Opera is ad-free, and has been for years. I don't see any ads in IE, either. Secondly, "free" can mean "free as in freedom" without needing to specify open source (in fact, Free Software and Open Source have subtely different meanings, IIRC). Thirdly, even if he meant free as in beer, Firefox is still available for free as in beer too.
Your statement doesn't make sense anyway: yes, companies offering free stuff have other ways of making money - just like Google! So why is using their free SMS service any different to using anything else offered for free? Especially since you yourself admit to avoiding all the ways that they could make money?
I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s, a period often criticized as the "me generation", because we wanted it all. But I think we recognized we're not entitled to other people's stuff; if we want a new toy, we have to EARN it through hard work. ----- Today's 2000-era generation thinks it's perfectly okay to tap into their neighbor's wireless internet, even though it's costing their neighbor extra money.
Aren't you just making the same criticisms that were made of your (and my) generation? Why not let them grow up to see if it turns out to be true.
Moreover, I'd like to see evidence. Children and teenagers are using their neighbour's wireless? Why would they be more likely to do this than anyone else, and where's the evidence?
As for this article, are children and teenagers going to be the most common users of the Iphone? I bet there's a whole load of 20-somethings, far more so in fact, suggesting that it is our generation that's the "me" generation, after all.
And your statement doesn't make sense. How is using a service that's intended to be used for free anything to do with being self-centred, or using "other people's stuff"? And how do you think they got expensive Iphones in the first place without paying for one?
If this cost Google too much money, that's their own fault for offering it.
Women are to blame for not having children? Because - imagine it - they choose to have a job, just like you do? No one's stopping you from offering to raise the kids.
Moreover, I love that feminism is getting blamed from both sides in this story. The article is about women choosing to have families, and the problem of this leading to them not going into a career that is inflexible to having children. And lots of commenters have blamed that on feminism. But if women choose not to have children, that's the fault of feminism too?
If we're worried about falling birth rates, then perhaps we ought to make careers more flexible to allow people to raise children (whether it's men or women). But this mere suggestion has result in an outrage of "feminism is discrimination against men!"
I now that this isn't historically accurate, industrial revolution et al, but it does not alter the point.
Well, it does alter the point, because you're arbitrarily blaming "feminism" with no evidence of that. Men benefit from this change too, as it means you have two incomes to the household, not just one.
In most jobs, people can have families and work. It's been that way for decades - the time when one person had to stay at home is long gone. A good thing too, as some people still need to be having children, and it's nice to have more spending power.
Yet, if in one field, things are inflexible for people wanting to have families, this is the blame of the [potential] employee? Um, okay. I could understand if we were talking about being a fighter pilot in the air force, or something, but we're talking maths and science for god's sake.
(And for the record, I speak as a childless guy who has no plans on children.)
I'm sorry, you appear to have forgotten to include the reference in your post to the peer-reviewed study that showed that women make poorer doctors, as defined by some objective and measurable means, and that there is a causative link from raising a family? Perhaps you could post it in another comment. Thanks.
No, it's not. There might be feminists who do think that, but this doesn't mean they all do (indeed, if you knew even the first thing about feminism, you'd know that there are a vast range of different views, sometimes completely opposed to each other), and it doesn't imply that feminism means that by definition. That's flawed logic. And it's not the definition.
It would be like saying that because there's at least one chauvinist geek on Slashdot, therefore, geek by definition means a chauvinist.
It sounds like your rant should actually be about positive discrimination. Which isn't what this article is about, so you can save your anti-feminism rant for another article.
You're misreading I think. This isn't like things such as positive discrimination, or lowering the standard, it's about making things more flexible, to account for different situations that people have.
And here's the thing - it would be advantageous to men who want to start families too (at least, I hope so). So crying sexism or whining "special treatment", or using it as an axe to grind against feminism is uncalled for. So long as the things they offer are also available to men raising children, it's not sexism.
Another example would be laws in the UK that mean that employers have to offer flexible working hours to people raising children (IIRC). Is that sexism? Of course not. You can argue whether it's a good law or not, but it isn't lowering the standard, as the employees still do the same work, it's just trying to accomodate people's lives, which doesn't seem a bad thing. Just because more women might take advantage of it doesn't mean it's sexism.
And feminists still insist on being awarded jobs because of their gender instead of their work. Women are now consistently getting higher grades in our schools, but this is of course, says the feminists, because of the inferiority of the men's performance.
