.. at least, it is for me. I bought some music from iTunes a while ago, when my iPod was still working, and - oh the irony - lost it when I switched over to a Mac Mini. So what did I do? I tried to download the music in question, since I'd paid for it, right? Apparently not - once you've downloaded music on iTunes, you don't get to download it again. What a waste of money.
This is your fault for not reading the terms of service, which are quite clear that you are paying for the rights to the song and the bandwidth to download them once.
When you are selling literally billions of tracks, letting everyone re-download their files over and over again is a great way to burn cash. Apple's bandwidth bill would be simply ridiculous if they permitted it. iTunes isn't like the new version of Windows Media Player which will let you back up your files, but not the licenses that go with them. You can put the files anywhere, on as many computers as you like and request that any computer they are on be authorized to play them, with a maximum of 5 computers authorized to actually play them at any given time. You can individually authorize and de-authorize computers at will, as often as you like, or manually de-authorize them all at once once a year if you reach the maximum number of authorized computers. Not the "You can only authorize 5 computers and if you want to change that you can only do it once a year" misinformation that is always talked about.
iTunes has an integrated backup feature that will sync your entire library or just purchased files to CDs or DVDs.
You are just another in a long line of customers that don't bother to pay attention to the terms they agreed to, only to be surprised when things don't turn out the way they want them to.
It is just as slow, crashy, inconvinient and annoying as the rest (With a few less annoying "update me" popups than Windows, perhaps).
I've never known anyone to consider OS X as crash-prone as Windows.
Expose is cool, and the smooth movements of some appearing windows (rather than a one-frame screen-update) is also nice. But these are the only 2 serious improvements I've seen. Things are still very slow to launch, programs crash, and things fail for configuration reasons.
Programs are slow, crash-prone and things can be misconfigured? That's obviously the OS's fault!
It doesn't have any easy and useful way of exposing available keyboard shortcuts (as in KDE's readily available shortcut settings dialogs, Emacs's show-keybindings command, etc).
The keyboard shortcuts are listed directly next to the menu option in drop-down menus. Example
For people with a background of both Windows and KDE, who had no troubles with either or with Gnome/etc, it is still very difficult to figure out how to make shortcuts to applications, copy files (rather than make shortcuts), etc.
It's under the FILE
menu under "Make Alias" and in the right-click contextual menu
under "Make Alias". I'm not sure how this could be implemented in a more effective manner.
All in all, the Mac is yet-another-lousy-GUI, in my opinion.
A computer is not a GUI.
Disclaimer: I'm a KDE fan [though I believe all of today's GUIs, including KDE are very lousy], and not too fond of closed-source applications in general.
I think you mean to say "It's different from what I'm used to and it's closed-source, therefore I hate it."
One of my fellow goons created this to illustrate the mentality of someone going through the Windows > OS X switch, and I thought it was relevant to this discussion, as it perfectly illustrates the joy and agony of moving from one platform to another:
No mention of the flute from 'The Inner Light' that Picard played. I was thinking of putting in an absentee bid on that, but I knew no way I'd get it. I think they first listed it for something like $300, then upped it to $800 because of interest. Can't imagine what it really went for.
"Mongoloid"
Don't use it at work or your ass will be out of the door in a snap.
I know this, the use of it was in the context of satire. I was attempting to parody the rabid, inane "OMG YOU FAGGOT, WHY DO YOU USE THAT CONSOLE??!?!?!?!!?" crew that haven't developed proper communication skills yet. I don't use that word in everyday life, and never plan to. My choice to apply it here was simply to highlight the stupidity of the certain segment of the population I referred to.
The book sounds terrible, but I will agree that a large number of developers are blinded by egoism.
Spend a little time and you will find countless projects dividing talent among slightly different versions of the same thing and developers who really don't understand their users and don't want to understand them. "If they want something to be different, have them code it themselves!" is a tired refrain, but it points to a mentality of software for the developer, not the wider audience. While I'll admit that it can be good to mess around and create something primarily for yourself, when your goal is widespread adoption of your product, it certainly helps to consider what the end user wants to achieve, and what their standards for usability are.
Software development too often gets mired down in pissing contests, personal rivalries, egoism and Not Invented Here Syndrome and makes the developers appear amateurish and unreliable. This reflects poorly on their software, and we are left to hear them piss and moan about how their great app just can't make any headway against an entrenched rival.
Sometimes the competitor uses unethical tactics, sometimes users are just afraid/can't afford change. Other times however, the developer just wrote the software for themselves and never took the end market into account.
