The really funny thing is, they'll continue to deny it in the face of things like this and this.
That's why I took a couple week hiatus from even posting here. That, and the fact that after hundreds of points of positive moderation, all it took was a couple of factually correct posts in a story about John Gilmore modded down to "-1, Troll" to get me literally banned[1] from posting to slashdot for a week.
Real nice.
[1] And yes, that really is the full story. These posts - 1, 2, 3 - got me banned from posting, even as three other posts in the same story got moderated to +5: 1, 2, 3. Sure, I could have worked my way around the "ban", but what's the fucking point? To post to a place where you're not wanted and opposing ideas are shouted down?
"Only about 15 percent of iTunes users would be affected by the need to upgrade to the latest version of the software, the company said in its statement." (source)
But remember, the GPL itself is not specifically "tested", per se, because GPL software developers assert them rights granted to them via copyright on an individual basis. This makes it a sometimes long and arduous process to assert rights and/or prove infringement, but hopefully more precedent will help.
Since the provisions of the GPL have been upheld in a case in Germany as well, maybe PearPC will be able to more easily defend itself against CherryOS, which has blatantly taken GPL code, without release of source code or attribution, from PearPC and several other GPL projects:
Below is a comprehensive collection of evidence, which runs the gamut from CherryOS including original PearPC graphics, extremely unique strings and error messages, debug code from PearPC, the same unique MAC address as PearPC's default network adapter, shared specific functionality, including bugs, and so on:
What's even cooler about Amit Singh is that he's a he's a researcher at IBM Alamaden Research Center, working on, among other things, secure communications and Linux on the desktop.
And be sure to check out his other articles, particularly What is Mac OS X? . They're all well written, comprehensive on their respective topics, and generally excellent.
In short... you don't own it. At least, not in the shiny plastic disks kind of way.
Except Apple's model includes the ability to legally burn it to CD (and transcode it) an unlimited number of times. Then you own it "forever". Napster's model does not (unless you pay the same $0.99/song).
As for the connection limit, this was likely done, as you said, at the behest of someone like the RIAA, or possibly (a) content owner(s). The CD track names feature was removed because Apple license with Gracenote restricts its usage to iTunes imports. Apple's not trying to make things harder for the sake of it. And you can bet Apple's efforts and lobbying here will favor THEIR userbase, i.e., their users, when Apple feels it is in an appropriate negotiating position to do so.
If Napster's model fails, it will be because it's not profitable and/or sustainable (this includes the concept of not being legally sustainable due to potential challenges from content owners to further restrict the content, or face revocation of rights). To an ordinary thinking person, this would make it blindingly obvious that another subscription provider is not going to be able to fill that same market if Napster fails, for the same reasons.
People argue that it's better to listen to music on Windows because it has a higher marketshare?
No. I assume you're trolling here - or mind-shatteringly stupid, one of the two - but I'll bite. Where did I say anything about listening to music on Windows? I said "the same fundamental argument that has been buoying the entire Windows platform for a nigh on a couple decades now". To even presume that has *anything* to do with listening to music assumes that my initial statement about iPod's 92% share of the hard-drive based music player market has ANYTHING to do with the sound quality of the music coming out of it. Since my initial statement didn't say that, and since my subsequent explanation made no reference to it - and since you continue to feebly derail the perfectly factual claim that iPod's marketshare stunningly outshines any competitor, and has done so in a comparatively small amount of time - I can only assume you're the idiot you seem to be.
Still, I have to assume that you agree with it since you seem to be using it as the basis for your own argument that the iPod's marketshare affects one's listening experience.
I never made any argument that the iPod necessarily "sounded better". Though AAC at a given data rate may indeed sound better than various other codecs at the same given data rate, that was not, and never was, the argument that was made. But the user experience of the iPod, and its tight integration with iTunes and the iTunes Music Store is so tremendously better than any other combination of player, platform, or music store that it's quite laughable. This, of course, has been confirmed by numerous reviews by anything from traditional IT press to the New York Times.
And, to anyone who even stumbled on the doorstep of a business school in a drunken stupor, by iPod's 92% share of its market.
