Yes, the latter describes the full consequences of just how bad this violence really would be if you did it for real, whilst the former trivialises it, and glosses over the effects, making it easy for readers to forget the harmful consequences of actual violence.
I never understood why it is that more detailed scenes are seen as worse. My suspicion is simply because people find it "disgusting". They don't want to see it - and they think you shouldn't see it too.
Books tend to self-regulate based on vocabulary as well - put complex words in your books and you're not likely to get many kids reading them, but put it in a film and it's accessible to loads of people who wouldn't have read a text version.
But I see no correlation between complex vocabulary, and having adult themes. One could have a book that was unsuitable for children, whilst still being something they can read. And conversely:
Lord of the Rings is a great example
I'm not sure how - as you acknowledge yourself, it's an example of where few young kids would read it, even though the content is considered fine.
Whilst I take your point on a possible difference between text and images, I'm not sure this fully explains desire to censor. Consider the many attempts to censor the Internet - these plans typically do not exempt textual content on the Internet.
(Having said that, there are those who do want to censor written material - here in the UK, every so often they attempt to prosecute written material under the Obscene Publications Act, but there's never been a successful prosecution for written material in 50 years of the current Act. But they keep trying, and one day they might succeed - there's a new one coming to trial shortly, in fact, the "Girls Aloud" story.)
The fact that the IE market share is declining is enough to demonstrate to reasonable people that the public IS aware that there are alternatives to using IE, and they ARE able to use these alternatives.
Do you believe that IE is a better browser than Firefox, Opera and Safari?
-snip whining-
You compare Microsoft's web browser to a murderer killing people.
It's called an analogy. Here, try it with a car: reporting Microsoft for criminal behaviour is like reporting someone for driving a car without a licence. Or if you think that's unfair, replace it with reporting a crime of your choosing.
It was the ubiquity of a browser included in Windows that opened up the web to most of the world.
You've got it backwards. The whole argument is that Microsoft used their monopoly, to gain a monopoly in another market. Since that is true, it obviously follows that most people's experience of a web browser was with IE - that's what a monopoly means! I'm not sure what your argument is - it would be like saying Windows isn't a monopoly "because most people use Windows". However, you can't conclude that without their action, the web wouldn't have been opened up. This is just the tired old argument of "Most people use Windows, therefore if Windows didn't exist, hardly anyone would be able to use computers".
Firefox or Apple with Safari didnt need a lawsuit.
Firefox don't sue because it's open source, and not done for profit. Firefox isn't even a company. It would be like pointing out how when Apple sues someone, but "Firefox" don't, it means Apple can't be any good.
Apple don't need to sue here, because they ship their browser on their own platform, and Safari on Windows is a minor product for them.
But maybe it has to with the fact that their browser wasn't free for a long time.
Ah yes, let's bring up that ancient past again.
And maybe they are just not that good, maybe their product is not much better compared to the other ones, or maybe their Marketing failed.. who knows?
And then let's bring up this claim too. If market share is really an indicator here of how good a product is, then it means Internet Explorer is the best browser, and Windows is the best OS ever by far. Do you really want to make that argument?
Maybe they didnt realize that a browser product by itself has little value for the end user (not enough value to pay for it in any case). And that its all about the devices and the content.
You don't think? Maybe this has something to do with the fact that they stopped charging, or even allowing ads, on their browser years ago? In fact, I was using Opera for free long before it became trendy to switch from IE.
Anyhow, this has nothing to do with end users, it's about allowing PC sellers to ship another browser in place of IE if they want. That would mean money for Opera if they choose Opera, and extra users for Firefox if they use that. Whilst they could do that now, they have to have it installed alongside IE.
While, in your frame of reference, you are not moving, in the grand scheme of things you are.
I think this is misleading - surely the point of relativity is that there is no special frame of reference - so comparing to a frame of reference that's the sun, or the galatic centre or whatever, is no more correct than the car's frame of reference.
Now having said that, it's true that any time machine that works by instantaneously jumping from one point to another must also be a "space machine" - i.e., the jump is through spacetime. But the article misses the point by doing complicated calculations to work out how quickly the earth has moved on.
