Re:what about the DRM "feature"?
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 1
So what you want is no restrictions. You don't perceive Apples restriction on sharing music between players because they've never allowed you to share music between players. MS restricts sharing between players, which you notice and which makes you upset.
I don't see either company being dishonest, in this matter. Neither company is making false claims or hiding their products features. I think that is just a preconceived notion on your part. I've been an Apple skeptic since the Apple IIGS was yanked, so I can relate.
And yet, there were fundamentalists in the US at the time of its founding. They were not, contrary to revisionist history, all deists or closet athiests. Many of the founding fathers were church leaders, some even spoke from the pulpit in various capacities.
I detest historical comparisons that compare a modern group with a group in the past. Most of us know that the Puritans were intolerant and perecuted others, burned people at the stake, etc. Still, at least some of the Puritans helped found the United States of America, establish rule of law where none existed, build universities, hospitals and communities. History is still out on the Taliban.
Originally I was just going to call you a moron. Actually, you are more likely an over-educated, moral relativist.
The idea of free speech has no limits. Sure, who could argue with that. It's only in practice that free speech has limits. Some of those limits are inherent, such as, you can't force people to listen, you can't practice free speech without a medium (tv, radio, your mouth), etc. Some of those limits are imposed, such as, you can't yell fire in a crowd (unless there is a fire), you can't advocate violence (with impunity), etc.
The idea of communism is harmless. The idea of communism would create a workers paradise, universal humanism and a perfect society. It's only in practice that communism is dangerous. Communism in practice has been used to enslave billions, deny those billions the rights we enjoy, such as, free speech, property, religion, freedom of movement, etc. In practice, communism does none of the things the idea of communism purports to do.
All ideas are harmless. The idea of genocide is harmless, the idea of slavery is harmless,... Get the point?
---
Since you brought him up. Joe McCarthy was undoubtably an unscrupulus demagogue who deserves to be vilified, however, history has shown that he was right. The world-wide communist movement had infiltrated our government and many of those same people were working to install communism in America. The fall of the USSR has provided mountains of evidence that proves this.
At what point would you consider there to be no censorship? Would all news outlets have to run the same stories? If one doesn't run a story that you consider important, would that be censorship? Wouldn't forcing news outlets to run stories be censorship itself?
The US has a free press. Does that mean that there is no censorship? Of course not. What it means is that you are free to print your own rag, with your own stories, practicing your own self-censorship.
China doesn't have a free press. China practices government censorship. Which is what I said in my previous post.
"What you're effectively saying is, well, we're less evil than Satan, so we must be good."
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Most of what the government has censored in the past is part of the caveats you mentioned, such as calling for the overthrow of the government. If someone was a communist or monarchist, and they want the US to become a communist state or a monarchy, then their speech does not enjoy the protections of the 1st ammendment. Is this censorship? Sure, but it is done so that everyone elses rights are protected. A reasonable person would consider that speech intended to remove the constitution and bill of rights should not be afforded the protections contained in the constitution and bill of rights.
The US government is composed of citizens of the US. It's not like the communist or nazi parties where some people are elevated above everyone else and afforded special rights. We are all equal under the law.
"Being flagged as a terrorist, constantly tailed and surveilled upon, put on the no-fly-list, etc. is a consequence imposed by the US government. And thus our first amendment rights have been violated. We are being censored."
Not sure who or what you are talking about here. There certainly have been people 'flagged' as terrorists in this country. Mainly because there are terrorists in this country. When the government does 'flag' someone as a terrorist, I certainly hope they tail and surveil them. I also hope they get put on the no-fly-list. If it turns out the government was wrong, they can probably get a lawyer and sue for damages. I've heard that you can get $2 million for 16 days in jail. I think most Americans wonder where they could sign up to get the same.
The US was, in part, founded by fundamentalists. Of course these same fundamentalists were escaping persecution by a religious majority and saw the need to not allow a single religion to dominate all of society.
Even today, we get along just fine with the Amish, Mormons, Baptists, Southern Baptists, Scientologists, Wiccans, Satanists, etc. I don't see anything to suggest that this will change.
No I don't. I bought a widescreen projection TV when they started to drop in price when the first wave of HD screens started coming out. It's almost 10 years old, so I may actually think about upgrading soon. The current crop of HD screens are actually miles ahead of what was available back then so I think I made a decent choice.
Also, it is historical fact. It was this finding, that everything is the will of Allah, that ended the 'Golden Age of Scientific Inquiry' in the Islamic world.
I'm sure there are muslims who do not believe this, but the great majority do. The great majority would probably also determine that your friends are not true followers of Islam. After all, what is gravity compared to the will of Allah?
