their costs?
What about DSL providers whose operations may largely be supported by telephone business? What happens if they lose a quarter, third, or half of their paying $30/month landline customers to VoIP? You might argue they're already losing them to cell phones, and so on, and I'd agree. But the bottom line is, they're looking for ways to continue to support their operations five years down the road. If charging large source providers (like a forthcoming iTunes Movie Store) or "taxing" VoIP traffic are ways to continue to do it, is it surprising that they're trying to explore that avenue?
Once all companies can make more money by charging the other side, they will have no incentive for competeting to get your business. After all, they still get to charge the other side. This is a nice way to remove true market competition.
Yeah, because the competition for my home broadband connection right now (and that of MANY others) is truly dizzying.
...
The "source" provider today, is Google, yahoo, etc (from tellcos POV). But with p2p growing faster, the source will be everybody. So are they saying that they will shortly split our costs based on upload/download?
p2p "growing faster"? What, you mean legitimate p2p? I wouldn't say it's "grown" since they heyday Napster. And large commercial providers like YouTube, Google, Apple, and so on don't use p2p; they use commercial content distribution networks and their own distributed services. Not p2p. So then, the "source" is "Akamai", but the content still originates from "Apple", or whomever, and that's who they're looking to charge. Even if Apple decided to distribute all the HD movies on the next generation movie store via BitTorrent, the point is they'd still want to recoup costs from Apple, for the reasons I outlined above.
This isn't Level3 and Qwest and AT&T that are doing this (at least from the backbone side). This is Comcast and TimeWarner and the local telephone providers. The companies who have MILLIONS of broadband customers paying anywhere from $25 to $50 or so dollars a month on these broadband services, and they can see a day when, as new commercial media services evolve, that their overall network usage could increase a hundredfold, a thousandfold, or more.
It's easy to sit here and say Google already pays to be connected to Level3 or Cogent and I already pay to be connected to Charter. But what if I and a hundred thousand others all of a sudden start downloading a few 1 gig movies from a legitimate commercial provider every other night between 6 and 10pm? How can they support that? What kind of buildout to the headends and COs is required by the cable and telephone operators to support this massive surge in use that isn't compatible with their current pricing and service delivery model?
There's all kinds of arguments from both sides. I'm sure greed is ALWAYS involved to an extent. But the point is, this didn't just come out of nowhere.
I actually spoke to this in a couple of my other responses.
I believe that version-flagging will be seen as less "drastic" than protection, and, over time, will be applied more than protection would have been.
So when you say "some pages", what if "some" is "x" for 5, and "10x" for 7?
I'd agree that if version-flagging was never used more, or more quickly, than protection/semi-protection would have been, which is a future that I guess can't necessarily be predicted until we see what happens with the German team's proposal, that you could argue it to be "more wiki". But if far more pages are version-flagged than ever would have been protected, which is what I believe will happen, and significantly so, it's not "more wiki".
What you're missing in your rush to defend it, and to disagree with me (even though I think the plan is a good idea), is that most wikipedia users ARE "random" not-logged-in anonymous users. They're not registering accounts. They're not editing pages. They're using wikipedia as a resource. Those people will never see anything but the most recent "approved" page on version-flagged pages, and that takes away a certain amount of the "wiki" nature, at least from those pages.
And also, I didn't say it was being applied site-wide. In fact, I spoke to that fact specifcially, and noted that precisely because version-flagging will be viewed as less drastic than protection or semi-protection, my personal feeling is that it WILL be applied to more pages. The more pages that don't publish edits immediately, the less of a "wiki" it is.
Now, that may not be a bad thing. But it's still incorrect to say it's "more of a wiki", and that's my only point. And if you want to nitpick, what's better: protected pages, or version-flagged pages? If they're the same amount, I guess I'd agree and say version-flagged. But what if there are double the amount of version-flagged pages as there were protected pages. Ten times? Fifty times?
I should also note that I understand the argument that the new move is "more open", and thus "more wiki", than protection and semi-protection.
That's debatable.