Do I need a space machine to keep revolving with the earth and stop me falling out of bed? Of course not. So whilst one would be correct to say that such a time machine must also be a space machine, that's is true because of relativity - but an argument along the lines of "the earth would have moved on" however is an invalid argument, as it assumes there exists some absolute frame of reference.
Microsoft biggest numbers comes from forced OEM deals. Of course it will sell well, no matter they will do.
In what sense are they "forced"? Microsoft are successful, no matter how they achieve it. And whatever advantages they get apply to Apple too, who are also a large company - look how the Iphone receives free advertising everywhere. It will sell some, no matter how good it is or not.
My post: Apple copy off of other companies plenty too. For some reason, when Microsoft does it, it's "stealing", but for Apple, it's "It doesn't matter if it's been done before because Apple "integrated" better in some way that I'm not going to tell you".)
Your reply: Apple copies others stuff, but they do very nice integration.
I couldn't have predicted the response better.
Last sentence about 'female fatale' was meant about that IT geeks are easily swung into another marketing hype from Microsoft. For example, I use Ubuntu Linux and know it's many weaknesess, but I don't hype it to others.
Yes, no one ever falls into Apple's marketing hype. And Linux and Mac users never ever hype those OSs to others.
But even if that was typical, the point is that Vista is doing badly against XP, which last time I looked, was still a Microsoft OS. XP was just too good! This doesn't mean OS X is doing well, so "trying each time harder to replicate OS X success formula" is nonsense. I might as well claim "Look, people still want XP instead of Vista... therefore Amiga is more successful than Vista".
Or - maybe they are doing that, and that's why Vista is failing? It's XP's success they need to replicate, not OS X's "success".
I've had several comments telling me the theory was a poor one. It's not my theory!:) I agree, it's a terrible theory (that was my point - it's BS from Microsoft!)
No, they specifically meant that it was your logic that was invalid. As the AC said, Google non-linear relationship.
The argument is (and it's not MS propaganda btw) that most people will target the most popular OS. However, this is no reason why the first "most" is the same proportion as the latter "most". In fact, I would expect that to not at all be the case - if Windows has 90% share, it wouldn't suprise me that far more than 90% of virus writers would want to target it.
Then there's the propagation of viruses. There are a lot more Windows machines than Linux machines - even taking into account the webservers. So a virus will propagate far more easily. And I'm sure that someone would love to own the Google servers - but don't you think that they might just have a tiny bit more security, and put just a tiny bit more effort into keeping the OS patched, than a random Windows user?
But hey, nevermind requiring evidence, and understanding basic mathematics - let's just brand it "illogical propaganda" and get modded up!
Sorry, but it is just trying each time harder to replicate OS X success formula
Yes, just look at the sales figures. Microsoft are obviously failing at replicating OS X's success formula.
(Apple copy off of other companies plenty too. For some reason, when Microsoft does it, it's "stealing", but for Apple, it's "It doesn't matter if it's been done before because Apple "integrated" better in some way that I'm not going to tell you".)
I already joked to my Twitter friends that Microsoft is IT guys 'female fatale' - it fucks up your life anytime you encounter her, but still people are so devoted to her. Geeks, you need get love somewhere else:)
What world are you living in that Windows is just used by geeks? (I am also amused at the idea of resorting to the ad-hominem of branding Windows users as geeks loving an OS - when you're the one who starts off about your "Twitter friends"...)
OS X was a whole new OS, and older Mac applications were run under emulation. Sure, they could do that with Windows, but with the massive base of applications, and the far greater need they have to support backwards compatibility, it's a huge job.
They only did that, because people were bitching at them for allowing users to do things without warning. Yet when Microsoft finally made Windows behave like Mac OS, then suddenly it's bad!
It's just like the graphical-effects they put on - touted as a main advantage of Mac OS (OS X, I mean, not the awful looking version before that), yet when Windows does it, it's branded as wasting resources!
Then we signed on to slashdot and cnet and ZDnet and every other news forum with comments and every time they posted yet another rave review we got up in the comments and told the truth.
You tell 'em! Vista failed, because of ppl on Slashdot ranting about "Get A Mac"! That's right!
When we got a call on Saturday from Cousin Joe halfway across the country asking "XP or Vista for my new PC" we told him "Not Vista. If you can't get XP, get a mac."
