I'd be surprised if it were truly DRM free - if Universal releases their entire play list; what would be the point of staying subscribed once you got the songs you really want?
Minimum term contracts. Or the fact that most people would happily subscribe continually (not everyone has such limited tastes that they can download everything they'd ever want to hear in one go...)
Or, simply having one person in a group sign up and "share" offline?
They already have this problem. My guess is that they'd prefer going back to the days of "person gives a taped copy to his friend" if they can avoid "person shares with thousands of people".
You might as well ask, how can a cable company ever sell TV - surely by your reasoning, only one person would buy it, then he'd tape all the shows for his friends?
Remember also in the UK that anyone who watches TV is forced to pay £142.50 a year to the BBC (whether or not they watch it), on top of whatever cable/satellite provider they have. They wouldn't have to pay this if only using a download service (as long as the shows weren't being streamed live). So the total price for many people would be more like £200-£250 a year.
(Of course, if this happened and people no longer had to pay the licence fee, no doubt the Government would whine about it and insist it applied to Internet downloads too - which would be especially two-faced since it's the Government currently whining that people don't use legal download services.)
And, could they manage it without cutting off all their customers too?
Indeed, the question is what's in it for them?
I wonder if it's a method of getting rid of heavy users, since many ISPs seem unable to keep up with the demand when customers actually dare to make use of the "unlimited" service that was advertised, and that they paid for...
(VM already use bandwidth throttling if you download too much of the service you've paid for in a given time.)
How does the zoom feature work when you have different sized documents (e.g., multiple tabs in your browser, or different sized images being edited)? If the window changes size everytime you switch between the documents, that could be disconcerting, and especially a problem if it caused the position of GUI elements to change (a big no no in UI design).
And what is "maximize" good for. Isn't it ironic for someone who derides a one button mouse to want a one window GUI ?
He never claimed that he was a Windows fan.
But anyway - maximise is there if I choose to have a window taking up the full screen. For example, right now I'm currently using my web browser. I have no need to look at any other windows at the same time, so why on earth would I waste precious screen estate by not having it full size?
Again, you're falling into the same trap of "Apple Knows Best". If I have a large screen and/or want to have several windows side by side, I simply don't use the button - it does no harm. But if I want to maximise the window, I should damn well have that choice. I don't want to have to go "Oh dear, I can't do that - I'm an Apple user". What happened to "It Just Works"?
(Are you seriously telling me that OS X doesn't have the ability to maximise a window?)
With laptops and especially netbooks becoming commonplace, making full use of screen estate is becoming increasingly important. But hey, netbooks are another issue where you don't get the choice, because Apple Knows Best.
Surely that just confirms the point he was making? If PCs had gone the 68K route, we'd have had decent PCs comparable to the other platforms like the Amiga etc, without the hiccup of the platform ending because of companies going bust, or the problem of Motorola ending the 68K line (if PCs were using it, there'd have been more incentive to continue developing it, or rather, maintain backwards compatibility with whatever they moved onto). It would've been the best of both worlds. But as it was, computing went stagnant when all the 68K platforms died, and we had to wait for PCs to catch up.
and the mac floppies have had the paperclip emergency eject
Ah yes - I love how despite Apple being praised for user-friendliness, it's considered acceptable to do things like using a paperclip to get the disk out.
I remember years ago being amused when one of my friends had to resort to finding a paperclip in order to get a disk that wouldn't eject. Apple - it (only) Just Works!
Even if you pay me. For some reason the "work for hire" system never got applied to photographers.
Yeah - I find it shocking that even for things like wedding photos, the couple don't even own the rights to their own photos that they paid for, and would be breaking the law if they made another copy. I remember my brother getting the complete set of photos that were taken on the day of his wedding, but a large number of them had an ugly "copyright" stamped across them, the idea being he'd have to pay extra to get a proper version...
I don't really see the "creative commons = no-one would be bothered" link either. If no-one cared about this kind of use of their images, there'd be no need for the "noncommercial" CC license.
Good point - not to mention that attribution requirements, which presumably they didn't fulfill either.
CC may be liberal, but it is still not public domain, and this company would still have been in violation...
Copyright law of life plus 70 years is too strict, sure, but that doesn't mean copyright shouldn't exist at all, especially for commercial use. There is also the issue of advertising - would you like your image to be used to endorse a company's products?
Suppose some company or perhaps even a lobbyist organisation that you strongly disagreed with decided to use your image? Maybe with a slogan suggesting that you hold some views that you do not?
This is also getting into the issue of model rights of course, so even if copyrights didn't exist, it's unclear that this should be allowed without consent.