Protection and semi-protection only applied to a very small proportion of pages. This new mechanism of "approving" the page that is default-visible will now likely be applied to many more pages than protection or semi-protection ever did, precisely because it's so tempting to use. Yes, I realize that there are ways to see the most recent edits. That's irrelevant to most people. They'll be seeing the latest "approved" page, and that's it.
Now, I still say that this may be a good thing.
But it's at most misleading, and at least subjective, to say this makes it "more wiki".
The original BBC article on this has been updated:
There's been quite a lot of discussion about this article over on the Wikipedia mailing lists, and as a result the details of what the German group are proposing to do are a lot clearer.
Rather than hold any pending edits until they are approved, edits will still be allowed to any unlocked page on the site.
Unregistered users will not automatically see these pages when they visit, so that the chances that someone will inadvertently come across a vandalised page should be reduced, but the pages will still be available if someone wants to see them.
There's no decision yet as to who will be able to "approve" a page, and of course the English-language Wikipedia is simply watching what happens in Germany and seeing how it works, so there will be no change for those of us who use the English version.
This clarifies a number of the points I raised in the article. I was wrong to say that "Under the new approach, page edits will no longer be immediately applied to pages", since the changes will be there, and someone who wants to see the latest edits will be able to do so.
However for most users, the page they see will not be the latest edit but the latest approved page, so my wider point that this would mark a significant shift in the "wikiness" of the site if it was universally adopted still holds.
In the end, the success of Wikipedia depends on the willingness of large numbers of us to write, edit, fix and expand articles all over the site.
Whether the technology which makes this possible is a wiki or a more conventional editorial process is less important than the project itself, which has provided millions of people with a (mostly reliable) source of information that can transform their lives - or just help with their school projects.
Wales didn't "set the record straight".
If anything this is not becoming more "open" or "wiki" than ever before. It is, however slightly, less wiki than it was. Now, make no mistake, this plan may ultimately be a very good thing, but to say that restricting and approving edits, and having the default page visible to normal people browsing only be the latest "approved" page, is becoming "more of a wiki" is a little bit disingenuous. It would be more accurate to say that it might be a better model, and we're exploring it.
The most open state for a wiki, fundamentally, is to allow, and immediately publish, all edits. If Wikipedia is backing away from that, that's not becoming "more of a wiki".
The most useful state for a wiki like Wikipedia, however, may be some reasonable ratcheting back that makes it the most accurate, functional, and stable source of information for all users.
It seems like they're stuck unnecessarily on trying to defend this decision, when some type of balance like this may ultimately be the best.
Even if it makes it "less of a wiki".
I just don't know how to deal with that. Remember those "weapons of mass destruction" supposedly located in Iraq? They never existed. And this guy is worried about a nuclear attack against the US? Delivered how, exactly?
Well, while I agree that there isn't going to be an Islamic ICBM delivering a nuclear weapon anytime soon, there were *hundreds of tons* of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq, post-1998. The intelligence capabilities of most western European nations, notably the UNSEC members, the UN as an organization, the US, UK, and so on, all believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of the WMD that were unaccounted for after 1998 when the inspectors left. After 7 years of utter lack of cooperation, deception, and all manner of lies from Iraq about its WMD programs, there was zero reason to believe anything changed for the better once it was left unsupervised. Over 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq since March 2003. Entire fleets of fighter aircraft were found *completely buried* in remote areas of the desert. There is no reason to believe the hundreds of tons of remaining WMD that was unaccounted for with absolutely no acceptable proof of its disposition, combined with Iraq's lies and deception, didn't remain in Iraq's possession. Likely, it is now in the hands of nations like Syria.
The Iraq strategy isn't about "Iraq". It was about picking a nation for which a case could be expeditiously made to the American people, allowing a great number of resources, both monetary and military, to be brought to bear, on an omnibus strategy of political change in the mideast. It was a VERY RISKY proposition, but the threat of Panislamic radicalism is a very, very real one. And no, it's not something we "created". It's something that has come to this point for a variety of reasons, but the US and/or West isn't exclusively or even mostly to blame. (Is it impossible for people to believe that there are factions of people in the world who disagree about a great many things and who desire to kill those who don't agree with them?) And, FYI, we know we have problems with Saudi Arabia, but we hope for a domino affect, and also, we don't overtly attack official allies (for those who ask "Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, then?").