What shocking advice. And if he can't get a Mac, get OS/2?
The consensus opinion became so strong that non-technical family members who had never tried it were warning me off of the thing.
What consensus? So you and other ppl in the family who were seen as technical told the rest of your family to stay away from Vista, they then started thinking it was bad even though they hadn't tried it? What a surprise. Of course non-technical people will trust technical people, especially when they are family. But that doesn't tell us anything about the market in general. If I said in my family, we tell them to stay away from Macs, does that mean we're the cause of OS X's failure[*]? Of course not.
[*] If Vista is a failure, then so is anything else other than XP, based on market figures.
Comments like this just prove the point he was making.
PS - 90%+ take Windows seriously. You might as well brag about Amiga vs Windows, just because people do it, doesn't mean it's representative of what people use these days.
Strange, I never have any of those things on Windows. Not since the Windows 9x days - one might as well criticise OS X based on the joke that was classic MacOS.
I've never been a fan of Windows, but the alternatives we got left with, after all the decent OSs got abandoned, I find even more annoying.
I never had a problem running games or other consumer applications on 2000. Maybe XP does better at compatibility of old DOS stuff, but other than that, they're just the same. The main difference though is that you have to download a newer version of DirectX (along with years' worth of other updates...)
Porn is everywhere and completely legal, prostitution is legal in most places in Europe and some places in the US.
Don't worry, the UK will no longer be one of those countries where possession of porn is completely legal, in one week's time.
But I don't think that negates what the OP is saying. Sure, on the one hand there's porn and a pressure for young girls to dress pretty. OTOH, there's still other groups of people who want to stigmatise any form of sexual expression they see as abnormal or unethical, calling for censorship, or to criminalise acts between consenting adults. He never said that the sexual conservatism was successful, he simply said that these people who call for it exist. And indeed, he specifically stated that "Nobody, however, has ever been able to 'enforce' these things".
Nonsense - no one is telling her to keep the product and not pay. They are telling her to return the product and not pay, which, even for those who think that EULAs are enforceable, is still fair and square (and legal).
What people are then telling her to do is to download OO from elsewhere, since it is freely available under the GPL. I know that the claims-of-piracy atmosphere around here is pretty common, but this is not piracy.
Oh, and if the company did want to force her to pay because of the additional terms they put on the product, then they themselves would be in violation of the GPL, as the GPL states additional restrictions may not be made. It would be rather stupid of them to argue that in court.
Yes it will pick them up if you tag them, why wouldn't it.
Do you know how to do this on Windows Itunes? I would find it useful to know how:) (I mean, when I add or change an ID tag on my hard disk, without any integration with an Ipod or whatever.)
Remember, the GPL allows you to resell the software. I doubt many people would like to see the GPL changed to mandate free (as in beer) sale of all software distributed under that license.
Indeed, but another part of the GPL is "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." There's nothing wrong with them charging for software, however, it's dubious whether one has been charged based on small print in the EULA. If they make the argument that she has to pay the subscription "because EULAs are a contract", then - leaving aside the question of the validity of EULAs - even if an EULA was valid, surely enforcing such a contract would be in violation of the GPL?
(This reminds me of when someone once included my GPL software in a collection he'd made, but put in the licence for it that that any of the software in it couldn't be used for some obscure purpose. I couldn't be bothered to pursue it, since I'd still rather my software be included in the package, and the restriction was rather unlikely anyway, but I did point out that if he was going to enforce that restriction, he'd probably be in violation of the GPL...)
Simply amazing. One Apple fan praises Apple because it "does what he wants and more", the next comes in to someone countering that with examples of products that do more at a lower price with "well, less features is good!
I agree, I've noticed this too recently - if it so happens that an Apple product has a feature, they'll jump all over it as an example of how wonderful Apple is. But if it lacks a feature, then suddenly they'll start talking about "grumpy featurism", referring to the other product as being better only "on paper", or resort to saying how features don't matter. Well, if features don't matter, one might as well save some money and get a low end basic device that just works.
But if you ever break out of your cube you'll see that no one cares other than slashdot.
Ah, let's resort to ad-hominems. Actually, it's particularly on Slashdot that Apple is praised so much.
