Be's excuse is stupid. Apple is also a new company in that they're not spending money on stupid projects that lose them money. When a company is going out of business, do you think they're going to subsidize Be's development? Nope. Given that nobody else has had any problems with Apple's hardware, and Apple itself has brought forth not one but _2_ open-source operating systems, Be's argument is more than a little silly at this point.
Be has some ass-kicking technology, but the fact is that they can't stick with any business plan for an extended amount of time. They figured it'd be financially more beneficial to switch to X86 (and may have been right, at the time at least - no they're moving to 'IAs'), but didn't need to use the "Apple stopped us" excuse. Why should Apple stop them? They make a hardware sale anyhow, which is better than someone buying a PC, right? They just weren't willing to subsidize Be's development.
Um, the 'X' stands for 10. I believe latin predates the X Windowing system by at least a few millenia.
And yes, sales of Mac hardware subsidize OSX development. What's so wrong with that? That's how companies work - they make money, and reinvest some of it into their operations. Big deal. Nobody is forcing you to buy Mac hardware - if you don't like it, buy something else. Do you flame any other make and model of car other than the one you drive?
I can say this: Zealotry is never pretty.
Also, it sounds to me like you don't know much about Quartz, either, as it has some decent features X would do well to emulate. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.
--- a G4 system without the OS forcibly "bundled"? ---
Probably around the time you can buy any VCR and have your choice of software bundled.
It's Apple's hardware, and it's Apple's software. It's not like they're pulling a Microsoft here and forcing other companies to not bundle alternative operating systems - they _are_ the other company. Anyone out there is free to build their own PPC based machines with LinuxPPC preinstalled. It's not their fault that nobody has done so.
Signatures have traditionally been an 'acceptable' place to put a link or short description of a person's site. It's no longer than anyone else's sig, so what's the problem?
Now, if it were spam - ie. the entire post was made for the sole purpose of promoting the person's site - then that's another thing. I handle spam as part of my job and I don't exactly view it favorably. But this is just a sig...
Fair enough. I pretty much agree with everything you've said. I personally gain much from the recording artists out there, and would love to see MP3s and successive technologies give more to those artists than the recording companies.
However, I still don't see where this applies to my.mp3.com. Like tape recorders, CD burners, etc. this service has the potential for abuse. With all of these technologies, it is very easy to abuse. Yes, this needs to be looked at. Yes, my.mp3.com should try hard to make this service secure.
But should they be sued? No. At least, not if they're not going to sue manufacturers of CD burners, tape recorders, and so on. My computer is capable of making recordings either from line-input or off of a CD - should the any member of the recording industry sue Apple next (guess what - they've already tried)?
I think the degradation issue is moot - my rights to the music I purchase don't expire in 10 years, and if I find a more viable means to back up my music, I have the right to use it. I think what people are saying is that the recording industry has the right to do whatever they wish to protect their intellectual property, _as long as_ it doesn't stomp on our rights as consumers. Suing a company that comes up with yet another mechanism to listen to your _already owned_ music is just petty.
What is wrong with a 'me me me' mentality when all I want to do is listen to the music that I already purchased, in the manner I wanted?
I have no interest in downloading pirated MP3s. Your assumption that anyone who uses this service is incorrect - the fact that some people who use it do so illegally is not my concern. They should be dealt with accordingly as individuals - I don't believe this should preempt my rights to the music I already purchased.
Why is that a problem? The only reason I can see a record company caring is that they want the original media to degrade to the point where I have to buy another copy. That hasn't been a problem, really, since CD audio hit the mainstream.
So why is it a problem if I make a digital backup for my own use? Why is it a problem if it lasts forever? If I can keep the original media forever, why shouldn't I keep the backup forever? In the computing world we'd be pissed if we couldn't make long-term backups - why should it be any different in this case? My backups are legal today, they should be just as legal 10 years from now.
Should the recording industry stop people from making CD burners (which many people to make their own mixes)? They make exact duplicates as well.
But that really isn't an issue, is it? To use my.mp3.com, you are required to own the original CD - correct?
Sure, you can bypass this system by sharing logins or borrowing CDs - but you can do the exact same thing with a decent tape recorder. It's just another tool that people can abuse or use right. It's up to the person.
