I had the same question, so I e-mailed her. Here's my question:
So even if you add more of an atmosphere to Mars, what would prevent it from leaking off into space just like it's already done to get Mars into the state it's in now? Due to Mars' lack of a magnetic field, the solar wind would just strip away the atmosphere.
Within minutes, I got a reply from her:
Hi Paul,
you're right, even if we thicken Mars' atmosphere, it will eventually
disappear again. The lack of magnetic field is probably not the biggest
problem (it's likely to have been more of a problem in the past when the
solar wind was likely stronger), but you would definitely have the formation
of Carbonates in the newly formed lakes and rivers that would take sequester
the CO2.
The important point here though is timescales. If people really wanted to do
it, terraforming (at least the first stages) could definitely be
accomplished in about 100 years. That's a reasonable timescale in the life
of humans. The disappearance of the Mars atmosphere, on the other hand,
would take *at least* millions, and probably tens of millions, of years.
That timescale is much longer than human experience and therefore I would
argue is not that important. We are going to be so different in a million
years, with such totally different capabilities and needs, that the fact
that Mars will then again become inhabitable I think is unimportant.
The difference that sets Apple apart is that when they get into something, they're not just another "me too" company with some crappy product that is barely distinguishable from all the others that are already on the market. Other music players are crap compared to the iPod; other music stores are crap compared to the iTMS; OS X is Unix, yes, but the UI is so far ahead of what Linux desktop have been trying to do for years.
You're essentially saying that anyone who makes a consumable product for a non-consumable device that they themselves do not make is a wannabe.
Right. Rather than think of something new and innovative, just try to cash in on a lucrative market somebody else created.
The same way that a record store wants to sell CDs that work on a regular CD player. Is the record store being a wannabe by not selling their own CD players?
First, it wouldn't be the record store. It would either be the CD manufacturer or the record label. Second, a CD player was designed to be able to accept any CD, so your analogy is flawed. The iPod was designed to play encrypted music only if it was encrypted by Apple. Real is free to negotiate with Apple for the legal right to use their DRM. Either they didn't (in which case, shame on them), or they did, but Apple said no. So then Real broke the law because they didn't get what they wanted. Boo hoo for Real.
Are you incapable of admitting that Apple is wrong and Real is right?
In all my posts on this, I haven't said or even hinted at whether I think Apple is right or wrong (or whether I think the DMCA is right or wrong). That's irrelevant to the news story at hand which is only about Real basing their business model on a very-likely illegal strategy.
When you say "break the DRM" what you actually mean is reverse engineer the format...
No, it's not what I actually mean. Again, the method used for breaking the DRM is irrelevant.
... so that RealPlayer users are be able to play songs that they bought legally on iTunes in the first place.
You've got it bass ackwards: what Real did was make it so that songs purchased from Real can be played on the iPod. This has nothing to do with the RealPlayer.
But even if you got it right, it's still illegal because while you can crack the DRM for your own personal use, Real can't do it for you. The former is granted a special exception in the DMCA; the latter is not.
As I already pointed out, the cited section in the DMCA allows a special exeption for individual fair-use, i.e., you bought it, you can do whatever the hell you want with it including reverse-engineer it to make it work with other stuff you also own.
But Real has not lawfully obtained the program Apple used for their DRM in the first place and Real certainly can't turn around and profit from their labor.
Real has not obtained, lawfully or otherwise, a the right to use a copy of the computer program Apple uses to implement their DRM. Hence, the entire DMCA subsection does not apply.
This cited subsection of the DMCA provides for an individual person who lawfully obtained a program or product (usually through purchase) the exception that s/he may reverse-engineer it so s/he may increase interoperability with other programs or products that s/he also owns.
Said person could not distribute, sell, or profit from said reverse-engineering. If s/he does, then s/he's in violation of the DMCA for circumventing the protection and the method s/he used to do it (in this case, reverse-engineering) is, once again, irrelevant.
Of course Real is being opportunistic and trying to tap in on the money from a large market. That's how one runs a buissness.
Or one could innovate and create or revolutionize a market which is pretty much what Apple did. There are innovators and there are wanna-bes. Real is a wanna-be.
That's like telling someone wanting to make an Office suite compatible with MS Office to find another way to make money instead of reverse engineering the.doc,.xls,.ppt formats
No it isn't because reverse-engineering MS Office formats doesn't break the law since MS Office formats aren't (yet) encrypted. No encryption to break, no DMCA violation.
Because (believe it or not) Real wants to provide something for its customers.
Argument to support premise:
They want to sell songs, and they want to make them work with the iPod, since there are tons of iPods out there. By supporting a popular product, they expect to sell more songs.
The argument you gave has to do with Real selling songs and making money. It says nothing about their customers. Unless Real (or you) can show that they've been petitioned by lots of people pleading with them to make songs bought from their store work on the iPod, there's no evidence that Real isn't simply trying to be merely opportunistic and tap in on the money from a large market.
...about a lawsuit from Apple, and if such a lawsuit would so dramatically affect their bottom line, why did they go ahead and break the DRM in the first place?