With iTunes (and properly tagged files)
And what if they're not? And will it pick it up if I then do tag them?
When my cousin went to Israel to study they all got iSights. iChat 'just worked'. Not AIM, not Skype not anything else, iChat.
Sounds like a problem with Isight then - how is it a good thing if you can only use the webcam with one chat method? I wouldn't call that working at all. And I certainly wouldn't call that "integration" - integrating with your own products is trivial, that's the easy bit!
If you get 5 Macs in the same room, turn on wireless everyone can see each other. No fighting with an internal ip addresses.
Well now we're talking about an entirely different OS. The original MacOS wasn't about "not wanting to type in commands", is what that it didn't offer that ability, whether you wanted it or not.
Compare that to what a Mac did
And comparing it to the shittiest OS around isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Plenty of OSs of the time combined the power of both a command line, and a GUI - for example, AmigaOS - over a decade before Apple realised this might be useful after all, and had to ditch MacOS for another.
The original MacOS was still rather poor I'm afraid, even for its time, and it's a good thing Apple finally replaced it with a new OS built on Next.
Macintosh: OS and UI designed for an average person not wanting to type in commands.
Although note that just about all OSs have succeeded at this - the only notable exception being Linux (I don't know how things are with it these days though - maybe it's got better). And sad to say, it's Windows that succeeded by far in terms of bringing such an OS to the masses.
iPhone: smart phone with a UI designed for an average person. If you've ever used another smart phone, you'd know how maddeningly simple an iPhone is compared to other smart phones.
This doesn't actually say anything meaningful, I'm afraid. All companies would say they design their interfaces for "average" people! (In fact, I note that you refer to this "average" person no less than seven times - what exactly do you mean, may I ask?) Also note that the distinction between smart phones and other phones is less clear these days - the features touted on the Iphone (such as Internet access) are standard on most phones these days (and were for years before - please, no one reply to this post saying "But but, the Iphone does it better!" unless you actually have some actual example to back it up). But sure, it's a success in that it's no doubt making them some money, as would be true of most phones on the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the latter describes the full consequences of just how bad this violence really would be if you did it for real, whilst the former trivialises it, and glosses over the effects, making it easy for readers to forget the harmful consequences of actual violence.
I never understood why it is that more detailed scenes are seen as worse. My suspicion is simply because people find it "disgusting". They don't want to see it - and they think you shouldn't see it too.
Books tend to self-regulate based on vocabulary as well - put complex words in your books and you're not likely to get many kids reading them, but put it in a film and it's accessible to loads of people who wouldn't have read a text version.
But I see no correlation between complex vocabulary, and having adult themes. One could have a book that was unsuitable for children, whilst still being something they can read. And conversely:
Lord of the Rings is a great example
I'm not sure how - as you acknowledge yourself, it's an example of where few young kids would read it, even though the content is considered fine.
Whilst I take your point on a possible difference between text and images, I'm not sure this fully explains desire to censor. Consider the many attempts to censor the Internet - these plans typically do not exempt textual content on the Internet.
(Having said that, there are those who do want to censor written material - here in the UK, every so often they attempt to prosecute written material under the Obscene Publications Act, but there's never been a successful prosecution for written material in 50 years of the current Act. But they keep trying, and one day they might succeed - there's a new one coming to trial shortly, in fact, the "Girls Aloud" story.)
The fact that the IE market share is declining is enough to demonstrate to reasonable people that the public IS aware that there are alternatives to using IE, and they ARE able to use these alternatives.
Do you believe that IE is a better browser than Firefox, Opera and Safari?
-snip whining-
You compare Microsoft's web browser to a murderer killing people.
It's called an analogy. Here, try it with a car: reporting Microsoft for criminal behaviour is like reporting someone for driving a car without a licence. Or if you think that's unfair, replace it with reporting a crime of your choosing.
It was the ubiquity of a browser included in Windows that opened up the web to most of the world.
You've got it backwards. The whole argument is that Microsoft used their monopoly, to gain a monopoly in another market. Since that is true, it obviously follows that most people's experience of a web browser was with IE - that's what a monopoly means! I'm not sure what your argument is - it would be like saying Windows isn't a monopoly "because most people use Windows". However, you can't conclude that without their action, the web wouldn't have been opened up. This is just the tired old argument of "Most people use Windows, therefore if Windows didn't exist, hardly anyone would be able to use computers".