Napster's model, whether implemented by Napster themselves or another company, will pressure Apple, there's no "if" about it.
Now I know I'm dealing with a real mental giant here. I alluded to that, quite specifically, in my first post when I said:
To say nothing of the fact that Apple will introduce a subscription plan if they need to, anyway.
Perhaps me repeating that for a third time now will drill it into your mind, eh?
Then, I said:
But, as I said, if the subscription model of a competitor pressures Apple, they'll release their own. And then it's goodbye Napster for the second time again, since Apple's model is invariably guaranteed to work infinitely better from a user's perspective, as has been shown time and again.
So far, your argument has been based on complete fallacy:
- That I'm arguing that an iPod somehow makes the music sound different, when I did no such thing (though the iPod makes it easier for the vast, vast majority of people to actually *listen* to their music), and
- That I failed to acknowledge a possibility that Apple might release its own subscription model. It indeed may, as I've said in the first post, the second post responding to you, and this post.
But it's not as clear cut as you think. Napster's business model - as shocking as this may be to you - may fail. And then what happens to your precious model? Oops, the last couple of years worth of downloads and $360 down the drain. So long, and thanks for all the fish. If - and that's a big if - Napster's model survives the oversight of the content owners (or, indeed if it even becomes profitable itself, another big if) - Apple may see fit to introduce its own subscription model, as I've said for, again, a third time now.
And then you drones can drool over the MacWorld videos of it when Steve Jobs announces that Apple will also offer a subscription plan. You'll think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but lots of us will remember how horrible you thought it was before it got the Steve Jobs Reality
I said it came down to usage styles; Napster's model may be appealing to some people, such as yourself. If it is, that's great.
But most people don't buy (or would even download via Napster, even though it's included in their monthly fee) more than 180 songs or 18 albums per year, and the iTunes Music Store's 30 second preview is fine for the majority of the unwashed masses to "sample" a song.
My only point is that for those NOT buying more than 180 songs or 18 albums per year, Napster is not worth it, and in addition, as has been shown with other DRM-music providers, including Apple, the terms can change at any time. Expect Napster's price to go up. For people who fall into the category of normal music purchasers, a non-rental model is desirable. Napster also offers that model, for $0.99/song. But it's not all about price. It's the ease of use and tight integration of the iTunes Music Store, iTunes, and the iPod that has won so many users.
Is that going to make the songs sound differently or something? Wow, what a horrible argument.
LOL! Isn't that the same fundamental argument that has been buoying the entire Windows platform for a nigh on a couple decades now? Sorry, bub, but marketshare is important, and I truly apologize that you're so tweaked that Apple's iPod is so phenomenally popular.
And no, dumbass, it doesn't "make the songs sound differently". It's a product that *actually works* for the majority of people who want to use it, who aren't fucking hapless geeks with nothing better to do than sift through user interfaces designed by the mentally disabled.
Since Apple will offer a similar model eventually, you might want to start planning ahead so that you don't look like a complete hypocrite by praising it when it happens. Hope this helps.:)
In my post, I just said:
To say nothing of the fact that Apple will introduce a subscription plan if they need to, anyway.
The "appeal" of Napster's model is nothing more than superficial to the vast majority of people. And whether the superficiality of it may indeed matter aside, you have three groups of people:
- People who want to scam Napster by illegally ripping/recording all of the songs they download via Napster. A vanishingly small number of actual Napster users that we won't include them here. (Side note: if someone releases a utility that automates this, and it becomes apparent to record labels and content owners that usage of Napster in this fashion becomes widespread, say goodbye to Napster for a second time.)
- People who actually do want to download large volumes of music constantly that will total more than 180 songs or 18 albums per year, who don't mind continuing to pay $180/year (or more as the subscription rates go up) indefinitely. This is a legitimate market segment, and for these people Napster is a good fit. These people also have to exclusively use Windows and not prefer an iPod as their portable music player. Again, Napster's model may be compelling for this type of user.
- People who *think* they need Napster, but actually don't buy more than 180 songs or 18 albums per year, and have been duped by Napster's marketing. Likely this will also be a small number of people.