I wasn't talking about China. Only an idiot would try to argue that China doesn't actively censor news and information.
"control enough of the methods of distribution and public focus and you have effective censorship"
No one in the US, not Rupert Murdoch, GE, GWB or Billary have control of even close to enough methods of distribution and public focus to have anything even close to effective censorship. Sibel Edmonds could be the poster child for how little censorship there is in the USA.
Thucydides is proof that history is written by the winners...
Sparta did depose the Athenian tyrant and allowed Athens to briefly exist as a Democracy. The Athenians themselves were responsible for ending that Democracy. Just ask Socrates.
In the Islamic world, the answer to all questions that begin with 'Why' is "Because it is the will of Allah". Apples do not fall to the ground because of gravity, they fall because "it is the will of Allah".
The only time that something is not because of "the will of Allah" is when it is the fault of "the Great Satan".
Multicast was supposed to be one of the features of IPv6. Not sure if they ever really got it working. Also, not sure how it would actually save with bandwidth over the internet, unless the clients are on the same subnet.
Actually I did hear his questions and his statements, as did millions of others. That's the new censorship, for ya, millions of people getting to hear what you say.
Sibel Edmonds? You mean the Sibel Edmonds with her own Wiki page? The one that is now getting awards and speaking engagements? Is that the one you are talking about? The new censorship, at work again.
As far as holding my country to standards, I try to focus on the present and future. There is nothing you, I or anyone can do about the past. Which was kind of my point. Sure, Sweden may be the most free country in the world, today. 60 years ago they helped round up Jews and send them to the gas chambers.
I'm not trying to sound like an old man on the porch, but who cares about all this cruft? Is Higher Def going to make a bad movie better? Does Lower Def make a good movie worse? I can understand the arguments against Pan and Scan, as you literally are not seeing everything. However, I don't see much of a difference between HD and SD.
Someone told me that after watching things in HD for a while, that they can't watch things in SD without noticing a difference. Is that a good thing? Am I going to be in a bar watching a game and be annoyed because it is in SD? Or over at a friends house and decide not to watch a movie cause they don't got the fancy, schmancy HD set up?
I'll probably like it when I get it, but I just don't see what all the fuss is about.
The Spartans did depose an Athenian tyrant, which allowed the Athenians to adopt democracy. This is in no way related to '300'. Also note, that I did not say the Spartans were democratic.
The Athenians gave up on democracy and it was Socrates that paid the price by stopping their earlier efforts to vote in a Republic. Eventually the anti-democracy crowd won and Socrates drank the hemlock.
I never said the Spartans were democratic. I said they deposed a Athenian tyrant (true), which gave the world its first glimpse of a functioning Democracy.
Everyone likes to credit the Athenians for democracy, but it was the Spartans that freed the Athenians and it was the Athenians who voted to end their brief democracy (true).
"So Rather is looking to have his day in court, because the memo never was proven false"
That's a bad way to run a news room. The onus is on Rather and Mapes to prove that the memo is real. Instead of doing that, they hid their source and ran the story any way. What is most telling, is that their source had plenty of other 'documents' that they didn't use. That is pretty damning, in and of itself.
"Rupert Murdoch's NY POST refused to print any stories that were critical of the Chinese government because he had business deals pending with that same Chinese government....Was that censorship? Sure it was."
If the NY POST was a government run newspaper, you might have a point. However, there are plenty of newspapers that do run stories critical of the Chinese. There are plenty of newspapers where any story that is embarrasing to the Democrats is front page news. Those same papers bury stories that cast the Republicans in a negative light. Is that censorship? No, because plenty of papers do the reverse.
Has there been US government sponsored censorship in the past? Certainly, but no worse than any other country that has ever existed. Is there censorship going on now in the US? I don't see how it could be, with a 24 hour news cycle and the web.
Doesn't seem to have stopped Naomi Wolf from criticizing the US, or the Dixie Chicks, or Sean Penn, or anybody. Even that kid that got tazed for being an idiot had a video up in a few hours. First he was told to ask a question, then he was told to put the mike down, then he resisted arrest and then he was tazed. Sorry, that is not censorship. If anything, he was preventing others from asking questions, which is censorship.
It's not news and it's not even original, in the slightest bit. When Sony first showed LBP, many of the commentators said pretty much the same thing. Yada, yada, yada, shows the potential of the PS3, yada, yada, may be a reason to get a PS3, yada, yada, just about anything now is good news for Sony compared to how bad things are, yada, yada...
Quick, someone post a cost comparison showing how the PS3 is actually cheaper then a 360 and inline with the Wii, cause that will change the fact that Sony is losing this generation.