Something I've always wondered: How come people on Slashdot are normally of the mindset: I would never use a Micro$oft product ever unless I had to, my entire home setup is based around Linux even where that reduces convenience, if you help Micro$oft, you are a terrorist, Bill Gates is a cyborg , but then, no one bats an eyelid when someone castually mentions their Xbox -- a completely unnecessary Microsoft purchase?
I think it may have something to do with the fact both Sony and Nintendo have thrown their respective weight around the gaming market to the detriment of consumers and developers, which renders any value judgments regarding Microsoft's tactics in the console arena to be mostly null when it comes to selecting a system.
If all three major players have had a history of the same thing, then it really comes down to purchasing the console that will have the most value to you. JRPG fans should buy a PS3, action gamers often find the Xbox/Xbox 360 to be a good fit, while the fans of quirky games and Nintendo's established franchises might want to hold out for a Wii. Which is not to say that anyone is restricted to a particular platform if their finances permit.
For the fanboys who can't stomach what I just said, I'll translate that statement into trollspeak:
If you want to sit around and watch cutscenes all day, buy a PS3. If graphics are the only thing you consider when buying a game, go for a 360, if you want kiddie games for mongoloids, put down a pre-order for a Wii.
In the U.S. educational system there is currently a very strong bias towards math. Since math skills are so essential, school systems are willing to overlook problems with reading and writing as long as a student is progressing well in algebra, calculus, geometry, etc. The reverse never seems to be the case, however. A student proficient in math who has trouble reading and writing is "gifted", while a student proficient in reading and writing who struggles through math lessons is "special".
One will get you a pass, so-to-speak, and another limits your academic horizons significantly.
Having problems in either subject will likely result in problems down the line in higher education and the Real World, but a complete lack of verbal and written skills is often not enough to force educators to pay closer attention.
I recognize the importance of software licenses, especially the GPL, but I've come to the inescapable conclusion that many of the major players in OSS have an insatiable need to spend enormous amounts of time bickering about licensing minutiae.
Every week brings a new drama-bomb in the endless pissing contests and personal rivalries/vendettas. If half the energy expended to one up, or argue with another developer was put into the development process, an untold number of projects might be a bit further along. One thing you can say about closed-source software is that the financial pressures end up stifling a great deal of the petty childishness that seems to pervade the OSS community, and taints its image in the process.
Don't get me wrong, you still get this sort of crap on the closed-source side of things - "I don't want to use your standard...I want to reinvent the wheel for this app..." etc, but it's not at the forefront. Human nature dictates that you will find these problems everywhere, but in the corporate, closed-source enviroment, it comes down to one conclusion - eventually the project needs to get done.
If OSS wants to gain more acceptance, it needs to put this sort of thing aside and get back to the core issue - it's the code, dammit. None of the present issues with the community are insurmountable, but direct action needs to be taken, these problems are not going to going away on their own. Rampant egoism, Not Invented Here Syndrome, coder-centric, not user-centric development methodologies...these all slow the pace of progress and paint open source in a very bad light.
OSS has a large community of smart people, and I just think it can do a whole lot better.
"Our ideal," Kutaragi said, "is for consumers to think to themselves, 'OK, I'll work more hours and buy it.' We want people to feel that they want it, no matter what."
I'm not one to assume that I deserve to get a PS3, 360 or Wii, but Kutaragi's comments border on insulting.
Yes, I know that if I want to purchase consumer goods that I need to work to earn money to be able to afford them. I have no problem with this, the problem I have is that Kutaragi's attitude is one of "The price is not our problem, the price is your problem, do something about it."
If you own a business, and your product is rejected by the market fot being too expensive, then you either deal with the lost sales or change your pricing structure. If you cannot do the former because it would hurt your bottom line, and you cannot do the latter because your have designed a product with a very high materials cost, then it's your problem, not that of your potential customers.
Depends on what the argument is. If the argument is that any company can make a mistake, sure, okay, thanks for using up the ol' bandwidth Captain Obvious. If the argument is that Nintendo has a propensity for making mistakes like that, then no, it is not 100% valid.
Your corporate loyalty seems to be getting in the way of analyzing my original statement. Try re-reading it again as a post expressing legitimate concern, and not as an attack on a company you hold an affection for.
The argument may be old, but the fact remains that many competant companies with good track records release products with obvious usability flaws despite the usual testing procedures that have ensured that earlier products have been relatively problem free and quite usable.