But, as I said, if the subscription model of a competitor pressures Apple, they'll release their own. And then it's goodbye Napster for the second time again, since Apple's model is invariably guaranteed to work infinitely better from a user's perspective, as has been shown time and again.
That, and whether you want to use the hard-drive based music player with 92% market share.
You said:
The ipod only had 92% of the hard-drive based mp3 player market.
I'm sorry, but is that not what I just said?
Of course, the iPod has over 70% share of all music players, hard-drive based or not, so I suppose the point is moot.
And if people want to buy CD players, good for them. But in the US, iPods are pervasive and it's hard to go anywhere with a lot of people going about their business and not see the telltale white headphone cords.
Once you stop paying your $15/month or $180/year, which will likely become $17, and $20, and so on, in the future, you no longer have access to your music.
If you want to keep it forever - or burn it to CD or use it on something other than an approved device - you have to buy it for a dollar. Just like with iTunes.
Also, that money you're spending on Napster is 180 songs, or 18 albums per year, on the iTunes music store, that you get to keep forever. I suppose it just all depends on your usage style.
That, and whether you want to use the hard-drive based music player with 92% market share.
To say nothing of the fact that Apple will introduce a subscription plan if they need to, anyway.
...as others in many other forums today have, there is, at least at present, absolutely no proof that Apple legal necessarily did anything here. By all accounts, it was a project by an individual Google engineer that a manager liked enough to display publicly via Google Labs. The creator himself said it was the result of "a fun late-night coding jaunt to help me learn Javascript and DHTML." After other Google managers, executives, or legal staff saw it, there is a distinct possibility that Google itself pulled it because of anything from concerns over possible infringement, to the product not being approved by by the proper authorities before public consumption, to internal disagreement about the rollout process to Google Labs.
To those who may be so inclined to immediately blame Apple, I would say: wait until any facts in this particular instance actually support that position.
You're going to have these problems with many more vehicles on the road than SUVs.
I am aware of this line of thinking regarding SUVs, but omitted it from many of my arguments because I find they are typically used to push a general "anti-SUV" agenda, not for its own sake, but because it generally targets the types of people the anti-SUV types don't like, for lack of a better way of putting it. "Suburban yuppie capitalist conservatives", if you will.
The empowerment issue is one that would affect that person's personality no matter what they were driving, and the "I can go ridiculously fast on snow and ice because I'm driving an SUV" is not an issue with SUVs, but is rather an issue of stupidity. Properly parked and driven SUVs do not pose any inordinate inconvenience to others, and do pose danger in the event of accidents, but it's not because SUV makers "refuse to spend the money to design them properly", as another poster stated. It's because when you have inherently different sizes - and heights, and thus bumper heights - of vehicles, pure elements of physics come into play.
And when you start going down the road of "only people who need trucks should get them", as another poster implied, is that the kind of thing we want in a supposedly free society? Do all semi operators really need semis? Do all self-employed landscapers really need their pickup? Couldn't the soccer mom get by with a minivan? You see what I'm saying. Not that I disagree with anything you've said. But that's just an side effect of living alongside others in free market society.
Two thoughts: 1 - Even if what you say is true, at least the pollution is moved to a central source, where it is easier to control. 2 - This is all the more reason to move more and more of our electricity generation over to cleaner sources such as nuclear.
I agree.
Long term.
But it's not appropriate now. The logical next move is incremental, and that is to hybrid technology which is in itself already a rapidly growing component of worldwide automotive sales.
Is any new technology "very practical" when it first comes out? Also, were you aware that the Toyota RAV4 EV easily attains over 100 miles per charge? Considering that the average person drives less than 40 miles a day, that sounds pretty dang practical to me.
Yeah. And people won't buy it, because no one wants to be caught in that 1 in 100 time they need to go more than 100 miles between charges.
Correction: people, such as urbanites who fancy shopping at organic food coops and keeping Walgreens out of their neighborhood, *will* buy it, but, as a percentage of total vehicle sales and vehicles in use, it will be marginal. In fact, they'll buy it as a fashion statement, of sorts: "I'm better than you."