The big differences are intent. E.g., intent to kill innocent civilians vs not. Intent to allow people to live in a free(r) society vs not. These are very important distinctions to people who aren't pure moral relativists who think that everyone is just as "right" or justified in doing something as someone else.
While WMD wasn't the real "reason" we went to Iraq - the reasons were MUCH broader and not about "iraq" per se - it's quite reasonable that the administration and planners would expect to find caches of WMD there, thus justifying the action on its face.
I realize you're talking more about nuclear, here, but if you're going to make incorrect claims about Iraq with regard to WMD, you should take a look at the following and educate yourself:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/
And as for nuclear problems, we now have Iran to worry about as well. If you choose to "blame" the US or US policy on any troubles we have with Iran, feel free. I'm just somewhat dumbfounded by the view that others outside the US are apparently incapable of doing "bad" things on their own without provocation of the evil US, especially given the thousands of years of human history.
And as an aside, no, dealing with "terrorists" (I realize that is a vague term), especially in other nations, is not a problem for civil authorities and courts. It is a military problem, and one of critical national defense interests. Perhaps one day Europe will wake up, too, since they've got the growing ranks of militiant Panislamic radicals practically on their doorstep.
They talk about how far-fetched and difficult it might be to pull off.
But couldn't we have made all these drawn out "first they'd have to learn how to fly commercial jetliners, not necessarily knowing which types they'd eventually board, then they'd have to successfully get to the cockpit without being incapacitated, and THEN they'd have to make the pilots think they were hijacking the plane, then kill them, and if all that weren't enough, then they'd have to actually divert the planes successfully to their targets as inexperienced pilots, AND hit them once there"-type things about 9/11, too?
Who would have believed that before it happened? Who wouldn't have said that someone had been "watching a few too many Hollywood movies"?
These were determined people who had been planning for months, if not years (depending on which reports and which of the people you're talking about). Only one person really had to succeed. And even if the actual loss of life on one plane would be negligible, the economic and other impacts would again be immeasurable - that's the point, theirs and ours.
"Developing story: The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that it will appeal a federal judge's ruling that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional."
Then why are you posting every ten minutes about how poor Apple is just the victim of dumb laws that force them to sue random companies that use the word "pod" in a product?
Because idiots like you don't seem to know how trademark law works, and even though it sucks for companies like these, Apple isn't "evil" for doing it. They're not the "victim" of anything, and anyone can see I never said that. I explained exactly why Apple is doing what it's doing.
To turn this question around, why don't we see stories on slashdot every 10 minutes when any other company goes through the same, tired old motions to defend their own marks?
Do you agree that, in a sane world, Apple would lose these cases just as Apple Records lost theirs?
Yes, absolutely (in cases of things like Profit Pod and TightPod).
But the little companies probably won't have the resources to defend themselves. But if Apple doesn't do this, they *could* be in the position of losing the mark at some point in the future, so they choose to act with broad strokes.
On the other hand, the name of Rendezvous changed because TIBCO owned the mark, defended it, and won: now we have Bonjour.
In any case, if anything, we should be talking about US trademark law in the context of dilution.
As I've already said in several other comments now:
That DOESN'T MATTER. This isn't about whether something else predates the iPod. pods.com and Line 6 chose, for whatever reason, to NOT defend their marks against iPod. That is THEIR CHOICE. Apple IS defending the iPod mark against NEW products that it feels could be construed as infringing. This isn't even about whether Apple believes someone could really mistake a Profit Pod for an iPod. It's about whether some other entity at some point in the future can successfully make the argument that Apple didn't adequately defend its mark. It only takes one person or company to successfully make that argument, or even for it to be mired in appeals for years. The more well known and more important a product is to a company, the more vigorously it will likely defend it, for obvious reasons. Remember, it is defending it so that FUTURE claimants can't claim that the mark wasn't defended at every turn in the past. This is why companies like Apple are overly broad in defense: current law surrounding US trademark dilution encourages it.