I'm confused, I thought people like you were in favour of copyright law and everything the RIAA did, so doesn't this mean that everyone who viewed TFA should now be sued for download copyrighted material?
Just think, according to you, everyone who reads that article is stealing from the poor family. Everytime you hit refresh, it's costing them millions!
(See, aren't straw men great? Or perhaps the issue is more complex than your black and white "All copyright law is great" versus "No copyright law should exist" simplistic portrayal of the argument.)
Of course that would be worrying, but let's be clear that the fault is with the doctors, not Wikipedia. I would be equally worried if doctors were getting their info from BBC articles, or indeed Britannica - that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with Wikipedia, the BBC, or Britannica, it's just that they're not authoritative sources for medical information.
And that's different to any other source in existence, how exactly?
Also, the obvious point is to look at whether there's a reference given. The fact that Wikipedia gives references places Wikipedia ahead of the vast majority of sources out there (including virtually all of the media).
I've never once used a single scrap from calculus (computer science major).
A sample size of 1? You should've taken that statistics class;)
Of course not everyone will use every scrap of information you learn, but there are plenty of computing jobs in areas that use mathematics (e.g., to balance your personal experience, I work in CAD and use calculus almost daily). Whilst I disagree with the way that US higher education seems to require people to study all sorts of unrelated areas, I don't think that having a cross-over between computer science and mathematics is unreasonable (although I suppose there is an argument that what you learned at school should've been sufficient without needing to do it at University - I don't know what the US is like, but in the UK anyone doing Maths at A Level will have learned how to do calculus at age 16-18).
He said "since there's a population of 6 billion and only 2 occurrences?" - i.e., the population matters, because he's also using the information we have about the number of people who have been hit. But yes, yours would be another way of working it out (though you'd have to account for the amount of time spent outdoors).
Do you realise that one of the biggest factors in the Drake equation is the number of stars in the galaxy?
Exactly - the number of stars is taken into account, which is why the OP was misleading to think he could then factor in the number of stars again to make the probability of life seem almost certain.
It's also why he's insightful and you're not.
Argument ad populum - where in this case, the "populum" is a whole one person who appears to have moderated him Insightful (the rest where Funny - yes, it was certainly funny as a joke, but there's no need to jump on it trying to make yourself look clever, when everyone here is well aware of the trivial mathematical point that you are trying to show off about).
No, there's no way we can conclude that. Especially given that all we have is the OP's paraphrasing.
The correct response is to say that no one has any clue as to the probability anyway (and there is no reason to think it comparable to a single person winning the lottery). But have fun making up a straw man, if you think it makes you look clever to show you are aware of some trivial mathematical knowledge.
If we're speculating that it might be a fake, what's your explanation for the small point of him actually having the damn meteorite, or at least, one that fooled scientists?
The only issue here is who's going to look like the bad guys for making the populace pay for upgrading BT's infrastructure.
No, on the one hand we have making BT's customers pay, in the other, we have all licence fee payers paying.
In the former case, yes BT may look bad to its customers if it increases the price, but that's business. Perhaps it shouldn't have sold what it can't provide? Moreover, if everyone else is in the same boat, there's no reason for them to look bad, since everyone else will be increasing their prices too (and if other ISPs aren't in the same boat, then why is it only a problem for BT?).
Alternatively, ISPs could simply drop the "unlimited" claims, and no one looks bad - you simply pay more if you want to use more.
But if the BBC is forced to pay, then they are unfairly made to look bad, when other website owners aren't, and licence fee payers will be annoyed as they'll be paying whether or not they're using Iplayer, and whether or not they're on BT.
I agree! It's bad enough trying to turn "iPhone" into a generic noun to replace the perfectly good word we already have: phone - now we get to use it as an adjective? (Although perhaps we should - if successful, Apple lose their trademark!)
I honestly can't even fathom what he means by it - although I suppose it's true that Natal doesn't have a keyboard, and probably doesn't have copy/paste...
Anyhow, now I'm off to iPhone-like read the rest of the ipHone-like Slashdot on my iPHone-like computer (it can access web pages, see! Although mine has a keyboard).
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be surprised if it were truly DRM free - if Universal releases their entire play list; what would be the point of staying subscribed once you got the songs you really want?
Minimum term contracts. Or the fact that most people would happily subscribe continually (not everyone has such limited tastes that they can download everything they'd ever want to hear in one go...)
Or, simply having one person in a group sign up and "share" offline?
They already have this problem. My guess is that they'd prefer going back to the days of "person gives a taped copy to his friend" if they can avoid "person shares with thousands of people".