Firefox or Apple with Safari didnt need a lawsuit.
Firefox don't sue because it's open source, and not done for profit. Firefox isn't even a company. It would be like pointing out how when Apple sues someone, but "Firefox" don't, it means Apple can't be any good.
Apple don't need to sue here, because they ship their browser on their own platform, and Safari on Windows is a minor product for them.
But maybe it has to with the fact that their browser wasn't free for a long time.
Ah yes, let's bring up that ancient past again.
And maybe they are just not that good, maybe their product is not much better compared to the other ones, or maybe their Marketing failed.. who knows?
And then let's bring up this claim too. If market share is really an indicator here of how good a product is, then it means Internet Explorer is the best browser, and Windows is the best OS ever by far. Do you really want to make that argument?
Maybe they didnt realize that a browser product by itself has little value for the end user (not enough value to pay for it in any case). And that its all about the devices and the content.
You don't think? Maybe this has something to do with the fact that they stopped charging, or even allowing ads, on their browser years ago? In fact, I was using Opera for free long before it became trendy to switch from IE.
Anyhow, this has nothing to do with end users, it's about allowing PC sellers to ship another browser in place of IE if they want. That would mean money for Opera if they choose Opera, and extra users for Firefox if they use that. Whilst they could do that now, they have to have it installed alongside IE.
There's nothing like extrapolating from a single data point!
While, in your frame of reference, you are not moving, in the grand scheme of things you are.
I think this is misleading - surely the point of relativity is that there is no special frame of reference - so comparing to a frame of reference that's the sun, or the galatic centre or whatever, is no more correct than the car's frame of reference.
Now having said that, it's true that any time machine that works by instantaneously jumping from one point to another must also be a "space machine" - i.e., the jump is through spacetime. But the article misses the point by doing complicated calculations to work out how quickly the earth has moved on.
Do I need a space machine to keep revolving with the earth and stop me falling out of bed? Of course not. So whilst one would be correct to say that such a time machine must also be a space machine, that's is true because of relativity - but an argument along the lines of "the earth would have moved on" however is an invalid argument, as it assumes there exists some absolute frame of reference.
Microsoft biggest numbers comes from forced OEM deals. Of course it will sell well, no matter they will do.
In what sense are they "forced"? Microsoft are successful, no matter how they achieve it. And whatever advantages they get apply to Apple too, who are also a large company - look how the Iphone receives free advertising everywhere. It will sell some, no matter how good it is or not.
My post: Apple copy off of other companies plenty too. For some reason, when Microsoft does it, it's "stealing", but for Apple, it's "It doesn't matter if it's been done before because Apple "integrated" better in some way that I'm not going to tell you".)
Your reply: Apple copies others stuff, but they do very nice integration.
I couldn't have predicted the response better.
Last sentence about 'female fatale' was meant about that IT geeks are easily swung into another marketing hype from Microsoft. For example, I use Ubuntu Linux and know it's many weaknesess, but I don't hype it to others.
Yes, no one ever falls into Apple's marketing hype. And Linux and Mac users never ever hype those OSs to others.
But even if that was typical, the point is that Vista is doing badly against XP, which last time I looked, was still a Microsoft OS. XP was just too good! This doesn't mean OS X is doing well, so "trying each time harder to replicate OS X success formula" is nonsense. I might as well claim "Look, people still want XP instead of Vista ... therefore Amiga is more successful than Vista".
Or - maybe they are doing that, and that's why Vista is failing? It's XP's success they need to replicate, not OS X's "success".
I've had several comments telling me the theory was a poor one. It's not my theory! :) I agree, it's a terrible theory (that was my point - it's BS from Microsoft!)
No, they specifically meant that it was your logic that was invalid. As the AC said, Google non-linear relationship.
The argument is (and it's not MS propaganda btw) that most people will target the most popular OS. However, this is no reason why the first "most" is the same proportion as the latter "most". In fact, I would expect that to not at all be the case - if Windows has 90% share, it wouldn't suprise me that far more than 90% of virus writers would want to target it.