Sony doesn't care. They still think they skipped a generation with their cell and bluray. They don't realize that alot of the people who are buying Wiis right now are never going to be in the market for a PS3, but now they might buy the next Nintendo console that improves on the motion controls and concentrates on being fun. Even when the PS3 drops in price and the 360 is being replaced, the 360 customers aren't going to want a 3-5 year old console. They're going to want Halo V or whatever MS is shilling.
Sony made some big bets this round. If bluray loses, and I have no clue about who will ultimately win, then they will have lost big time. If bluray wins, the PS3 is just icing on a very large cake. Even if bluray wins, I don't think it will make that much of a difference for the PS3.
The problem for most Americans is that they never get to practice their second language. A second language is usually a requirement for graduating high school. Same is true for most colleges. Unfortunately, if you don't have a chance to use it, you forget most of it.
This probably explains why most 2nd generation Americans don't speak the language of their parents.
Spanish is probably the only other language besides English that a majority of Americans will ever get a chance to use in the US. Even so, I know lots of Hispanic-Americans that don't bother learning it.
I'm sure that those companies got concessions from MS that lowered the cost of Windows machines for their customers, as opposed to the SRP. These companies also saw that choosing MS products allowed them to use OTS components, again lowering costs. These companies also made deals to bundle non-MS Windows software, again, lowering the cost to the user.
I'm also sure that the MS tax is not paid for by the end user, otherwise Windows machines would historically have cost more, not less.
You already have the choice to not buy or buy and install your own software. Besides, unless you are talking about only installing the Linux kernel, how could any company offer every Linux user what they want? There are literally thousands of distros available. Not as many, but there are still several different windows managers and desktop schemes.
The 800lb gorilla is support. With MS, there is one company offering support for the entire package and a small set of packages that need support. Linux support is hit or miss with all but a few of the bigger distros and even then, support is only for the projects they control.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you want is no restrictions. You don't perceive Apples restriction on sharing music between players because they've never allowed you to share music between players. MS restricts sharing between players, which you notice and which makes you upset.
I don't see either company being dishonest, in this matter. Neither company is making false claims or hiding their products features. I think that is just a preconceived notion on your part. I've been an Apple skeptic since the Apple IIGS was yanked, so I can relate.
And yet, there were fundamentalists in the US at the time of its founding. They were not, contrary to revisionist history, all deists or closet athiests. Many of the founding fathers were church leaders, some even spoke from the pulpit in various capacities.
I detest historical comparisons that compare a modern group with a group in the past. Most of us know that the Puritans were intolerant and perecuted others, burned people at the stake, etc. Still, at least some of the Puritans helped found the United States of America, establish rule of law where none existed, build universities, hospitals and communities. History is still out on the Taliban.
Originally I was just going to call you a moron. Actually, you are more likely an over-educated, moral relativist.
The idea of free speech has no limits. Sure, who could argue with that. It's only in practice that free speech has limits. Some of those limits are inherent, such as, you can't force people to listen, you can't practice free speech without a medium (tv, radio, your mouth), etc. Some of those limits are imposed, such as, you can't yell fire in a crowd (unless there is a fire), you can't advocate violence (with impunity), etc.
The idea of communism is harmless. The idea of communism would create a workers paradise, universal humanism and a perfect society. It's only in practice that communism is dangerous. Communism in practice has been used to enslave billions, deny those billions the rights we enjoy, such as, free speech, property, religion, freedom of movement, etc. In practice, communism does none of the things the idea of communism purports to do.
All ideas are harmless. The idea of genocide is harmless, the idea of slavery is harmless,... Get the point?
---
Since you brought him up. Joe McCarthy was undoubtably an unscrupulus demagogue who deserves to be vilified, however, history has shown that he was right. The world-wide communist movement had infiltrated our government and many of those same people were working to install communism in America. The fall of the USSR has provided mountains of evidence that proves this.
At what point would you consider there to be no censorship? Would all news outlets have to run the same stories? If one doesn't run a story that you consider important, would that be censorship? Wouldn't forcing news outlets to run stories be censorship itself?
The US has a free press. Does that mean that there is no censorship? Of course not. What it means is that you are free to print your own rag, with your own stories, practicing your own self-censorship.
China doesn't have a free press. China practices government censorship. Which is what I said in my previous post.
Thanks for verifying what I already knew to be true. Sad that there are people on slashdot that think telling the truth is a troll.
Must be the 'will of Allah'.
"What does it mean to have free speech if you can't use free speech to argue against it?"
It means you are a hypocrite, sociopath, communist, muslim, am I getting warm or should I go on.
Mao said we would sell them the rope that they would use to hang us. He must have been thinking of someone like you.