Why not concentrate on something more innovative, like electric cars? They're better than you think.
You mean the essentially same resources that will be committed to the more broadly appealing hybrids? Many people won't buy an all-electric vehicle if they think that they might need to go further than a single charge allows even a couple times a year.
And when I say "hybrid", there's nothing stopping future hybrids from having very small conventional gasoline components as our battery and electric motor technology improves.
The only reason they're not "actually useful" is because big coporations refuse to throw all their money behind them.
"GM spent more than $1 billion developing and marketing the EV1..."
Yes, that was just a little jab. My point is that it's time to start making cars that are attractive and appealing to mass markets - especially the highest consuming vehicles - in order to have a real impact, and get people to start changing thinking. Instead of the attitude that many have toward SUVs, why not make SUVs themselves efficient, instead self-righteously passing judgment against them, or making statements along the lines of "well, they don't NEED that vehicle, therefore they shouldn't have it"? Why not note that the new hybrid full size pickup trucks and SUVs are actually MORE powerful and have MORE torque than their gasoline-engine-only counterparts, while STILL saving fuel and polluting less? I mean, shouldn't we try to make things appealing to the largest consumers? People don't buy SUVs because they want to destroy the earth, you know...and I'm not targeting these comments at you, but rather at anyone who might be reading this.
And most of our electricity, of course, doesn't come from fossil fuels.
...
Hey, I'd love to have electric vehicles powered from all-renewable sources. But frankly, nuclear would be the way to go, and no one, except, oh, I don't know, China, seems to want to talk about building new plants that would actually have a hope of satisfying our inevitable, insatiable, and increasing demands for energy.
Yes, it's sad to see a symbolic engineering marvel like the EV1 go, but all this does is shift the pollution elsewhere. Not to mention not being very practical at all.
See here for energy densities of various materials.
Could there be a reason that gasoline is the energy storage mechanism of choice for vehicles?
Why not concentrate on GM's current hybrid timeline, or on vehicles that are actually useful and that normal people might buy, like GM's 2007 GMT-900 platform (Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon/Yukon XL/Escalade) which will have a strong hybrid option, with a standard 5.7L Vortec V8, but with Displacement on Demand, disabling 2 or 4 cylinders as conditions permit, and featuring two 30kW electric motors housed in the standard Hydramatic transmission case that doesn't require major resigns and retooling entire truck production lines for use, but still yielding up to a 40% mileage improvement, instead of making ugly little cars on which it is apparently mandatory to have the rear wheelwells covered like hearses?
there is a huge difference between for-profit, commercial violations of copyright and personal filesharing.
And this is really the crux of the hypocrites' argument. Thank you for proving my point. The law is apparently applied differently to different entities. Corporate entity breaking the GPL? A big no-no. Individual ignoring copyright and content ownership on music? Perfectly acceptable, of course. And throw in the arguments about how some non-US countries allow unabashed copying of copyrighted works with no regard for the content owners, to boot.
Once again, avoiding the question, and ignoring the fact that many slashdotters who rationalize illegal downloading are also the SAME slashdotters who defend the GPL.
I'm not questioning the people who DO support copyright and property rights. I'm asking the hypocrites.
Slashdot Mirror
The really funny thing is, they'll continue to deny it in the face of things like this and this.
That's why I took a couple week hiatus from even posting here. That, and the fact that after hundreds of points of positive moderation, all it took was a couple of factually correct posts in a story about John Gilmore modded down to "-1, Troll" to get me literally banned[1] from posting to slashdot for a week.
Real nice.
[1] And yes, that really is the full story. These posts - 1, 2, 3 - got me banned from posting, even as three other posts in the same story got moderated to +5: 1, 2, 3. Sure, I could have worked my way around the "ban", but what's the fucking point? To post to a place where you're not wanted and opposing ideas are shouted down?
iTunes 4.7 has been out for almost half a year.
"Only about 15 percent of iTunes users would be affected by the need to upgrade to the latest version of the software, the company said in its statement." (source)
No. Prove that it was there before, dumbass.
But I doubt you can. If it makes you feel better to think that everything is a Bush/neocon conspiracy, go for it!