This isn't really a distribution method, although technically data is being shuffled around. By 'beaming' your CDs, you are essentially making a copy on a server for later retrieval. You already had the original music distributed to you in the form of a CD - the record company made their cut.
I just don't see the problem. It's almost like you and a friend own the exact same CD, and your friend makes a copy to tape and gives it to you. Now you have a CD and tape copy of the same data - what's the problem? You already payed the licensing rights for that music, no?
How could they complain about sanctions? How can you sue someone for refusing to do business with you?
While it's likely none of this cash will ever be seen, I don't see the similarity: Torturing an American citizen is one thing, but sanctions are basically refusing to deal with someone. Could you sue someone for refusing to trade something with you personally?
--- I could be wrong, but a service that gives you access to your own songs seems unneccessary. ---
BTW, for some reason, this statement seems incredibly... Odd.
What is so unnecessary about a service that allows you to stream your own personally purchased music from elsewhere? I'd rather not carry my entire CD collection around with me. As long as I'm near _any_ high-speed internet connection, I'm good to go.
What exactly is so questionable? I own a certain number of CDs - I 'beam' them to mp3.com's service, and then listen to them at my leisure. I have purchased a license to listen to the music, not the media - I am perfectly within my rights as a consumer.
This can be abused, sure. So can other types of media. Tape recorders, VCRs, TiVo, your hard-drive, your CD burner, etc. are every bit as 'guilty' as mp3.com's service is.
If the recording industry can do this to mp3.com, they'd _better_ be prepared to tell the consumer to his/her face that he/she cannot purchase a tape recorder.
And yes, they tried that once as well. Stupid, stupid, stupid...
What terms? I own a license to the music on the CDs I purchase - a license which has been held up in court, and is media independant.
So where exactly did I sign saying that my music has to come from the CD I purchased it on? The only 'license' I know of prevents me from duplicating it for someone else's use.
My understanding is that he has a controlling - or at least, large - percentage of the company, right? I'm sure an artist of his stature would be able to make them take notice. My guess is that he doesn't care.
Well, we wouldn't want the guy to starve, would we?
Some people just need to realize that they have more to fear from becoming irrelevant than they do from MP3. The scary thing for these people is that MP3 speeds up the process.
--- but He prefers us to take an active participatory role. ---
Why?
Humans are flawed in comparison, correct? My point was: could a human sway "god's" opinion and somehow change the result? If so, is this a good thing? If this god takes these suggestions seriously, doesn't that taint his/her actions? If he/she doesn't, doesn't that make our input worthless? I'm just trying to figure out if this would be a representative democracy, or a dictatorship.
Either way, I don't think my input would exactly be wanted.:>
(note: This post assumes for the sake of this discussion the existance of a god.)
Not exactly 'historic' as this is fairly recent, but...
I for one would like to see resolution to the West Memphis 3 murder case. The three that were convicted, for more reasons than I care to go into here, didn't receive anything even close to resembling justice. Police needed a scapegoat, victims' parents needed closure (or an alibi), and an ass-backwards community needed blood.
DNA testing could have answered the questions once and for all, but some inept or corrupt cops 'forgot' to collect evidence.
It's a nice gesture, and the sentiment might make Jason (an Cassie) feel better. In this case, you can consider prayer 'rooting' for him to get better.
Prayer seems kind of dumb to me anyhow. If there were a god, why would he/she take votes on whether or not a person should get better? Is there a limit to good deeds or something, and he/she decides by a democratic vote who survives?
Anyhow, it's a nice gesture, whether or not it does anything.
Exactly. Woz recovered well, although I'm not certain he was quite as bad off. Woz may be one of the few cases where someone nearly loses their life because he was trying to figure out a coding problem.
Consider this: These people aren't part of the community. To truly be part of a community, you have to care about it. These people obviously don't care about anyone but themselves, so they don't apply. They are parasitic infestations and nothing more.
I don't see how anyone can be like that, though. There are very few people I would ever wish an accident like this on - not even Bill Gates deserves to nearly lose his life to a drunken idiot (not to say I'd mind if his little empire collapses, but that's another story).
As a LinuxPPC user, Slashdot reader, and car crash surviver, I wish Jason the best of luck.
I telecommute fulltime, being approximately 2,000 miles away from my employer (insert plug here for Dreamhost web hosting).