"What you're effectively saying is, well, we're less evil than Satan, so we must be good."
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Most of what the government has censored in the past is part of the caveats you mentioned, such as calling for the overthrow of the government. If someone was a communist or monarchist, and they want the US to become a communist state or a monarchy, then their speech does not enjoy the protections of the 1st ammendment. Is this censorship? Sure, but it is done so that everyone elses rights are protected. A reasonable person would consider that speech intended to remove the constitution and bill of rights should not be afforded the protections contained in the constitution and bill of rights.
The US government is composed of citizens of the US. It's not like the communist or nazi parties where some people are elevated above everyone else and afforded special rights. We are all equal under the law.
"Being flagged as a terrorist, constantly tailed and surveilled upon, put on the no-fly-list, etc. is a consequence imposed by the US government. And thus our first amendment rights have been violated. We are being censored."
Not sure who or what you are talking about here. There certainly have been people 'flagged' as terrorists in this country. Mainly because there are terrorists in this country. When the government does 'flag' someone as a terrorist, I certainly hope they tail and surveil them. I also hope they get put on the no-fly-list. If it turns out the government was wrong, they can probably get a lawyer and sue for damages. I've heard that you can get $2 million for 16 days in jail. I think most Americans wonder where they could sign up to get the same.
The US was, in part, founded by fundamentalists. Of course these same fundamentalists were escaping persecution by a religious majority and saw the need to not allow a single religion to dominate all of society.
Even today, we get along just fine with the Amish, Mormons, Baptists, Southern Baptists, Scientologists, Wiccans, Satanists, etc. I don't see anything to suggest that this will change.
No I don't. I bought a widescreen projection TV when they started to drop in price when the first wave of HD screens started coming out. It's almost 10 years old, so I may actually think about upgrading soon. The current crop of HD screens are actually miles ahead of what was available back then so I think I made a decent choice.
Also, it is historical fact. It was this finding, that everything is the will of Allah, that ended the 'Golden Age of Scientific Inquiry' in the Islamic world.
I'm sure there are muslims who do not believe this, but the great majority do. The great majority would probably also determine that your friends are not true followers of Islam. After all, what is gravity compared to the will of Allah?
I wasn't talking about China. Only an idiot would try to argue that China doesn't actively censor news and information.
"control enough of the methods of distribution and public focus and you have effective censorship"
No one in the US, not Rupert Murdoch, GE, GWB or Billary have control of even close to enough methods of distribution and public focus to have anything even close to effective censorship. Sibel Edmonds could be the poster child for how little censorship there is in the USA.
Thanks for proving my point.
Thucydides is proof that history is written by the winners...
Sparta did depose the Athenian tyrant and allowed Athens to briefly exist as a Democracy. The Athenians themselves were responsible for ending that Democracy. Just ask Socrates.
In the Islamic world, the answer to all questions that begin with 'Why' is "Because it is the will of Allah". Apples do not fall to the ground because of gravity, they fall because "it is the will of Allah".
The only time that something is not because of "the will of Allah" is when it is the fault of "the Great Satan".
Multicast was supposed to be one of the features of IPv6. Not sure if they ever really got it working. Also, not sure how it would actually save with bandwidth over the internet, unless the clients are on the same subnet.
Actually I did hear his questions and his statements, as did millions of others. That's the new censorship, for ya, millions of people getting to hear what you say.
Sibel Edmonds? You mean the Sibel Edmonds with her own Wiki page? The one that is now getting awards and speaking engagements? Is that the one you are talking about? The new censorship, at work again.
As far as holding my country to standards, I try to focus on the present and future. There is nothing you, I or anyone can do about the past. Which was kind of my point. Sure, Sweden may be the most free country in the world, today. 60 years ago they helped round up Jews and send them to the gas chambers.
I'm not trying to sound like an old man on the porch, but who cares about all this cruft? Is Higher Def going to make a bad movie better? Does Lower Def make a good movie worse? I can understand the arguments against Pan and Scan, as you literally are not seeing everything. However, I don't see much of a difference between HD and SD.
Someone told me that after watching things in HD for a while, that they can't watch things in SD without noticing a difference. Is that a good thing? Am I going to be in a bar watching a game and be annoyed because it is in SD? Or over at a friends house and decide not to watch a movie cause they don't got the fancy, schmancy HD set up?
I'll probably like it when I get it, but I just don't see what all the fuss is about.
The Spartans did depose an Athenian tyrant, which allowed the Athenians to adopt democracy. This is in no way related to '300'. Also note, that I did not say the Spartans were democratic.