Wait - so if women are awarded jobs, it's because feminists demanded it due to their gender, because apparently they don't have the ability to do it. But if men get poorer grades, there must be some other explanation?
(Or if your point was to point out an alleged double standard in their arguments, could it not perhaps be that there are different feminists with different point of views? There are a wide range of feminst views, in fact, there are many areas such as transgender, not to mention issues such as sex and porn, where there are completely opposing views within feminism.)
Men and women are still different and it's hormonal.
Citation needed? Of course, it could be a factor, but that doesn't mean it's sufficient to explain all the differences.
Is the poorer performance of men due to hormonal differences?
If you were learning BASIC on the C64, that means you were born in the very early 1970's
How does that follow? I was learning BASIC on the Spectrum 128K +3 as a child, which was around at the same time as the C64, and I was born in 1979. At 8 years old, it would have been 1987, after the time when Blockbuster started.
Obviously men and women are different - that is trivially obvious, due to examples such as anatomical differences. Obviously feminists don't claim there are no differences, so that is a straw man.
But having some differences doesn't mean that they are different in every respect. Having some innate differences doesn't mean that all differences are innate. Those are fallacies. And indeed, if you RTFA, you'd see that this is a case where innate differences don't explain it.
If there is a difference such as number of people working in different areas, it's interesting to know what factors may cause that. I mean, I could point out that you and I are different, because we both have different shaped noses. This doesn't mean it isn't interesting to ask why we might behave differently in other areas however, and such differences may not be related to our nose shapes.
I think a far bigger factor in some geek careers at least (especially computing) is the way children are brought up at a young age. Just look at any toy store - boys are encouraged to play with gadgets, whilst girls play with dolls. I'm sure a lot of us got into programming at a young age, and we can acknowledge how that influenced and helped us in our later careers.
Unfortunately this means that any change takes about 20 years to have any effect. Maybe there is hope however! I would show my point by linking to the Boy and Girl sections on Hamley's website, which even until recently showed an obvious and sexist difference between the toys. But now, it seems they've replaced the categories with labels not related to gender (so people can look at "Action Toys" or "Dolls"), and even the boy/girl search options seem to return a similar set of toys.
It was the EFF that was screeching that Apple was being evil and nobody would stand for it if Microsoft did the same: "If it were Microsoft demanding that computer peripherals all include Microsoft "authentication chips" in order to work with Windows (or Toyota or Ford doing the same for replacement parts), I'd think reviewers would be screaming about it."
Right. Are you disputing this claim? Do you think that MS wouldn't be criticised if they did the same thing? What example of MS DRM do you have, where no one complained about it?
Comparing Apple against Microsoft, Ford, Toyota is not just stupid, but apeshit retarded FIRST BECAUSE the EFF made Microsoft a poster child for its War on DRM, SECOND because Windows has a monopoly position and therefore has no need for DRM to lock it to PCs and THIRD because Microsoft pushes far more draconian DRM that creates terrible products that nobody wants to buy. Yet his comments suggest that Apple has done something Microsoft does not do.
No, that's not what he's saying. He's not saying "MS don't do DRM", he's saying "If MS did something like this, they'd be criticised". So pointing out that MS were criticised for doing similar things supports his argument. In order to disprove it, you have to not only show that MS have done what Apple are doing, you also have to show that no one criticised them for doing so. (And you say that I am the one who can't follow logic!)
Then you come along and start yapping about ad hominems and straw men. What's next, are you going to call me a sock puppet and say in Russia your argument isn't backwards?
I "came along" (or rather, joined in the discussion that everyone is free to do here) and "yapped" ad hominems and straw men, because you made an ad hominem, and I was referring to a straw man argument. What on earth does sock puppets and Russia have to do with hat?
Can you actually form an argument without resorting to "OMG it's apeshit retard!" ?
DRM is not just about preventing copyright infringement (indeed, to believe that is swallowing the pro-DRM FUD). It's about technological means that limit usage of digital media or devices.
The EFF are doing exactly the same thing as the RIAA/MPAA do when they call copyright infringement stealing.
Um, no - and if we are going to make this kind of analogy, that is what you are doing.