You might as well ask, how can a cable company ever sell TV - surely by your reasoning, only one person would buy it, then he'd tape all the shows for his friends?
Indeed, I'd love an all-you-can-download for TV.
Remember also in the UK that anyone who watches TV is forced to pay £142.50 a year to the BBC (whether or not they watch it), on top of whatever cable/satellite provider they have. They wouldn't have to pay this if only using a download service (as long as the shows weren't being streamed live). So the total price for many people would be more like £200-£250 a year.
(Of course, if this happened and people no longer had to pay the licence fee, no doubt the Government would whine about it and insist it applied to Internet downloads too - which would be especially two-faced since it's the Government currently whining that people don't use legal download services.)
And, could they manage it without cutting off all their customers too?
Indeed, the question is what's in it for them?
I wonder if it's a method of getting rid of heavy users, since many ISPs seem unable to keep up with the demand when customers actually dare to make use of the "unlimited" service that was advertised, and that they paid for...
(VM already use bandwidth throttling if you download too much of the service you've paid for in a given time.)
How does the zoom feature work when you have different sized documents (e.g., multiple tabs in your browser, or different sized images being edited)? If the window changes size everytime you switch between the documents, that could be disconcerting, and especially a problem if it caused the position of GUI elements to change (a big no no in UI design).
And what is "maximize" good for. Isn't it ironic for someone who derides a one button mouse to want a one window GUI ?
He never claimed that he was a Windows fan.
But anyway - maximise is there if I choose to have a window taking up the full screen. For example, right now I'm currently using my web browser. I have no need to look at any other windows at the same time, so why on earth would I waste precious screen estate by not having it full size?
Again, you're falling into the same trap of "Apple Knows Best". If I have a large screen and/or want to have several windows side by side, I simply don't use the button - it does no harm. But if I want to maximise the window, I should damn well have that choice. I don't want to have to go "Oh dear, I can't do that - I'm an Apple user". What happened to "It Just Works"?
(Are you seriously telling me that OS X doesn't have the ability to maximise a window?)
With laptops and especially netbooks becoming commonplace, making full use of screen estate is becoming increasingly important. But hey, netbooks are another issue where you don't get the choice, because Apple Knows Best.
Surely that just confirms the point he was making? If PCs had gone the 68K route, we'd have had decent PCs comparable to the other platforms like the Amiga etc, without the hiccup of the platform ending because of companies going bust, or the problem of Motorola ending the 68K line (if PCs were using it, there'd have been more incentive to continue developing it, or rather, maintain backwards compatibility with whatever they moved onto). It would've been the best of both worlds. But as it was, computing went stagnant when all the 68K platforms died, and we had to wait for PCs to catch up.
and the mac floppies have had the paperclip emergency eject
Ah yes - I love how despite Apple being praised for user-friendliness, it's considered acceptable to do things like using a paperclip to get the disk out.
I remember years ago being amused when one of my friends had to resort to finding a paperclip in order to get a disk that wouldn't eject. Apple - it (only) Just Works!
Where did he say original? There's been more than one computer from Apple that's been labelled with the "Mac" trademark.
Yes, I'm sure that she's ecstatic at all the Slashdot readers that now visit her site...
(Given that they don't want the publicity of being in an advert, why do you think they'd care about publicity for a personal non-commercial blog?)
Even if you pay me. For some reason the "work for hire" system never got applied to photographers.
Yeah - I find it shocking that even for things like wedding photos, the couple don't even own the rights to their own photos that they paid for, and would be breaking the law if they made another copy. I remember my brother getting the complete set of photos that were taken on the day of his wedding, but a large number of them had an ugly "copyright" stamped across them, the idea being he'd have to pay extra to get a proper version...
I don't really see the "creative commons = no-one would be bothered" link either. If no-one cared about this kind of use of their images, there'd be no need for the "noncommercial" CC license.
Good point - not to mention that attribution requirements, which presumably they didn't fulfill either.
CC may be liberal, but it is still not public domain, and this company would still have been in violation...
Copyright law of life plus 70 years is too strict, sure, but that doesn't mean copyright shouldn't exist at all, especially for commercial use. There is also the issue of advertising - would you like your image to be used to endorse a company's products?
Suppose some company or perhaps even a lobbyist organisation that you strongly disagreed with decided to use your image? Maybe with a slogan suggesting that you hold some views that you do not?
This is also getting into the issue of model rights of course, so even if copyrights didn't exist, it's unclear that this should be allowed without consent.