It takes some getting used to, though. When I first began it took me some time to get used to partitioning my time - you have to be (or become) very focused in avoiding distractions. I don't have kids at home or anything so that helps.
The one main issue I should mention for both employees and employers is that it's important to stay in contact. If your work is something that doesn't change too much from day to day it's not too bad, but if you do any sort of project work then you need to make sure anyone and everyone at the 'home base' knows you are alive. Things like ICQ or IRC can be very helpful in that regard. I never realized how valuable it is to have regular contact with coworkers until I left my old job. I fly down there for a week every few months or so which helps immensely - it's good to know who you work with.
There can actually be fewer distractions when you work at home. After a while you can get into a work pattern that, well, works - that's very beneficial. Also, hours tend to be more flexible for people like myself who are most efficient in non-standard work times (although I've been working on getting up earlier).
On the employer side, I imagine it could be cheaper in some respects. If you streamline things enough, the savings in office space, heating, etc. can add up. I'm not an employer, so I can't say this with much authority, but it could very well depend on what kind of work is being done and the kind of people you hire.
The upshot is that telecommuting can work quite well, but you can't do things 'business as usual'. You have to determine if the kind of work you're doing can be done from remote (mine can), and if you can stand being cooped up at home for long periods of time (I can).
--- Well, The Matrix had the advantage of being the first *good* cyberpunk movie. ---
Naw. [i]Bladerunner[/i] beats The Matrix hands down when it comes to capturing Gibsonian cyberpunk. I liked The Matrix, but it's definately not in the same realm.
Yeah, I don't get it. My only guess is that some of the trolls managed to gain moderator access somehow.
I don't mind people marking me down if it is deserved, but at least they could do it right - my post could have easily been 'Offtopic' (or, as a stretch, 'Flamebait' although I wouldn't agree with that) - but 'Troll'?
I don't troll. I piss enough people off without even having to try.:>
Slashdot Mirror
Been reading 'Zealotry For Dummies' much?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Be's excuse is stupid. Apple is also a new company in that they're not spending money on stupid projects that lose them money. When a company is going out of business, do you think they're going to subsidize Be's development? Nope. Given that nobody else has had any problems with Apple's hardware, and Apple itself has brought forth not one but _2_ open-source operating systems, Be's argument is more than a little silly at this point.
Be has some ass-kicking technology, but the fact is that they can't stick with any business plan for an extended amount of time. They figured it'd be financially more beneficial to switch to X86 (and may have been right, at the time at least - no they're moving to 'IAs'), but didn't need to use the "Apple stopped us" excuse. Why should Apple stop them? They make a hardware sale anyhow, which is better than someone buying a PC, right? They just weren't willing to subsidize Be's development.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Um, the 'X' stands for 10. I believe latin predates the X Windowing system by at least a few millenia.
And yes, sales of Mac hardware subsidize OSX development. What's so wrong with that? That's how companies work - they make money, and reinvest some of it into their operations. Big deal. Nobody is forcing you to buy Mac hardware - if you don't like it, buy something else. Do you flame any other make and model of car other than the one you drive?
I can say this: Zealotry is never pretty.
Also, it sounds to me like you don't know much about Quartz, either, as it has some decent features X would do well to emulate. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
a G4 system without the OS forcibly "bundled"?
---
Probably around the time you can buy any VCR and have your choice of software bundled.
It's Apple's hardware, and it's Apple's software. It's not like they're pulling a Microsoft here and forcing other companies to not bundle alternative operating systems - they _are_ the other company. Anyone out there is free to build their own PPC based machines with LinuxPPC preinstalled. It's not their fault that nobody has done so.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Signatures have traditionally been an 'acceptable' place to put a link or short description of a person's site. It's no longer than anyone else's sig, so what's the problem?
Now, if it were spam - ie. the entire post was made for the sole purpose of promoting the person's site - then that's another thing. I handle spam as part of my job and I don't exactly view it favorably. But this is just a sig...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Fair enough. I pretty much agree with everything you've said. I personally gain much from the recording artists out there, and would love to see MP3s and successive technologies give more to those artists than the recording companies.
However, I still don't see where this applies to my.mp3.com. Like tape recorders, CD burners, etc. this service has the potential for abuse. With all of these technologies, it is very easy to abuse. Yes, this needs to be looked at. Yes, my.mp3.com should try hard to make this service secure.