The Athenians gave up on democracy and it was Socrates that paid the price by stopping their earlier efforts to vote in a Republic. Eventually the anti-democracy crowd won and Socrates drank the hemlock.
I never said the Spartans were democratic. I said they deposed a Athenian tyrant (true), which gave the world its first glimpse of a functioning Democracy.
Everyone likes to credit the Athenians for democracy, but it was the Spartans that freed the Athenians and it was the Athenians who voted to end their brief democracy (true).
"So Rather is looking to have his day in court, because the memo never was proven false"
That's a bad way to run a news room. The onus is on Rather and Mapes to prove that the memo is real. Instead of doing that, they hid their source and ran the story any way. What is most telling, is that their source had plenty of other 'documents' that they didn't use. That is pretty damning, in and of itself.
"Rupert Murdoch's NY POST refused to print any stories that were critical of the Chinese government because he had business deals pending with that same Chinese government....Was that censorship? Sure it was."
If the NY POST was a government run newspaper, you might have a point. However, there are plenty of newspapers that do run stories critical of the Chinese. There are plenty of newspapers where any story that is embarrasing to the Democrats is front page news. Those same papers bury stories that cast the Republicans in a negative light. Is that censorship? No, because plenty of papers do the reverse.
Has there been US government sponsored censorship in the past? Certainly, but no worse than any other country that has ever existed. Is there censorship going on now in the US? I don't see how it could be, with a 24 hour news cycle and the web.
Doesn't seem to have stopped Naomi Wolf from criticizing the US, or the Dixie Chicks, or Sean Penn, or anybody. Even that kid that got tazed for being an idiot had a video up in a few hours. First he was told to ask a question, then he was told to put the mike down, then he resisted arrest and then he was tazed. Sorry, that is not censorship. If anything, he was preventing others from asking questions, which is censorship.
America has always had its dark side. I don't know what America you are thinking of, but it has always been an uphill battle.
In other news, the senate passed the Matthew Sheppard hate crime bill. It's not all false flags and paranoia.
Remember the Spartans, who deposed an Athenian tyrant and gave the world the hope of Democracy.
Yeah, the Spartans weren't perfect, just like the USA, but they were far better then the alternative.
It's not news and it's not even original, in the slightest bit. When Sony first showed LBP, many of the commentators said pretty much the same thing. Yada, yada, yada, shows the potential of the PS3, yada, yada, may be a reason to get a PS3, yada, yada, just about anything now is good news for Sony compared to how bad things are, yada, yada...
Quick, someone post a cost comparison showing how the PS3 is actually cheaper then a 360 and inline with the Wii, cause that will change the fact that Sony is losing this generation.
Sony doesn't care. They still think they skipped a generation with their cell and bluray. They don't realize that alot of the people who are buying Wiis right now are never going to be in the market for a PS3, but now they might buy the next Nintendo console that improves on the motion controls and concentrates on being fun. Even when the PS3 drops in price and the 360 is being replaced, the 360 customers aren't going to want a 3-5 year old console. They're going to want Halo V or whatever MS is shilling.
Sony made some big bets this round. If bluray loses, and I have no clue about who will ultimately win, then they will have lost big time. If bluray wins, the PS3 is just icing on a very large cake. Even if bluray wins, I don't think it will make that much of a difference for the PS3.
The problem for most Americans is that they never get to practice their second language. A second language is usually a requirement for graduating high school. Same is true for most colleges. Unfortunately, if you don't have a chance to use it, you forget most of it.
This probably explains why most 2nd generation Americans don't speak the language of their parents.
Spanish is probably the only other language besides English that a majority of Americans will ever get a chance to use in the US. Even so, I know lots of Hispanic-Americans that don't bother learning it.
I'm sure that those companies got concessions from MS that lowered the cost of Windows machines for their customers, as opposed to the SRP. These companies also saw that choosing MS products allowed them to use OTS components, again lowering costs. These companies also made deals to bundle non-MS Windows software, again, lowering the cost to the user.
I'm also sure that the MS tax is not paid for by the end user, otherwise Windows machines would historically have cost more, not less.
You already have the choice to not buy or buy and install your own software. Besides, unless you are talking about only installing the Linux kernel, how could any company offer every Linux user what they want? There are literally thousands of distros available. Not as many, but there are still several different windows managers and desktop schemes.
The 800lb gorilla is support. With MS, there is one company offering support for the entire package and a small set of packages that need support. Linux support is hit or miss with all but a few of the bigger distros and even then, support is only for the projects they control.
But I wanted RH and my cousin wanted SUSE. How come we don't get any love? Just because Ubuntu is easy to install?
Also, my cousin wants a KDE desktop and I want the other one.