If only this was in America, then they could sue them for a million billion dollars (or whatever the RIAA going rate is for an mp3 these days) :(
I'm confused, I thought people like you were in favour of copyright law and everything the RIAA did, so doesn't this mean that everyone who viewed TFA should now be sued for download copyrighted material?
Just think, according to you, everyone who reads that article is stealing from the poor family. Everytime you hit refresh, it's costing them millions!
(See, aren't straw men great? Or perhaps the issue is more complex than your black and white "All copyright law is great" versus "No copyright law should exist" simplistic portrayal of the argument.)
Citation needed.
Of course that would be worrying, but let's be clear that the fault is with the doctors, not Wikipedia. I would be equally worried if doctors were getting their info from BBC articles, or indeed Britannica - that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with Wikipedia, the BBC, or Britannica, it's just that they're not authoritative sources for medical information.
Wikipedia makes it clear that it should not be used for professional advice, and that it certainly does not give medical advice.
And that's different to any other source in existence, how exactly?
Also, the obvious point is to look at whether there's a reference given. The fact that Wikipedia gives references places Wikipedia ahead of the vast majority of sources out there (including virtually all of the media).
"wikipedia is already biased and untrustworthy." - Anonymous comment on a random forum.
Heaven forbid we rely on a referenced article that's on Wikipedia. But yes, obviously I'll take your word for it.
I've never once used a single scrap from calculus (computer science major).
A sample size of 1? You should've taken that statistics class ;)
Of course not everyone will use every scrap of information you learn, but there are plenty of computing jobs in areas that use mathematics (e.g., to balance your personal experience, I work in CAD and use calculus almost daily). Whilst I disagree with the way that US higher education seems to require people to study all sorts of unrelated areas, I don't think that having a cross-over between computer science and mathematics is unreasonable (although I suppose there is an argument that what you learned at school should've been sufficient without needing to do it at University - I don't know what the US is like, but in the UK anyone doing Maths at A Level will have learned how to do calculus at age 16-18).
Wait - it copied from the Iphone, when it looks like just another Windows phone?
He said "since there's a population of 6 billion and only 2 occurrences?" - i.e., the population matters, because he's also using the information we have about the number of people who have been hit. But yes, yours would be another way of working it out (though you'd have to account for the amount of time spent outdoors).
Do you realise that one of the biggest factors in the Drake equation is the number of stars in the galaxy?
Exactly - the number of stars is taken into account, which is why the OP was misleading to think he could then factor in the number of stars again to make the probability of life seem almost certain.
It's also why he's insightful and you're not.
Argument ad populum - where in this case, the "populum" is a whole one person who appears to have moderated him Insightful (the rest where Funny - yes, it was certainly funny as a joke, but there's no need to jump on it trying to make yourself look clever, when everyone here is well aware of the trivial mathematical point that you are trying to show off about).
No, there's no way we can conclude that. Especially given that all we have is the OP's paraphrasing.
The correct response is to say that no one has any clue as to the probability anyway (and there is no reason to think it comparable to a single person winning the lottery). But have fun making up a straw man, if you think it makes you look clever to show you are aware of some trivial mathematical knowledge.
If we're speculating that it might be a fake, what's your explanation for the small point of him actually having the damn meteorite, or at least, one that fooled scientists?
The only issue here is who's going to look like the bad guys for making the populace pay for upgrading BT's infrastructure.
No, on the one hand we have making BT's customers pay, in the other, we have all licence fee payers paying.
In the former case, yes BT may look bad to its customers if it increases the price, but that's business. Perhaps it shouldn't have sold what it can't provide? Moreover, if everyone else is in the same boat, there's no reason for them to look bad, since everyone else will be increasing their prices too (and if other ISPs aren't in the same boat, then why is it only a problem for BT?).
Alternatively, ISPs could simply drop the "unlimited" claims, and no one looks bad - you simply pay more if you want to use more.
But if the BBC is forced to pay, then they are unfairly made to look bad, when other website owners aren't, and licence fee payers will be annoyed as they'll be paying whether or not they're using Iplayer, and whether or not they're on BT.
I agree! It's bad enough trying to turn "iPhone" into a generic noun to replace the perfectly good word we already have: phone - now we get to use it as an adjective? (Although perhaps we should - if successful, Apple lose their trademark!)
I honestly can't even fathom what he means by it - although I suppose it's true that Natal doesn't have a keyboard, and probably doesn't have copy/paste...
Anyhow, now I'm off to iPhone-like read the rest of the ipHone-like Slashdot on my iPHone-like computer (it can access web pages, see! Although mine has a keyboard).