I'm glad someone realizes this.
And I'm at least consistent in my views here...
By the way, I was glad to see your reference to A Measure of Media Bias recently.
But then, most people are equally hypocritical and willfully ignorant in that realm as well.
But remember, the GPL itself is not specifically "tested", per se, because GPL software developers assert them rights granted to them via copyright on an individual basis. This makes it a sometimes long and arduous process to assert rights and/or prove infringement, but hopefully more precedent will help.
s p
r yos-pearpc.html
0 0501.html 0 0503.html 0 0504.html 0 0507.html
l e&id=348
1 78 y os.php
g _id=11116974
g _id=11125509
Since the provisions of the GPL have been upheld in a case in Germany as well, maybe PearPC will be able to more easily defend itself against CherryOS, which has blatantly taken GPL code, without release of source code or attribution, from PearPC and several other GPL projects:
eWeek has a general overview of the situation:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775386,00.a
Below is a comprehensive collection of evidence, which runs the gamut from CherryOS including original PearPC graphics, extremely unique strings and error messages, debug code from PearPC, the same unique MAC address as PearPC's default network adapter, shared specific functionality, including bugs, and so on:
http://www.ht-technology.com/cherryos-pearpc/cher
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/0
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/0
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/0
http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/0
http://starport.dnsalias.net/index.php?show=artic
http://forums.pearpc.net/viewtopic.php?p=16178#16
http://www.tliquest.net/ryan/cherryos/
http://dhost.info/kourge/en/projects/frauds/cherr
Additionally, PearPC project authors are already asserting their rights under the GPL:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?ms
And a general compilation of some of the evidence so far against CherryOS:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?ms
...that this Amit Singh actually is a researcher at IBM Almaden Research Center.
Apologies for the munged link in my initial post.
What's even cooler about Amit Singh is that he's a he's a researcher at IBM Alamaden Research Center, working on, among other things, secure communications and Linux on the desktop.
And be sure to check out his other articles, particularly What is Mac OS X? . They're all well written, comprehensive on their respective topics, and generally excellent.
In short... you don't own it. At least, not in the shiny plastic disks kind of way.
Except Apple's model includes the ability to legally burn it to CD (and transcode it) an unlimited number of times. Then you own it "forever". Napster's model does not (unless you pay the same $0.99/song).
As for the connection limit, this was likely done, as you said, at the behest of someone like the RIAA, or possibly (a) content owner(s). The CD track names feature was removed because Apple license with Gracenote restricts its usage to iTunes imports. Apple's not trying to make things harder for the sake of it. And you can bet Apple's efforts and lobbying here will favor THEIR userbase, i.e., their users, when Apple feels it is in an appropriate negotiating position to do so.
If Napster's model fails, it will be because it's not profitable and/or sustainable (this includes the concept of not being legally sustainable due to potential challenges from content owners to further restrict the content, or face revocation of rights). To an ordinary thinking person, this would make it blindingly obvious that another subscription provider is not going to be able to fill that same market if Napster fails, for the same reasons.
People argue that it's better to listen to music on Windows because it has a higher marketshare?
No. I assume you're trolling here - or mind-shatteringly stupid, one of the two - but I'll bite. Where did I say anything about listening to music on Windows? I said "the same fundamental argument that has been buoying the entire Windows platform for a nigh on a couple decades now". To even presume that has *anything* to do with listening to music assumes that my initial statement about iPod's 92% share of the hard-drive based music player market has ANYTHING to do with the sound quality of the music coming out of it. Since my initial statement didn't say that, and since my subsequent explanation made no reference to it - and since you continue to feebly derail the perfectly factual claim that iPod's marketshare stunningly outshines any competitor, and has done so in a comparatively small amount of time - I can only assume you're the idiot you seem to be.
Still, I have to assume that you agree with it since you seem to be using it as the basis for your own argument that the iPod's marketshare affects one's listening experience.
I never made any argument that the iPod necessarily "sounded better". Though AAC at a given data rate may indeed sound better than various other codecs at the same given data rate, that was not, and never was, the argument that was made. But the user experience of the iPod, and its tight integration with iTunes and the iTunes Music Store is so tremendously better than any other combination of player, platform, or music store that it's quite laughable. This, of course, has been confirmed by numerous reviews by anything from traditional IT press to the New York Times.