But should they be sued? No. At least, not if they're not going to sue manufacturers of CD burners, tape recorders, and so on. My computer is capable of making recordings either from line-input or off of a CD - should the any member of the recording industry sue Apple next (guess what - they've already tried)?
I think the degradation issue is moot - my rights to the music I purchase don't expire in 10 years, and if I find a more viable means to back up my music, I have the right to use it. I think what people are saying is that the recording industry has the right to do whatever they wish to protect their intellectual property, _as long as_ it doesn't stomp on our rights as consumers. Suing a company that comes up with yet another mechanism to listen to your _already owned_ music is just petty.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
What is wrong with a 'me me me' mentality when all I want to do is listen to the music that I already purchased, in the manner I wanted?
I have no interest in downloading pirated MP3s. Your assumption that anyone who uses this service is incorrect - the fact that some people who use it do so illegally is not my concern. They should be dealt with accordingly as individuals - I don't believe this should preempt my rights to the music I already purchased.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Why is that a problem? The only reason I can see a record company caring is that they want the original media to degrade to the point where I have to buy another copy. That hasn't been a problem, really, since CD audio hit the mainstream.
So why is it a problem if I make a digital backup for my own use? Why is it a problem if it lasts forever? If I can keep the original media forever, why shouldn't I keep the backup forever? In the computing world we'd be pissed if we couldn't make long-term backups - why should it be any different in this case? My backups are legal today, they should be just as legal 10 years from now.
Should the recording industry stop people from making CD burners (which many people to make their own mixes)? They make exact duplicates as well.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
But that really isn't an issue, is it? To use my.mp3.com, you are required to own the original CD - correct?
Sure, you can bypass this system by sharing logins or borrowing CDs - but you can do the exact same thing with a decent tape recorder. It's just another tool that people can abuse or use right. It's up to the person.
This isn't really a distribution method, although technically data is being shuffled around. By 'beaming' your CDs, you are essentially making a copy on a server for later retrieval. You already had the original music distributed to you in the form of a CD - the record company made their cut.
I just don't see the problem. It's almost like you and a friend own the exact same CD, and your friend makes a copy to tape and gives it to you. Now you have a CD and tape copy of the same data - what's the problem? You already payed the licensing rights for that music, no?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
How could they complain about sanctions? How can you sue someone for refusing to do business with you?
While it's likely none of this cash will ever be seen, I don't see the similarity: Torturing an American citizen is one thing, but sanctions are basically refusing to deal with someone. Could you sue someone for refusing to trade something with you personally?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
I could be wrong, but a service that gives you access to your own songs seems unneccessary.
---
BTW, for some reason, this statement seems incredibly... Odd.
What is so unnecessary about a service that allows you to stream your own personally purchased music from elsewhere? I'd rather not carry my entire CD collection around with me. As long as I'm near _any_ high-speed internet connection, I'm good to go.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
What exactly is so questionable? I own a certain number of CDs - I 'beam' them to mp3.com's service, and then listen to them at my leisure. I have purchased a license to listen to the music, not the media - I am perfectly within my rights as a consumer.
This can be abused, sure. So can other types of media. Tape recorders, VCRs, TiVo, your hard-drive, your CD burner, etc. are every bit as 'guilty' as mp3.com's service is.
If the recording industry can do this to mp3.com, they'd _better_ be prepared to tell the consumer to his/her face that he/she cannot purchase a tape recorder.
And yes, they tried that once as well. Stupid, stupid, stupid...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
What terms? I own a license to the music on the CDs I purchase - a license which has been held up in court, and is media independant.
So where exactly did I sign saying that my music has to come from the CD I purchased it on? The only 'license' I know of prevents me from duplicating it for someone else's use.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
My understanding is that he has a controlling - or at least, large - percentage of the company, right? I'm sure an artist of his stature would be able to make them take notice. My guess is that he doesn't care.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Well, we wouldn't want the guy to starve, would we?
Some people just need to realize that they have more to fear from becoming irrelevant than they do from MP3. The scary thing for these people is that MP3 speeds up the process.
TOo bad for them, I guess.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I'd tell you, but you apparently can't handle basic interpersonal skills.