Yes, there is a difference between simply using a non-standard headphone socket (as in your mobile phone example), and DRM. But RTFA - what we have here is that the headphone socket is compatible, and indeed, you can plug in normal headphones and play music. But if a chip is not present in the headphones, the Ipod will limit many important features. So this isn't simply a non-standard interface. The reason for it seems unclear. And since it uses technology to limit what features are available when playing back digital media, I think calling it DRM is reasonable (DRM isn't just about preventing copying - consider all the uproar about Vista limiting the resolution on some playback devices, or whatever).
In addition might this not all be FUD or least a conspiracy theory? Every time a scare like this comes up in regard to Apple the evil anti-consumer thing they have supposedly done also happens to have size and aesthetic advantages. Maybe the new Shuffle has this 'DRM' requirement because they took the controls off the player to make it smaller. Of course you could also argue that this is just a convenient excuse.
Classic. The number of DRM/Apple apologists on this story is a joke, especially when you consider the reaction of comments on any other DRM story.
Also you don't have to buy a iPod or any Apple products. There are plenty of equally capable alternatives. If you don't like the product don't buy it.
I fully agree that people shouldn't buy any Apple products. And how, exactly, do you think that consumers will hear about this limitation, so that they know not to buy it? Maybe, we could have these sites where people write about the products, and then people can read them to find out possible flaws. Maybe we could have an organisation warning people of the problems with this product. Maybe we could discuss the issues on a popular geek website. Just a thought.
In what sense is it "small"? And even if it iwas, the whole point is that if we don't tolerate it, we shouldn't tolerate it in any form. Otherwise it will start to become acceptable in the marketplace, and that makes more prevalent usages of DRM easier to introduce.
For starters, comparing Apple against Microsoft, Ford, Toyota is not just stupid, but apeshit retarded.
Nice ad-hominem start with your argument. What next?
Microsoft isn't a principally hardware maker, but its hardware IS all encrusted with DRM, from the Xbox to Zune. It also promotes WMA/WMV DRM on files and HD-DVD style end to end video output DRM on PCs, so von Lohmanns' comments are ridiculous.
Yes, because everyone tolerates Microsoft and no one has criticised them for their DRM. Oh wait, they have.
No one is claiming that Microsoft are fine and Apple are bad - that's a straw man. The point is that just as Microsoft are bad for using DRM, so are Apple - but for some reason, even though DRM is hated here, just because it's Apple suddenly it's okay, and we have no end of apologists crawling out of the woodwork to defend them.
But secondly, the guy doesn't even verify the information he's complaining about at full speed.
So is he wrong here? I don't care what he allegedly said earlier (sorry, if he's stupid for trusting what he reads in a blog, then I'm not going to trust this Apple blog either), I want to see the evidence that the claims about Apple here are not true.
It doesn't surprise me that the "marriage is so awful" idea is popular on a geek site, but it still doesn't make sense - if your relationship is lacking romance, then why complain about V Day? I could understand complaining about lack of romance after getting married, but V Day is intending to do the same thing, and even if it doesn't, it doesn't make it worse. A "blow job" day might be something you'll want, but that's got nothing to do with V Day. Not to mention that if the worse thing in your life is the lack of blow job, get real - like I said, have a wank like those single people do, or move on if you think you're better off elsewhere.
Or maybe work at resolving your relationship worries, rather than hoping some geek idea will help you out ("What's that dear, it's blow job day? Why sure, now I'll get down on my knees without question" - seriously, why would this tactic succeed, when others had failed to stimulate your sex life?) It's the typical geek idea where, unable to get a woman (even your girlfriend or wife) to pleasure you, you need to construct this idea of a special day that means she's compelled to do it.
And if it's you want the blow job and waitress service without giving anything back, I'm not sure why marriage is at fault.
Yes, I will read my post should I ever choose to get married. I'm not sure what conclusion I am supposed to come to, however. The argument "I know better than you, trust me" is a fallacy - please tell me what your point is, if you have one, rather than expecting me to guess it.
(And it looks like I touched a raw nerve with one mod...)
I know it was meant to be, although I fail to understand the difference. Valentine's Day seems to involve couples being extra-couply and having a nice dinner (which could be a steak, or whatever takes your preference), then sex - be that oral, or whatever takes your preference. The idea that this is somehow a burden to the male that he needs something solely done for him just to make up for it seems rather bizarre to me.
If he's that whiny about a relationship, I suggest "Have a wank and make your own damn steak" day.