Then there's the propagation of viruses. There are a lot more Windows machines than Linux machines - even taking into account the webservers. So a virus will propagate far more easily. And I'm sure that someone would love to own the Google servers - but don't you think that they might just have a tiny bit more security, and put just a tiny bit more effort into keeping the OS patched, than a random Windows user?
But hey, nevermind requiring evidence, and understanding basic mathematics - let's just brand it "illogical propaganda" and get modded up!
Sorry, but it is just trying each time harder to replicate OS X success formula
Yes, just look at the sales figures. Microsoft are obviously failing at replicating OS X's success formula.
(Apple copy off of other companies plenty too. For some reason, when Microsoft does it, it's "stealing", but for Apple, it's "It doesn't matter if it's been done before because Apple "integrated" better in some way that I'm not going to tell you".)
I already joked to my Twitter friends that Microsoft is IT guys 'female fatale' - it fucks up your life anytime you encounter her, but still people are so devoted to her. Geeks, you need get love somewhere else :)
What world are you living in that Windows is just used by geeks? (I am also amused at the idea of resorting to the ad-hominem of branding Windows users as geeks loving an OS - when you're the one who starts off about your "Twitter friends"...)
OS X was a whole new OS, and older Mac applications were run under emulation. Sure, they could do that with Windows, but with the massive base of applications, and the far greater need they have to support backwards compatibility, it's a huge job.
And I still can't format four floppy disks at once.
They only did that, because people were bitching at them for allowing users to do things without warning. Yet when Microsoft finally made Windows behave like Mac OS, then suddenly it's bad!
It's just like the graphical-effects they put on - touted as a main advantage of Mac OS (OS X, I mean, not the awful looking version before that), yet when Windows does it, it's branded as wasting resources!
Then we signed on to slashdot and cnet and ZDnet and every other news forum with comments and every time they posted yet another rave review we got up in the comments and told the truth.
You tell 'em! Vista failed, because of ppl on Slashdot ranting about "Get A Mac"! That's right!
When we got a call on Saturday from Cousin Joe halfway across the country asking "XP or Vista for my new PC" we told him "Not Vista. If you can't get XP, get a mac."
What shocking advice. And if he can't get a Mac, get OS/2?
The consensus opinion became so strong that non-technical family members who had never tried it were warning me off of the thing.
What consensus? So you and other ppl in the family who were seen as technical told the rest of your family to stay away from Vista, they then started thinking it was bad even though they hadn't tried it? What a surprise. Of course non-technical people will trust technical people, especially when they are family. But that doesn't tell us anything about the market in general. If I said in my family, we tell them to stay away from Macs, does that mean we're the cause of OS X's failure[*]? Of course not.
[*] If Vista is a failure, then so is anything else other than XP, based on market figures.
Comments like this just prove the point he was making.
PS - 90%+ take Windows seriously. You might as well brag about Amiga vs Windows, just because people do it, doesn't mean it's representative of what people use these days.
Strange, I never have any of those things on Windows. Not since the Windows 9x days - one might as well criticise OS X based on the joke that was classic MacOS.
I've never been a fan of Windows, but the alternatives we got left with, after all the decent OSs got abandoned, I find even more annoying.
I never had a problem running games or other consumer applications on 2000. Maybe XP does better at compatibility of old DOS stuff, but other than that, they're just the same. The main difference though is that you have to download a newer version of DirectX (along with years' worth of other updates...)
Porn is everywhere and completely legal, prostitution is legal in most places in Europe and some places in the US.
Don't worry, the UK will no longer be one of those countries where possession of porn is completely legal, in one week's time.
But I don't think that negates what the OP is saying. Sure, on the one hand there's porn and a pressure for young girls to dress pretty. OTOH, there's still other groups of people who want to stigmatise any form of sexual expression they see as abnormal or unethical, calling for censorship, or to criminalise acts between consenting adults. He never said that the sexual conservatism was successful, he simply said that these people who call for it exist. And indeed, he specifically stated that "Nobody, however, has ever been able to 'enforce' these things".
However, sex is often a somewhat "taboo" topic
Yes, indeed.
Nonsense - no one is telling her to keep the product and not pay. They are telling her to return the product and not pay, which, even for those who think that EULAs are enforceable, is still fair and square (and legal).