And, to anyone who even stumbled on the doorstep of a business school in a drunken stupor, by iPod's 92% share of its market.
Napster's model, whether implemented by Napster themselves or another company, will pressure Apple, there's no "if" about it.
Now I know I'm dealing with a real mental giant here. I alluded to that, quite specifically, in my first post when I said:
To say nothing of the fact that Apple will introduce a subscription plan if they need to, anyway.
Perhaps me repeating that for a third time now will drill it into your mind, eh?
Then, I said:
But, as I said, if the subscription model of a competitor pressures Apple, they'll release their own. And then it's goodbye Napster for the second time again, since Apple's model is invariably guaranteed to work infinitely better from a user's perspective, as has been shown time and again.
So far, your argument has been based on complete fallacy:
- That I'm arguing that an iPod somehow makes the music sound different, when I did no such thing (though the iPod makes it easier for the vast, vast majority of people to actually *listen* to their music), and
- That I failed to acknowledge a possibility that Apple might release its own subscription model. It indeed may, as I've said in the first post, the second post responding to you, and this post.
But it's not as clear cut as you think. Napster's business model - as shocking as this may be to you - may fail. And then what happens to your precious model? Oops, the last couple of years worth of downloads and $360 down the drain. So long, and thanks for all the fish. If - and that's a big if - Napster's model survives the oversight of the content owners (or, indeed if it even becomes profitable itself, another big if) - Apple may see fit to introduce its own subscription model, as I've said for, again, a third time now.
And then you drones can drool over the MacWorld videos of it when Steve Jobs announces that Apple will also offer a subscription plan. You'll think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but lots of us will remember how horrible you thought it was before it got the Steve Jobs Reality
Ah, slashdot.
Where the "screw and subvert legitimate businesses and content owners at all costs" attitude is considered "Insightful".
I said it came down to usage styles; Napster's model may be appealing to some people, such as yourself. If it is, that's great.
But most people don't buy (or would even download via Napster, even though it's included in their monthly fee) more than 180 songs or 18 albums per year, and the iTunes Music Store's 30 second preview is fine for the majority of the unwashed masses to "sample" a song.
My only point is that for those NOT buying more than 180 songs or 18 albums per year, Napster is not worth it, and in addition, as has been shown with other DRM-music providers, including Apple, the terms can change at any time. Expect Napster's price to go up. For people who fall into the category of normal music purchasers, a non-rental model is desirable. Napster also offers that model, for $0.99/song. But it's not all about price. It's the ease of use and tight integration of the iTunes Music Store, iTunes, and the iPod that has won so many users.
Is that going to make the songs sound differently or something? Wow, what a horrible argument.
:)
:)
LOL! Isn't that the same fundamental argument that has been buoying the entire Windows platform for a nigh on a couple decades now? Sorry, bub, but marketshare is important, and I truly apologize that you're so tweaked that Apple's iPod is so phenomenally popular.
And no, dumbass, it doesn't "make the songs sound differently". It's a product that *actually works* for the majority of people who want to use it, who aren't fucking hapless geeks with nothing better to do than sift through user interfaces designed by the mentally disabled.
Since Apple will offer a similar model eventually, you might want to start planning ahead so that you don't look like a complete hypocrite by praising it when it happens. Hope this helps.
In my post, I just said:
To say nothing of the fact that Apple will introduce a subscription plan if they need to, anyway.
The "appeal" of Napster's model is nothing more than superficial to the vast majority of people. And whether the superficiality of it may indeed matter aside, you have three groups of people:
- People who want to scam Napster by illegally ripping/recording all of the songs they download via Napster. A vanishingly small number of actual Napster users that we won't include them here. (Side note: if someone releases a utility that automates this, and it becomes apparent to record labels and content owners that usage of Napster in this fashion becomes widespread, say goodbye to Napster for a second time.)