The idea that in a relationship, you're only romantic because it's Valentine's Day is worth criticising - but if you're in a relationship where you only have a steak and oral sex once a year, and only then because there's a special day for it, is equally a rather fucked up relationship...
Many years ago I found an article about how dates SHOULD be written. Since time is always largest to smallest, HH/MM/SS, dates should be formatted the same way. Likewise, UNIX time is the same way with the smaller values to the right and larger ones to the left.
Knowing all of this, and to be a slight pain, when I purchased my home I signed all dates in YY/MM/DD format.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with YY/MM/DD. And there's nothing wrong with DD/MM/YY in that at least it's still ordered.
The problem is that the MM/DD people tend to write MM/DD/YY, which makes no sense.
I don't see how - surely, ray tracing involves shooting out rays for each pixel to see what objects they hit, and then tracing out additional rays in turn from that point. Current methods involve drawing the objects directly and seeing which pixels they fill. I don't see how doing the latter with polygons smaller than one pixel makes it like ray-tracing, anymore so than any other per-pixel level method such as texture mapping.
A better example for merging of algorithms would be displacement mapping, which can be done in pixel shaders by shooting out rays, to see where they hit the surface (although even there, it's really just simple raycasting, not full blown raytracing, as only a single ray is cast and it stops as it soon as it his the surface).
I'm also not sure if we'll really see polygons smaller than one pixel in games - that seems rather inefficient and wasteful (both in that additional time and memory is needed for these extra polygons, and you'll end up writing each pixel more times than necessary)! And pixel shaders mean that per pixel methods can now be applied without having to make the polygons smaller - so smaller polygons aren't necessarily needed unless the geometry requires it.
The ability to charge a licence is backed by the Government - you go to prison for not paying. Referring to it as a tax as well as a licence is reasonable.
The fact that not everyone pays it is irrelevant. I don't pay car tax because I don't have a car, but that doesn't stop it being a tax.
I think that, regardless, they did the right thing--most people have no idea what a botnet is, let alone how much damage they do.
I don't think anyone really thinks they did a bad thing, it's more the double standard that anyone else doing it would be finding themselves in prison for a long time. And maybe we'd get some fairer coverage from the BBC on these stupid laws, if they themselves were affected by them...
50% off in fact (how generous of them! I guess visual is half, and audio is half...)
The bit that I love is that a black and white TV licence gives a much bigger discount (it costs £47.00, that's about two-thirds off). I can just imagine blind people specifically buying old black and white TVs, just so they can pay less...
Perhaps - one point of view is that all forms of censorship are wrong.
Another reasonable point of view is that banning something is justified if there is overwhelming evidence of harm. So one might make that argument if child pr0n - but not with "This image/word/etc is disgusting!" One could also make that argument with defamation (where it's shown that the false claims have harmed someone in some way).
Also note that copyright laws are less broad in that they don't ban all forms of an image, just that particular instances can only be distributed it by those who created the work. Also I think it's more sensible to treat this as a civil issue (so yes, I would disagree with places that criminalise it).
Be careful of polarising the issue - yes, there certainly are real examples of censorship in western countries - though then, that does not make it okay! It makes it bad in both cases. But the last thing you want in a debate is to suggest that someone can only be against censorship if they also support allowing child pr0n - that would be a fallacy.
Unfortunately I do feel that, in the UK at least, we are on a slippery slope. In 1978 when child images were criminalised, people questioned whether it was needed (and IIRC, it was only punishable with a fine). It applied only to under-16s. Three decades on, and laws are now being rushed through that criminalise things such as images of consenting adults, and cartoons that appear to depict under-18s, all on the grounds that they are "disgusting".
I entirely agree. It's also interesting to see that China has laws on these kinds of things, and not just political censorship.
When discussing censorship laws in western countries - anything from banning violent movies or computer games, to recent laws in the UK criminalising possession of images of consensual adult sexuality that the Government disapproves of, a tired argument in support of the laws is "Oh noes, how dare you protest against such things, and call this censorship! Don't you know in China they have censorship of more important things?"
Well, the fact that China might also censor "more important things" doesn't stop these people protesting this censorship of swear words. The point is that all kinds of Government censorship are all part of the same problem. They might not care about whether they can see the particular video in question, but it's a way of opposing unjust censorship laws in general.
Slashdot Mirror
Opera is ad-free, and has been for years. I don't see any ads in IE, either. Secondly, "free" can mean "free as in freedom" without needing to specify open source (in fact, Free Software and Open Source have subtely different meanings, IIRC). Thirdly, even if he meant free as in beer, Firefox is still available for free as in beer too.