If you must know, dig around www.woz.org and you'll find a reference to it. Or, hope someone is more kind than I and tells you.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
:>
but He prefers us to take an active participatory role.
---
Why?
Humans are flawed in comparison, correct? My point was: could a human sway "god's" opinion and somehow change the result? If so, is this a good thing? If this god takes these suggestions seriously, doesn't that taint his/her actions? If he/she doesn't, doesn't that make our input worthless? I'm just trying to figure out if this would be a representative democracy, or a dictatorship.
Either way, I don't think my input would exactly be wanted.
(note: This post assumes for the sake of this discussion the existance of a god.)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Not exactly 'historic' as this is fairly recent, but...
I for one would like to see resolution to the West Memphis 3 murder case. The three that were convicted, for more reasons than I care to go into here, didn't receive anything even close to resembling justice. Police needed a scapegoat, victims' parents needed closure (or an alibi), and an ass-backwards community needed blood.
DNA testing could have answered the questions once and for all, but some inept or corrupt cops 'forgot' to collect evidence.
http://www.wm3.org
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
It's a nice gesture, and the sentiment might make Jason (an Cassie) feel better. In this case, you can consider prayer 'rooting' for him to get better.
Prayer seems kind of dumb to me anyhow. If there were a god, why would he/she take votes on whether or not a person should get better? Is there a limit to good deeds or something, and he/she decides by a democratic vote who survives?
Anyhow, it's a nice gesture, whether or not it does anything.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Exactly. Woz recovered well, although I'm not certain he was quite as bad off. Woz may be one of the few cases where someone nearly loses their life because he was trying to figure out a coding problem.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Consider this: These people aren't part of the community. To truly be part of a community, you have to care about it. These people obviously don't care about anyone but themselves, so they don't apply. They are parasitic infestations and nothing more.
I don't see how anyone can be like that, though. There are very few people I would ever wish an accident like this on - not even Bill Gates deserves to nearly lose his life to a drunken idiot (not to say I'd mind if his little empire collapses, but that's another story).
As a LinuxPPC user, Slashdot reader, and car crash surviver, I wish Jason the best of luck.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
No shortage of IT workers?
All I can say is, "Shh!".
Don't say these things out loud...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I telecommute fulltime, being approximately 2,000 miles away from my employer (insert plug here for Dreamhost web hosting).
It takes some getting used to, though. When I first began it took me some time to get used to partitioning my time - you have to be (or become) very focused in avoiding distractions. I don't have kids at home or anything so that helps.
The one main issue I should mention for both employees and employers is that it's important to stay in contact. If your work is something that doesn't change too much from day to day it's not too bad, but if you do any sort of project work then you need to make sure anyone and everyone at the 'home base' knows you are alive. Things like ICQ or IRC can be very helpful in that regard. I never realized how valuable it is to have regular contact with coworkers until I left my old job. I fly down there for a week every few months or so which helps immensely - it's good to know who you work with.
There can actually be fewer distractions when you work at home. After a while you can get into a work pattern that, well, works - that's very beneficial. Also, hours tend to be more flexible for people like myself who are most efficient in non-standard work times (although I've been working on getting up earlier).
On the employer side, I imagine it could be cheaper in some respects. If you streamline things enough, the savings in office space, heating, etc. can add up. I'm not an employer, so I can't say this with much authority, but it could very well depend on what kind of work is being done and the kind of people you hire.
The upshot is that telecommuting can work quite well, but you can't do things 'business as usual'. You have to determine if the kind of work you're doing can be done from remote (mine can), and if you can stand being cooped up at home for long periods of time (I can).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Well, The Matrix had the advantage of being the first *good* cyberpunk movie.
---
Naw. [i]Bladerunner[/i] beats The Matrix hands down when it comes to capturing Gibsonian cyberpunk. I liked The Matrix, but it's definately not in the same realm.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Yeah, I don't get it. My only guess is that some of the trolls managed to gain moderator access somehow.
:>
I don't mind people marking me down if it is deserved, but at least they could do it right - my post could have easily been 'Offtopic' (or, as a stretch, 'Flamebait' although I wouldn't agree with that) - but 'Troll'?
I don't troll. I piss enough people off without even having to try.
Anyhow, thanks for the support...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)