What people are then telling her to do is to download OO from elsewhere, since it is freely available under the GPL. I know that the claims-of-piracy atmosphere around here is pretty common, but this is not piracy.
Oh, and if the company did want to force her to pay because of the additional terms they put on the product, then they themselves would be in violation of the GPL, as the GPL states additional restrictions may not be made. It would be rather stupid of them to argue that in court.
Yes it will pick them up if you tag them, why wouldn't it.
Do you know how to do this on Windows Itunes? I would find it useful to know how :) (I mean, when I add or change an ID tag on my hard disk, without any integration with an Ipod or whatever.)
Remember, the GPL allows you to resell the software. I doubt many people would like to see the GPL changed to mandate free (as in beer) sale of all software distributed under that license.
Indeed, but another part of the GPL is "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." There's nothing wrong with them charging for software, however, it's dubious whether one has been charged based on small print in the EULA. If they make the argument that she has to pay the subscription "because EULAs are a contract", then - leaving aside the question of the validity of EULAs - even if an EULA was valid, surely enforcing such a contract would be in violation of the GPL?
(This reminds me of when someone once included my GPL software in a collection he'd made, but put in the licence for it that that any of the software in it couldn't be used for some obscure purpose. I couldn't be bothered to pursue it, since I'd still rather my software be included in the package, and the restriction was rather unlikely anyway, but I did point out that if he was going to enforce that restriction, he'd probably be in violation of the GPL...)
Simply amazing. One Apple fan praises Apple because it "does what he wants and more", the next comes in to someone countering that with examples of products that do more at a lower price with "well, less features is good!
I agree, I've noticed this too recently - if it so happens that an Apple product has a feature, they'll jump all over it as an example of how wonderful Apple is. But if it lacks a feature, then suddenly they'll start talking about "grumpy featurism", referring to the other product as being better only "on paper", or resort to saying how features don't matter. Well, if features don't matter, one might as well save some money and get a low end basic device that just works.
But if you ever break out of your cube you'll see that no one cares other than slashdot.
Ah, let's resort to ad-hominems. Actually, it's particularly on Slashdot that Apple is praised so much.
With iTunes (and properly tagged files)
And what if they're not? And will it pick it up if I then do tag them?
When my cousin went to Israel to study they all got iSights. iChat 'just worked'. Not AIM, not Skype not anything else, iChat.
Sounds like a problem with Isight then - how is it a good thing if you can only use the webcam with one chat method? I wouldn't call that working at all. And I certainly wouldn't call that "integration" - integrating with your own products is trivial, that's the easy bit!
If you get 5 Macs in the same room, turn on wireless everyone can see each other. No fighting with an internal ip addresses.
No problem on Windows either. It just works.
Think back to when Macs first came out.
Well now we're talking about an entirely different OS. The original MacOS wasn't about "not wanting to type in commands", is what that it didn't offer that ability, whether you wanted it or not.
Compare that to what a Mac did
And comparing it to the shittiest OS around isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Plenty of OSs of the time combined the power of both a command line, and a GUI - for example, AmigaOS - over a decade before Apple realised this might be useful after all, and had to ditch MacOS for another.
The original MacOS was still rather poor I'm afraid, even for its time, and it's a good thing Apple finally replaced it with a new OS built on Next.
Macintosh: OS and UI designed for an average person not wanting to type in commands.
Although note that just about all OSs have succeeded at this - the only notable exception being Linux (I don't know how things are with it these days though - maybe it's got better). And sad to say, it's Windows that succeeded by far in terms of bringing such an OS to the masses.
iPhone: smart phone with a UI designed for an average person. If you've ever used another smart phone, you'd know how maddeningly simple an iPhone is compared to other smart phones.
This doesn't actually say anything meaningful, I'm afraid. All companies would say they design their interfaces for "average" people! (In fact, I note that you refer to this "average" person no less than seven times - what exactly do you mean, may I ask?) Also note that the distinction between smart phones and other phones is less clear these days - the features touted on the Iphone (such as Internet access) are standard on most phones these days (and were for years before - please, no one reply to this post saying "But but, the Iphone does it better!" unless you actually have some actual example to back it up). But sure, it's a success in that it's no doubt making them some money, as would be true of most phones on the market.