- People who actually do want to download large volumes of music constantly that will total more than 180 songs or 18 albums per year, who don't mind continuing to pay $180/year (or more as the subscription rates go up) indefinitely. This is a legitimate market segment, and for these people Napster is a good fit. These people also have to exclusively use Windows and not prefer an iPod as their portable music player. Again, Napster's model may be compelling for this type of user.
- People who *think* they need Napster, but actually don't buy more than 180 songs or 18 albums per year, and have been duped by Napster's marketing. Likely this will also be a small number of people.
But, as I said, if the subscription model of a competitor pressures Apple, they'll release their own. And then it's goodbye Napster for the second time again, since Apple's model is invariably guaranteed to work infinitely better from a user's perspective, as has been shown time and again.
Hope this helps.
I said:
That, and whether you want to use the hard-drive based music player with 92% market share.
You said:
The ipod only had 92% of the hard-drive based mp3 player market.
I'm sorry, but is that not what I just said?
Of course, the iPod has over 70% share of all music players, hard-drive based or not, so I suppose the point is moot.
And if people want to buy CD players, good for them. But in the US, iPods are pervasive and it's hard to go anywhere with a lot of people going about their business and not see the telltale white headphone cords.
...about Napster. Explicitly, anyway.
Once you stop paying your $15/month or $180/year, which will likely become $17, and $20, and so on, in the future, you no longer have access to your music.
If you want to keep it forever - or burn it to CD or use it on something other than an approved device - you have to buy it for a dollar. Just like with iTunes.
Also, that money you're spending on Napster is 180 songs, or 18 albums per year, on the iTunes music store, that you get to keep forever. I suppose it just all depends on your usage style.
That, and whether you want to use the hard-drive based music player with 92% market share.
To say nothing of the fact that Apple will introduce a subscription plan if they need to, anyway.
...as others in many other forums today have, there is, at least at present, absolutely no proof that Apple legal necessarily did anything here. By all accounts, it was a project by an individual Google engineer that a manager liked enough to display publicly via Google Labs. The creator himself said it was the result of "a fun late-night coding jaunt to help me learn Javascript and DHTML." After other Google managers, executives, or legal staff saw it, there is a distinct possibility that Google itself pulled it because of anything from concerns over possible infringement, to the product not being approved by by the proper authorities before public consumption, to internal disagreement about the rollout process to Google Labs.
To those who may be so inclined to immediately blame Apple, I would say: wait until any facts in this particular instance actually support that position.
I've read that it costs $8000 to replace the batteries for electric and hybrid cars. And furthermore, they need to be replaced every three years.
As I read this, I couldn't help but hear echos of...
"I've heard that it costs $100 to replace the batteries in an iPod. And furthermore, they need to be replaced every eighteen months!"
Heh. I was being sarcastic.
That was the point of my response, and thus the "...", signifying stunned silence, that followed.
I'll admit that may not have been instantly obvious from my post.
You're going to have these problems with many more vehicles on the road than SUVs.
I am aware of this line of thinking regarding SUVs, but omitted it from many of my arguments because I find they are typically used to push a general "anti-SUV" agenda, not for its own sake, but because it generally targets the types of people the anti-SUV types don't like, for lack of a better way of putting it. "Suburban yuppie capitalist conservatives", if you will.
The empowerment issue is one that would affect that person's personality no matter what they were driving, and the "I can go ridiculously fast on snow and ice because I'm driving an SUV" is not an issue with SUVs, but is rather an issue of stupidity. Properly parked and driven SUVs do not pose any inordinate inconvenience to others, and do pose danger in the event of accidents, but it's not because SUV makers "refuse to spend the money to design them properly", as another poster stated. It's because when you have inherently different sizes - and heights, and thus bumper heights - of vehicles, pure elements of physics come into play.
And when you start going down the road of "only people who need trucks should get them", as another poster implied, is that the kind of thing we want in a supposedly free society? Do all semi operators really need semis? Do all self-employed landscapers really need their pickup? Couldn't the soccer mom get by with a minivan? You see what I'm saying. Not that I disagree with anything you've said. But that's just an side effect of living alongside others in free market society.