Why would anyone even consider a new platform if they don't think their current one sucks in some way? Clearly, if he were 100% happy on Windows, he wouldn't be lamenting the fact that the Mac doesn't have the games he wants -- he wouldn't care.
You're right about the not-built-in and not-free part, but if you buy a new Mac at any Apple store and mention you're switching from Windows, the salsperson will most certainly bring the software's existence to your attention.
Weren't we talking about people migrating from a Windows PC to a new computer. The ease of Migrating from Mac to Mac is not applicable to someone who is switching from a Windows PC.
There are 3rd-party apps that migrate from Windows-to-Mac.
Development might only take a few people, or even just one; production is trivial, and distribution might only need a web server.
It usually only takes a few hardware enginneers to develop something in hardware. As for distribution, no, you can't just use a web server because I'm specifically talking about the case of a hardware player like the iPod that uses software to implement it's UI rather than an all-hardware player with no software whatsoever.
Windows also has the ability to migrate data and settings from one machine to another, albiet poorly but that's a far site better than the big fat nothing that Mac's come with.
You obviously have never migrated from one Mac to another. Put the source Mac into target disk mode, connect it via Firewire to the destination Mac, and run the migrator utility. All user setting are copied and copied well.
[The teenaged-or-twenty-something males] can afford iPods can't they? It is a mistake to ignore them because their market segment is one of few that has the money and would be willing to spend it on a Mac.
I meant: the teenaged-or-twenty-something males that comprise the game market, not all teenaged-or-twenty-something males.
And having a PC equipped to satisfy modern gaming requirements means money. They're the most expensive consumer PCs, no contest.
So how likely do you think it is that someone who has bought a system or the parts for a system capable of playing the latest games can sink a bunch of money into an expensive new Mac? Not likely at all, in my experience.
Presumeably if they had sufficient disposable income to buy the expensive gaming-equipped PC, they'd also have enough to buy a low-end Mac (unless they spent every last penny on the PC that, to me, is foolish).
If you play games, say, 20% of the time on your computer, then you're putting up with crappy Windows 80% (!) of the time. That just makes no sense to me.
[T]he pricing really is ludicrous; for fun you could some time check the price of their entry level desktop (which is 1xG5 now) and compare what kind of whitebox frankenbox you could assemble for the same money in stead.
You get what you pay for: a nicely designed machine with a very nice OS that Just Works(TM).
Do you also think BMW, Mercedes, or Lexus pricing is also ludicrous?
I think they meant high cost of entry for a machine that doesn't absolutely scrape the bottom of the barrel in performance.
And the subtle point you missed is that if you're no longer playing games on it (because you're now playing them on a dedicated gaming machine), then you don't need great performance merely to surf the web and check e-mail.
I am not the original poster, but games you play on a PC are very different from the ones you play on consoles.
OK, so get a cheap PC instead of a dedicated gaming machine and a Mac.
Incidentally, once Intel Macs are out (and you can boot Windows on them), then there will no longer be a reason to have seperate boxes. You can eat your cake and have it too.
The form factor is very cool but it's basically made out of very outdated components.
As long as it surfs the web, allows somebody to check e-mail, write a few papers, most people couldn't care less what's under the hood. Remember that since my argument says that you offload games to a dedicated gaming machine, then you don't need the kind of performance needed for a gaming machine. Also, you aren't representative of the target market.
And if you add up all the options to make it decent, you'll notice it's not that low-priced.
Like what? All it really needs is more RAM which isn't that expensive. You don't need Bluetooth or 802.11g (and most PCs don't have them by default either).
Slashdot Mirror
(However, including the nuclear forces is moot since they have no influence nor can they be observed outside the nucleus of an atom.)
So, yes: Apple is special.
But even if you got it right, it's still illegal because while you can crack the DRM for your own personal use, Real can't do it for you. The former is granted a special exception in the DMCA; the latter is not.
But Real has not lawfully obtained the program Apple used for their DRM in the first place and Real certainly can't turn around and profit from their labor.
This cited subsection of the DMCA provides for an individual person who lawfully obtained a program or product (usually through purchase) the exception that s/he may reverse-engineer it so s/he may increase interoperability with other programs or products that s/he also owns.
Said person could not distribute, sell, or profit from said reverse-engineering. If s/he does, then s/he's in violation of the DMCA for circumventing the protection and the method s/he used to do it (in this case, reverse-engineering) is, once again, irrelevant.
Can't they find another way to make money?
Why would anyone even consider a new platform if they don't think their current one sucks in some way? Clearly, if he were 100% happy on Windows, he wouldn't be lamenting the fact that the Mac doesn't have the games he wants -- he wouldn't care.
You're right about the not-built-in and not-free part, but if you buy a new Mac at any Apple store and mention you're switching from Windows, the salsperson will most certainly bring the software's existence to your attention.
If you play games, say, 20% of the time on your computer, then you're putting up with crappy Windows 80% (!) of the time. That just makes no sense to me.
So long as you don't mind eating a twinkie snack cake as opposed to, say, German chocolate cake, no.
Do you also think BMW, Mercedes, or Lexus pricing is also ludicrous?
Incidentally, once Intel Macs are out (and you can boot Windows on them), then there will no longer be a reason to have seperate boxes. You can eat your cake and have it too.