Your statement doesn't make sense anyway: yes, companies offering free stuff have other ways of making money - just like Google! So why is using their free SMS service any different to using anything else offered for free? Especially since you yourself admit to avoiding all the ways that they could make money?
I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s, a period often criticized as the "me generation", because we wanted it all. But I think we recognized we're not entitled to other people's stuff; if we want a new toy, we have to EARN it through hard work. ----- Today's 2000-era generation thinks it's perfectly okay to tap into their neighbor's wireless internet, even though it's costing their neighbor extra money.
Aren't you just making the same criticisms that were made of your (and my) generation? Why not let them grow up to see if it turns out to be true.
Moreover, I'd like to see evidence. Children and teenagers are using their neighbour's wireless? Why would they be more likely to do this than anyone else, and where's the evidence?
As for this article, are children and teenagers going to be the most common users of the Iphone? I bet there's a whole load of 20-somethings, far more so in fact, suggesting that it is our generation that's the "me" generation, after all.
And your statement doesn't make sense. How is using a service that's intended to be used for free anything to do with being self-centred, or using "other people's stuff"? And how do you think they got expensive Iphones in the first place without paying for one?
If this cost Google too much money, that's their own fault for offering it.
Women are to blame for not having children? Because - imagine it - they choose to have a job, just like you do? No one's stopping you from offering to raise the kids.
Moreover, I love that feminism is getting blamed from both sides in this story. The article is about women choosing to have families, and the problem of this leading to them not going into a career that is inflexible to having children. And lots of commenters have blamed that on feminism. But if women choose not to have children, that's the fault of feminism too?
If we're worried about falling birth rates, then perhaps we ought to make careers more flexible to allow people to raise children (whether it's men or women). But this mere suggestion has result in an outrage of "feminism is discrimination against men!"
I now that this isn't historically accurate, industrial revolution et al, but it does not alter the point.
Well, it does alter the point, because you're arbitrarily blaming "feminism" with no evidence of that. Men benefit from this change too, as it means you have two incomes to the household, not just one.
In most jobs, people can have families and work. It's been that way for decades - the time when one person had to stay at home is long gone. A good thing too, as some people still need to be having children, and it's nice to have more spending power.
Yet, if in one field, things are inflexible for people wanting to have families, this is the blame of the [potential] employee? Um, okay. I could understand if we were talking about being a fighter pilot in the air force, or something, but we're talking maths and science for god's sake.
(And for the record, I speak as a childless guy who has no plans on children.)
I'm sorry, you appear to have forgotten to include the reference in your post to the peer-reviewed study that showed that women make poorer doctors, as defined by some objective and measurable means, and that there is a causative link from raising a family? Perhaps you could post it in another comment. Thanks.
No, it's not. There might be feminists who do think that, but this doesn't mean they all do (indeed, if you knew even the first thing about feminism, you'd know that there are a vast range of different views, sometimes completely opposed to each other), and it doesn't imply that feminism means that by definition. That's flawed logic. And it's not the definition.
It would be like saying that because there's at least one chauvinist geek on Slashdot, therefore, geek by definition means a chauvinist.
It sounds like your rant should actually be about positive discrimination. Which isn't what this article is about, so you can save your anti-feminism rant for another article.
You're misreading I think. This isn't like things such as positive discrimination, or lowering the standard, it's about making things more flexible, to account for different situations that people have.
And here's the thing - it would be advantageous to men who want to start families too (at least, I hope so). So crying sexism or whining "special treatment", or using it as an axe to grind against feminism is uncalled for. So long as the things they offer are also available to men raising children, it's not sexism.
Another example would be laws in the UK that mean that employers have to offer flexible working hours to people raising children (IIRC). Is that sexism? Of course not. You can argue whether it's a good law or not, but it isn't lowering the standard, as the employees still do the same work, it's just trying to accomodate people's lives, which doesn't seem a bad thing. Just because more women might take advantage of it doesn't mean it's sexism.
And feminists still insist on being awarded jobs because of their gender instead of their work. Women are now consistently getting higher grades in our schools, but this is of course, says the feminists, because of the inferiority of the men's performance.
Wait - so if women are awarded jobs, it's because feminists demanded it due to their gender, because apparently they don't have the ability to do it. But if men get poorer grades, there must be some other explanation?