Two thoughts: 1 - Even if what you say is true, at least the pollution is moved to a central source, where it is easier to control. 2 - This is all the more reason to move more and more of our electricity generation over to cleaner sources such as nuclear.
I agree.
Long term.
But it's not appropriate now. The logical next move is incremental, and that is to hybrid technology which is in itself already a rapidly growing component of worldwide automotive sales.
Is any new technology "very practical" when it first comes out? Also, were you aware that the Toyota RAV4 EV easily attains over 100 miles per charge? Considering that the average person drives less than 40 miles a day, that sounds pretty dang practical to me.
Yeah. And people won't buy it, because no one wants to be caught in that 1 in 100 time they need to go more than 100 miles between charges.
Correction: people, such as urbanites who fancy shopping at organic food coops and keeping Walgreens out of their neighborhood, *will* buy it, but, as a percentage of total vehicle sales and vehicles in use, it will be marginal. In fact, they'll buy it as a fashion statement, of sorts: "I'm better than you."
Why not concentrate on something more innovative, like electric cars? They're better than you think.
You mean the essentially same resources that will be committed to the more broadly appealing hybrids? Many people won't buy an all-electric vehicle if they think that they might need to go further than a single charge allows even a couple times a year.
And when I say "hybrid", there's nothing stopping future hybrids from having very small conventional gasoline components as our battery and electric motor technology improves.
The only reason they're not "actually useful" is because big coporations refuse to throw all their money behind them.
"GM spent more than $1 billion developing and marketing the EV1..."
Yes, that was just a little jab. My point is that it's time to start making cars that are attractive and appealing to mass markets - especially the highest consuming vehicles - in order to have a real impact, and get people to start changing thinking. Instead of the attitude that many have toward SUVs, why not make SUVs themselves efficient, instead self-righteously passing judgment against them, or making statements along the lines of "well, they don't NEED that vehicle, therefore they shouldn't have it"? Why not note that the new hybrid full size pickup trucks and SUVs are actually MORE powerful and have MORE torque than their gasoline-engine-only counterparts, while STILL saving fuel and polluting less? I mean, shouldn't we try to make things appealing to the largest consumers? People don't buy SUVs because they want to destroy the earth, you know...and I'm not targeting these comments at you, but rather at anyone who might be reading this.
And most of our electricity, of course, doesn't come from fossil fuels.
...
Hey, I'd love to have electric vehicles powered from all-renewable sources. But frankly, nuclear would be the way to go, and no one, except, oh, I don't know, China, seems to want to talk about building new plants that would actually have a hope of satisfying our inevitable, insatiable, and increasing demands for energy.
Yes, it's sad to see a symbolic engineering marvel like the EV1 go, but all this does is shift the pollution elsewhere. Not to mention not being very practical at all.
See here for energy densities of various materials.
Could there be a reason that gasoline is the energy storage mechanism of choice for vehicles?
Why not concentrate on GM's current hybrid timeline, or on vehicles that are actually useful and that normal people might buy, like GM's 2007 GMT-900 platform (Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon/Yukon XL/Escalade) which will have a strong hybrid option, with a standard 5.7L Vortec V8, but with Displacement on Demand, disabling 2 or 4 cylinders as conditions permit, and featuring two 30kW electric motors housed in the standard Hydramatic transmission case that doesn't require major resigns and retooling entire truck production lines for use, but still yielding up to a 40% mileage improvement, instead of making ugly little cars on which it is apparently mandatory to have the rear wheelwells covered like hearses?
there is a huge difference between for-profit, commercial violations of copyright and personal filesharing.
And this is really the crux of the hypocrites' argument. Thank you for proving my point. The law is apparently applied differently to different entities. Corporate entity breaking the GPL? A big no-no. Individual ignoring copyright and content ownership on music? Perfectly acceptable, of course. And throw in the arguments about how some non-US countries allow unabashed copying of copyrighted works with no regard for the content owners, to boot.
Once again, avoiding the question, and ignoring the fact that many slashdotters who rationalize illegal downloading are also the SAME slashdotters who defend the GPL.
I'm not questioning the people who DO support copyright and property rights. I'm asking the hypocrites.