I was not attempting to say "NINTENDO IS F-ING US AGAIN!" or anything of that nature, but simply to express that in my view, after some simple and quite forgiving tests, that the Wii controller still has some questionable design aspects that give me pause when I find myself tempted to join the chorus of praise for their latest innovation.
Don't get me wrong, the Wii controller is quite innovative, but there are some rather glaring questions that have yet to be answered.
Damn... if only Nintendo had thought to test the controller for 30-40min consecutively, they could have noticed this problem and corrected it before release.... too late now....... why didn't you say something sooner?!
Joke all you want, but the Virtual Boy proves Nintendo - like almost every company - doesn't always think things through as well as it should.
"Of course, with Republicans owning (not by 2/3 thank god) the majority in the house, the majority in the senate and the white house, what else would you expect?"
To be perfectly honest, I don't think you could really expect Democrats to do much better. The party has cozied up to Bush and the GOP to such an extent in recent years that they have completely lost the will to provide any real challenge to the administration beyond the occasional displeased remark, or half-hearted disagreement with a particular bill/nominee/etc.
They let Bush have his way for so long, I don't even think they realize how pathetic they've become.
Does anyone else think that the Wii controller might just get a wee bit annoying to use after a while?
It seems like one of those really awesome ideas until you think about holding your arm in the air and waving it around for a couple of hours. Perhaps it's just me, but I see a decent potential for a good number of people to just get really turned off by the design after a relatively short time.
Try sitting down, picking up a remote control and waving it in front of you at a slow pace for about five minutes. Imagine doing that for at least 30-40min to an hour or more at a time. I can't see how that could be comfortable. (for the purposes of my experimentation, I've used an Apple Remote which is smaller and lighter than the Wii controller, as well as standard TV/Cable box remotes)
What a wonderful way to reward laziness. And hey, while you're at it, pad your pockets through your podcast? Ridiculous.
I tend to agree, but there are some classes where missing a day or two because of illness or some other, non-voluntary situation can absolutely destroy your progress in the course.
and it pisses me off how videos doesn't have a section now jus a playlist. but I can't even play iTMS videos yet because you need the new quicktime that isn't on software update yet.
Their manufacturing plant, which no doubt produces some toxic chemicals, is in a town called East Fishkill? There's gotta be an interesting story behind that name:)
"Kill" means "Fresh Water Channel" in Dutch. Since New York City was once called "New Amsterdam" for a good reason, you can understand why the word "kill" pops up all over the place. It was however, a cringe-worthy experience hearing about all of the World Trade Center debris being taken to the Fresh Kills landfill five years ago. I could imagine how people all over the country were reacting to hearing the name over and over again, without any explanation from newscasters as to what "kill" meant in this particular context.
To those unknowledgeable about the origins of the word, it sounded like New Yorkers had particularly horrific taste.
Wasnt there an article on slashdot regarding a company that did reverse evaluations? Anonymous evaluation of your supervisor and CEO, CFO etc.
I worked for a large property management company in the Mid-South that implemented such a system for their managers.
The fatal flaw in the system was claiming it was anonymous, but placing our names at the top of each page we were supposed to write our "honest" comment on. The excuse was that they needed to make sure only their subordinates responded - despite the fact we were all sat down together and supervised by someone in HR.
Needless to say, our managers got glowing reviews because no one trusted HR to keep the information to themselves.
Disclaimer: I believe this,"product" like many other claims, is just a scam. Nothing more. I would like to address the distinction between obvious scams like this, and attempts by experienced scientists to pursue their ideas.
In the scientific community there is often an understandable impetus to wholeheartedly dismiss anything that goes against the established laws. This makes an enormous amount of sense, as scientific laws do not become laws without absolutely overwhelming consensus that anything else is not even remotely possible.
That being said, it seems to be absolute arrogance to assume that there is absolutely zero chance of a discovery that contradicts what has been well-established as being a hard law of science, and such an attitude that goes against the very ideal that has produced some of history's most innovative discoveries. Which is not to say that someone who approaches you with an idea that goes against every bit of science you have ever been taught should be given the benefit of the doubt, but on occasion I've seen reputable people propose the possibility of a dissenting theory only to be dismissed with "No, it's not possible, you are an idiot if you even look into the chance that science may be wrong."
Curtailing academic ambitions because you believe the human mind has figured out an aspect of the universe to such an extent that nothing can possibly challenge that belief is rather ridiculous. This is not to say that people should be openly accepting of radical ideas that attempt to dispel well-proven theories and laws, but if someone accepts that the burden of proof is entirely on them, and does not attempt to use it as a VC scam (like the one we are probably witnessing here), or a means to suck up more than a very modest amount of grant money, then I really don't see the problem.