(Or if your point was to point out an alleged double standard in their arguments, could it not perhaps be that there are different feminists with different point of views? There are a wide range of feminst views, in fact, there are many areas such as transgender, not to mention issues such as sex and porn, where there are completely opposing views within feminism.)
Men and women are still different and it's hormonal.
Citation needed? Of course, it could be a factor, but that doesn't mean it's sufficient to explain all the differences.
Is the poorer performance of men due to hormonal differences?
If you were learning BASIC on the C64, that means you were born in the very early 1970's
How does that follow? I was learning BASIC on the Spectrum 128K +3 as a child, which was around at the same time as the C64, and I was born in 1979. At 8 years old, it would have been 1987, after the time when Blockbuster started.
Obviously men and women are different - that is trivially obvious, due to examples such as anatomical differences. Obviously feminists don't claim there are no differences, so that is a straw man.
But having some differences doesn't mean that they are different in every respect. Having some innate differences doesn't mean that all differences are innate. Those are fallacies. And indeed, if you RTFA, you'd see that this is a case where innate differences don't explain it.
If there is a difference such as number of people working in different areas, it's interesting to know what factors may cause that. I mean, I could point out that you and I are different, because we both have different shaped noses. This doesn't mean it isn't interesting to ask why we might behave differently in other areas however, and such differences may not be related to our nose shapes.
I think a far bigger factor in some geek careers at least (especially computing) is the way children are brought up at a young age. Just look at any toy store - boys are encouraged to play with gadgets, whilst girls play with dolls. I'm sure a lot of us got into programming at a young age, and we can acknowledge how that influenced and helped us in our later careers.
Unfortunately this means that any change takes about 20 years to have any effect. Maybe there is hope however! I would show my point by linking to the Boy and Girl sections on Hamley's website, which even until recently showed an obvious and sexist difference between the toys. But now, it seems they've replaced the categories with labels not related to gender (so people can look at "Action Toys" or "Dolls"), and even the boy/girl search options seem to return a similar set of toys.
It was the EFF that was screeching that Apple was being evil and nobody would stand for it if Microsoft did the same: "If it were Microsoft demanding that computer peripherals all include Microsoft "authentication chips" in order to work with Windows (or Toyota or Ford doing the same for replacement parts), I'd think reviewers would be screaming about it."
Right. Are you disputing this claim? Do you think that MS wouldn't be criticised if they did the same thing? What example of MS DRM do you have, where no one complained about it?
Comparing Apple against Microsoft, Ford, Toyota is not just stupid, but apeshit retarded FIRST BECAUSE the EFF made Microsoft a poster child for its War on DRM, SECOND because Windows has a monopoly position and therefore has no need for DRM to lock it to PCs and THIRD because Microsoft pushes far more draconian DRM that creates terrible products that nobody wants to buy. Yet his comments suggest that Apple has done something Microsoft does not do.
No, that's not what he's saying. He's not saying "MS don't do DRM", he's saying "If MS did something like this, they'd be criticised". So pointing out that MS were criticised for doing similar things supports his argument. In order to disprove it, you have to not only show that MS have done what Apple are doing, you also have to show that no one criticised them for doing so. (And you say that I am the one who can't follow logic!)
Then you come along and start yapping about ad hominems and straw men. What's next, are you going to call me a sock puppet and say in Russia your argument isn't backwards?
I "came along" (or rather, joined in the discussion that everyone is free to do here) and "yapped" ad hominems and straw men, because you made an ad hominem, and I was referring to a straw man argument. What on earth does sock puppets and Russia have to do with hat?
Can you actually form an argument without resorting to "OMG it's apeshit retard!" ?
DRM is not just about preventing copyright infringement (indeed, to believe that is swallowing the pro-DRM FUD). It's about technological means that limit usage of digital media or devices.
Just because a workaround exists, doesn't stop it being DRM.
And you can fix basic functionality by buying an additional product? What happened to the "Just Works" Mantra? More like, it Works, Just About.
The EFF are doing exactly the same thing as the RIAA/MPAA do when they call copyright infringement stealing.
Um, no - and if we are going to make this kind of analogy, that is what you are doing.