You can say that they are wasting their time, and most of them probably are, but they should at least be given the respect one who chooses to test the frontiers deserves.
Slashdot Mirror
When you are selling literally billions of tracks, letting everyone re-download their files over and over again is a great way to burn cash. Apple's bandwidth bill would be simply ridiculous if they permitted it. iTunes isn't like the new version of Windows Media Player which will let you back up your files, but not the licenses that go with them. You can put the files anywhere, on as many computers as you like and request that any computer they are on be authorized to play them, with a maximum of 5 computers authorized to actually play them at any given time. You can individually authorize and de-authorize computers at will, as often as you like, or manually de-authorize them all at once once a year if you reach the maximum number of authorized computers. Not the "You can only authorize 5 computers and if you want to change that you can only do it once a year" misinformation that is always talked about.
iTunes has an integrated backup feature that will sync your entire library or just purchased files to CDs or DVDs.
You are just another in a long line of customers that don't bother to pay attention to the terms they agreed to, only to be surprised when things don't turn out the way they want them to.
I've never known anyone to consider OS X as crash-prone as Windows.
Programs are slow, crash-prone and things can be misconfigured? That's obviously the OS's fault!
The keyboard shortcuts are listed directly next to the menu option in drop-down menus. Example
It's under the FILE menu under "Make Alias" and in the right-click contextual menu under "Make Alias". I'm not sure how this could be implemented in a more effective manner.
A computer is not a GUI.
I think you mean to say "It's different from what I'm used to and it's closed-source, therefore I hate it."
One of my fellow goons created this to illustrate the mentality of someone going through the Windows > OS X switch, and I thought it was relevant to this discussion, as it perfectly illustrates the joy and agony of moving from one platform to another:
The OS X Satisfaction Chart
I apologize if I offended you.
The book sounds terrible, but I will agree that a large number of developers are blinded by egoism.
Spend a little time and you will find countless projects dividing talent among slightly different versions of the same thing and developers who really don't understand their users and don't want to understand them. "If they want something to be different, have them code it themselves!" is a tired refrain, but it points to a mentality of software for the developer, not the wider audience. While I'll admit that it can be good to mess around and create something primarily for yourself, when your goal is widespread adoption of your product, it certainly helps to consider what the end user wants to achieve, and what their standards for usability are.
Software development too often gets mired down in pissing contests, personal rivalries, egoism and Not Invented Here Syndrome and makes the developers appear amateurish and unreliable. This reflects poorly on their software, and we are left to hear them piss and moan about how their great app just can't make any headway against an entrenched rival.
Sometimes the competitor uses unethical tactics, sometimes users are just afraid/can't afford change. Other times however, the developer just wrote the software for themselves and never took the end market into account.
If all three major players have had a history of the same thing, then it really comes down to purchasing the console that will have the most value to you. JRPG fans should buy a PS3, action gamers often find the Xbox/Xbox 360 to be a good fit, while the fans of quirky games and Nintendo's established franchises might want to hold out for a Wii. Which is not to say that anyone is restricted to a particular platform if their finances permit.
For the fanboys who can't stomach what I just said, I'll translate that statement into trollspeak:
If you want to sit around and watch cutscenes all day, buy a PS3. If graphics are the only thing you consider when buying a game, go for a 360, if you want kiddie games for mongoloids, put down a pre-order for a Wii.
Surprising people with free food can land you in court.
In the U.S. educational system there is currently a very strong bias towards math. Since math skills are so essential, school systems are willing to overlook problems with reading and writing as long as a student is progressing well in algebra, calculus, geometry, etc. The reverse never seems to be the case, however. A student proficient in math who has trouble reading and writing is "gifted", while a student proficient in reading and writing who struggles through math lessons is "special".
One will get you a pass, so-to-speak, and another limits your academic horizons significantly.
Having problems in either subject will likely result in problems down the line in higher education and the Real World, but a complete lack of verbal and written skills is often not enough to force educators to pay closer attention.
Hire one? I've built an entire company with the combined efforts of former Black Hats.
Y-Crate
CEO - Setec Astronomy
I recognize the importance of software licenses, especially the GPL, but I've come to the inescapable conclusion that many of the major players in OSS have an insatiable need to spend enormous amounts of time bickering about licensing minutiae.
Every week brings a new drama-bomb in the endless pissing contests and personal rivalries/vendettas. If half the energy expended to one up, or argue with another developer was put into the development process, an untold number of projects might be a bit further along. One thing you can say about closed-source software is that the financial pressures end up stifling a great deal of the petty childishness that seems to pervade the OSS community, and taints its image in the process.
Don't get me wrong, you still get this sort of crap on the closed-source side of things - "I don't want to use your standard...I want to reinvent the wheel for this app..." etc, but it's not at the forefront. Human nature dictates that you will find these problems everywhere, but in the corporate, closed-source enviroment, it comes down to one conclusion - eventually the project needs to get done.
If OSS wants to gain more acceptance, it needs to put this sort of thing aside and get back to the core issue - it's the code, dammit. None of the present issues with the community are insurmountable, but direct action needs to be taken, these problems are not going to going away on their own. Rampant egoism, Not Invented Here Syndrome, coder-centric, not user-centric development methodologies...these all slow the pace of progress and paint open source in a very bad light.
OSS has a large community of smart people, and I just think it can do a whole lot better.
Yes, I know that if I want to purchase consumer goods that I need to work to earn money to be able to afford them. I have no problem with this, the problem I have is that Kutaragi's attitude is one of "The price is not our problem, the price is your problem, do something about it."
If you own a business, and your product is rejected by the market fot being too expensive, then you either deal with the lost sales or change your pricing structure. If you cannot do the former because it would hurt your bottom line, and you cannot do the latter because your have designed a product with a very high materials cost, then it's your problem, not that of your potential customers.
This shit is nothing. I'm putting the finishing touches on a process that will turn diamonds into multifunction printer paper.
I was not attempting to say "NINTENDO IS F-ING US AGAIN!" or anything of that nature, but simply to express that in my view, after some simple and quite forgiving tests, that the Wii controller still has some questionable design aspects that give me pause when I find myself tempted to join the chorus of praise for their latest innovation.
Don't get me wrong, the Wii controller is quite innovative, but there are some rather glaring questions that have yet to be answered.
They let Bush have his way for so long, I don't even think they realize how pathetic they've become.
Does anyone else think that the Wii controller might just get a wee bit annoying to use after a while?
It seems like one of those really awesome ideas until you think about holding your arm in the air and waving it around for a couple of hours. Perhaps it's just me, but I see a decent potential for a good number of people to just get really turned off by the design after a relatively short time.
Try sitting down, picking up a remote control and waving it in front of you at a slow pace for about five minutes. Imagine doing that for at least 30-40min to an hour or more at a time. I can't see how that could be comfortable. (for the purposes of my experimentation, I've used an Apple Remote which is smaller and lighter than the Wii controller, as well as standard TV/Cable box remotes)
To those unknowledgeable about the origins of the word, it sounded like New Yorkers had particularly horrific taste.
The fatal flaw in the system was claiming it was anonymous, but placing our names at the top of each page we were supposed to write our "honest" comment on. The excuse was that they needed to make sure only their subordinates responded - despite the fact we were all sat down together and supervised by someone in HR.
Needless to say, our managers got glowing reviews because no one trusted HR to keep the information to themselves.
Disclaimer: I believe this,"product" like many other claims, is just a scam. Nothing more. I would like to address the distinction between obvious scams like this, and attempts by experienced scientists to pursue their ideas.
In the scientific community there is often an understandable impetus to wholeheartedly dismiss anything that goes against the established laws. This makes an enormous amount of sense, as scientific laws do not become laws without absolutely overwhelming consensus that anything else is not even remotely possible.
That being said, it seems to be absolute arrogance to assume that there is absolutely zero chance of a discovery that contradicts what has been well-established as being a hard law of science, and such an attitude that goes against the very ideal that has produced some of history's most innovative discoveries. Which is not to say that someone who approaches you with an idea that goes against every bit of science you have ever been taught should be given the benefit of the doubt, but on occasion I've seen reputable people propose the possibility of a dissenting theory only to be dismissed with "No, it's not possible, you are an idiot if you even look into the chance that science may be wrong."
Curtailing academic ambitions because you believe the human mind has figured out an aspect of the universe to such an extent that nothing can possibly challenge that belief is rather ridiculous. This is not to say that people should be openly accepting of radical ideas that attempt to dispel well-proven theories and laws, but if someone accepts that the burden of proof is entirely on them, and does not attempt to use it as a VC scam (like the one we are probably witnessing here), or a means to suck up more than a very modest amount of grant money, then I really don't see the problem.
You can say that they are wasting their time, and most of them probably are, but they should at least be given the respect one who chooses to test the frontiers deserves.