Yes, there is a difference between simply using a non-standard headphone socket (as in your mobile phone example), and DRM. But RTFA - what we have here is that the headphone socket is compatible, and indeed, you can plug in normal headphones and play music. But if a chip is not present in the headphones, the Ipod will limit many important features. So this isn't simply a non-standard interface. The reason for it seems unclear. And since it uses technology to limit what features are available when playing back digital media, I think calling it DRM is reasonable (DRM isn't just about preventing copying - consider all the uproar about Vista limiting the resolution on some playback devices, or whatever).
In addition might this not all be FUD or least a conspiracy theory? Every time a scare like this comes up in regard to Apple the evil anti-consumer thing they have supposedly done also happens to have size and aesthetic advantages. Maybe the new Shuffle has this 'DRM' requirement because they took the controls off the player to make it smaller. Of course you could also argue that this is just a convenient excuse.
Classic. The number of DRM/Apple apologists on this story is a joke, especially when you consider the reaction of comments on any other DRM story.
Also you don't have to buy a iPod or any Apple products. There are plenty of equally capable alternatives. If you don't like the product don't buy it.
I fully agree that people shouldn't buy any Apple products. And how, exactly, do you think that consumers will hear about this limitation, so that they know not to buy it? Maybe, we could have these sites where people write about the products, and then people can read them to find out possible flaws. Maybe we could have an organisation warning people of the problems with this product. Maybe we could discuss the issues on a popular geek website. Just a thought.
In what sense is it "small"? And even if it iwas, the whole point is that if we don't tolerate it, we shouldn't tolerate it in any form. Otherwise it will start to become acceptable in the marketplace, and that makes more prevalent usages of DRM easier to introduce.
For starters, comparing Apple against Microsoft, Ford, Toyota is not just stupid, but apeshit retarded.
Nice ad-hominem start with your argument. What next?
Microsoft isn't a principally hardware maker, but its hardware IS all encrusted with DRM, from the Xbox to Zune. It also promotes WMA/WMV DRM on files and HD-DVD style end to end video output DRM on PCs, so von Lohmanns' comments are ridiculous.
Yes, because everyone tolerates Microsoft and no one has criticised them for their DRM. Oh wait, they have.
No one is claiming that Microsoft are fine and Apple are bad - that's a straw man. The point is that just as Microsoft are bad for using DRM, so are Apple - but for some reason, even though DRM is hated here, just because it's Apple suddenly it's okay, and we have no end of apologists crawling out of the woodwork to defend them.
But secondly, the guy doesn't even verify the information he's complaining about at full speed.
So is he wrong here? I don't care what he allegedly said earlier (sorry, if he's stupid for trusting what he reads in a blog, then I'm not going to trust this Apple blog either), I want to see the evidence that the claims about Apple here are not true.
So get a divorce if it's really such a chore?
It doesn't surprise me that the "marriage is so awful" idea is popular on a geek site, but it still doesn't make sense - if your relationship is lacking romance, then why complain about V Day? I could understand complaining about lack of romance after getting married, but V Day is intending to do the same thing, and even if it doesn't, it doesn't make it worse. A "blow job" day might be something you'll want, but that's got nothing to do with V Day. Not to mention that if the worse thing in your life is the lack of blow job, get real - like I said, have a wank like those single people do, or move on if you think you're better off elsewhere.
Or maybe work at resolving your relationship worries, rather than hoping some geek idea will help you out ("What's that dear, it's blow job day? Why sure, now I'll get down on my knees without question" - seriously, why would this tactic succeed, when others had failed to stimulate your sex life?) It's the typical geek idea where, unable to get a woman (even your girlfriend or wife) to pleasure you, you need to construct this idea of a special day that means she's compelled to do it.
And if it's you want the blow job and waitress service without giving anything back, I'm not sure why marriage is at fault.
Yes, I will read my post should I ever choose to get married. I'm not sure what conclusion I am supposed to come to, however. The argument "I know better than you, trust me" is a fallacy - please tell me what your point is, if you have one, rather than expecting me to guess it.
(And it looks like I touched a raw nerve with one mod...)
I know it was meant to be, although I fail to understand the difference. Valentine's Day seems to involve couples being extra-couply and having a nice dinner (which could be a steak, or whatever takes your preference), then sex - be that oral, or whatever takes your preference. The idea that this is somehow a burden to the male that he needs something solely done for him just to make up for it seems rather bizarre to me.
If he's that whiny about a relationship, I suggest "Have a wank and make your own damn steak" day.
The idea that in a relationship, you're only romantic because it's Valentine's Day is worth criticising - but if you're in a relationship where you only have a steak and oral sex once a year, and only then because there's a special day for it, is equally a rather fucked up relationship...
Almost everyone I know says "14th March".
Many years ago I found an article about how dates SHOULD be written. Since time is always largest to smallest, HH/MM/SS, dates should be formatted the same way. Likewise, UNIX time is the same way with the smaller values to the right and larger ones to the left.
Knowing all of this, and to be a slight pain, when I purchased my home I signed all dates in YY/MM/DD format.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with YY/MM/DD. And there's nothing wrong with DD/MM/YY in that at least it's still ordered.
The problem is that the MM/DD people tend to write MM/DD/YY, which makes no sense.
I don't see how - surely, ray tracing involves shooting out rays for each pixel to see what objects they hit, and then tracing out additional rays in turn from that point. Current methods involve drawing the objects directly and seeing which pixels they fill. I don't see how doing the latter with polygons smaller than one pixel makes it like ray-tracing, anymore so than any other per-pixel level method such as texture mapping.
A better example for merging of algorithms would be displacement mapping, which can be done in pixel shaders by shooting out rays, to see where they hit the surface (although even there, it's really just simple raycasting, not full blown raytracing, as only a single ray is cast and it stops as it soon as it his the surface).
I'm also not sure if we'll really see polygons smaller than one pixel in games - that seems rather inefficient and wasteful (both in that additional time and memory is needed for these extra polygons, and you'll end up writing each pixel more times than necessary)! And pixel shaders mean that per pixel methods can now be applied without having to make the polygons smaller - so smaller polygons aren't necessarily needed unless the geometry requires it.
Their market audience is 3D artists who you would hope know what the word means - not ignorant geeks on Slashdot.
The ability to charge a licence is backed by the Government - you go to prison for not paying. Referring to it as a tax as well as a licence is reasonable.
The fact that not everyone pays it is irrelevant. I don't pay car tax because I don't have a car, but that doesn't stop it being a tax.
I think that, regardless, they did the right thing--most people have no idea what a botnet is, let alone how much damage they do.
I don't think anyone really thinks they did a bad thing, it's more the double standard that anyone else doing it would be finding themselves in prison for a long time. And maybe we'd get some fairer coverage from the BBC on these stupid laws, if they themselves were affected by them...
50% off in fact (how generous of them! I guess visual is half, and audio is half ...)
The bit that I love is that a black and white TV licence gives a much bigger discount (it costs £47.00, that's about two-thirds off). I can just imagine blind people specifically buying old black and white TVs, just so they can pay less...
Perhaps - one point of view is that all forms of censorship are wrong.
Another reasonable point of view is that banning something is justified if there is overwhelming evidence of harm. So one might make that argument if child pr0n - but not with "This image/word/etc is disgusting!" One could also make that argument with defamation (where it's shown that the false claims have harmed someone in some way).
Also note that copyright laws are less broad in that they don't ban all forms of an image, just that particular instances can only be distributed it by those who created the work. Also I think it's more sensible to treat this as a civil issue (so yes, I would disagree with places that criminalise it).
Be careful of polarising the issue - yes, there certainly are real examples of censorship in western countries - though then, that does not make it okay! It makes it bad in both cases. But the last thing you want in a debate is to suggest that someone can only be against censorship if they also support allowing child pr0n - that would be a fallacy.
Unfortunately I do feel that, in the UK at least, we are on a slippery slope. In 1978 when child images were criminalised, people questioned whether it was needed (and IIRC, it was only punishable with a fine). It applied only to under-16s. Three decades on, and laws are now being rushed through that criminalise things such as images of consenting adults, and cartoons that appear to depict under-18s, all on the grounds that they are "disgusting".
I entirely agree. It's also interesting to see that China has laws on these kinds of things, and not just political censorship.
When discussing censorship laws in western countries - anything from banning violent movies or computer games, to recent laws in the UK criminalising possession of images of consensual adult sexuality that the Government disapproves of, a tired argument in support of the laws is "Oh noes, how dare you protest against such things, and call this censorship! Don't you know in China they have censorship of more important things?"
Well, the fact that China might also censor "more important things" doesn't stop these people protesting this censorship of swear words. The point is that all kinds of Government censorship are all part of the same problem. They might not care about whether they can see the particular video in question, but it's a way of opposing unjust censorship laws in general.