Well, I just priced out a new workstation comparing the top of the line MacPro and an equivalently configured Dell. I ended up buying the 3.0Ghz version of the MacPro for $1000 cheaper than an equivalent Dell.
That's a bit rich, but I will give that Macs are not significantly more expensive than equivilent commodity products.
However, it doesn't go the other way. There is a rainbow of choice on the commodity side that Apple cannot match, at any price, because they do not offer it. So in practice, commodity PCs are much cheaper, because you can buy only what you need, and not what you don't. And, if you want something Apple doesn't sell, you're SOL in Mac world. Some examples would be a low end laptop with a large lcd, or a high end, compact laptop. Or, any laptop with a VGA port for connecting to projectors, which generally do not have DVI inputs.
No, they're two separate arguments. In one, he says that it isn't his resposibility to enforce the rules, and in the other he says that he doesn't know how to enforce them.
I realize he's hardly a sympathetic character, but that's not an excuse for intellectual dishonesty.
Putting on my devil's advocate hat, he does have a reasonable argument. It isn't fair to ask him not to cheat while allowing others to do so, and enforcement of the rules isn't the role of a player.
The number of people buying CDs can't go up. All else being equal, that means the number of CDs being sold will remain equal at best. There's no reason to believe the quality of music will impact one and not the other.
Yes, but if you explain that first thing to them, they tend to dislike it. Which is the evil bit on Apple's part, they know very well that DRM is not in the interests of the people buying from them.
I have more than 5 friends. They have friends too. It's perfectly legal to make private copies for each other where I live. Even if they happen to be on the other side of LimeWire.
Yeah, I see how that conclusion follows those two assumptions. How about, iTunes is successful because the iPod is successful and yet, that said, most people prefer to own a CD version of their digital music. Perhaps because they can encode either lossless or at a higher bitrate than offered by iTunes?
I think most people don't consider it "buying" unless they get something physical in return.
But I guess no one will read an article that says "iPod users gradually adopting iTunes Music Store to supplement CD sales."
I doubt very much this is happening. I would suspect there is a very low crossover between the sets of people who buy CDs, and the people who pay for iTunes.
CD sales aren't growing because they *can't*. The only way to increase the number of people in the developed world who have CD players is through birth and immigration. You may as well be comparing it to phone use. Everyone has one.
There is no rational dispute on this matter. There is no physical property of ownership. Excluding metaphysics, I don't see how you could possibly disagree.
If you're going to interpret 'redistribution' to include trade, then yes, it's a basic part of society. If, however, you use the usual definition, then it only refers to fairly direct government funding to a specific group, like subsudies and welfare.
Um, no, not trade. You might want to read up on feudalism and vassalage. The guy with the biggest army would redistribute land and wealth to his generals in exchange for loyalty.
No. Bob owns his toothbrush, his church does not. End of story.
If his church decides on a communal toothbrush policy, either Bob shares his toothbrush, or he is not a member of the church. The fact that most groups aren't that strict is beside the point.
When Bob (an American) kills someone, he's not respecting the decision of the group (American citizens) to not kill, but he still is a member of the group of American citizens.
Ah, but the American group does not have a rule against killing. Murderers are not stripped of their citizenship. There are very few absolute rules in most nations. The American group *does* have rules requiring Bob to submit himself to the American justice system. If Bob kills Jane, he's still a citizen, but is required to go to court and be sentenced to a form of penance for killing Jane. Even if that penance is the death penalty, he's still a member of the group. If he refuses to submit to the justice system, he'll not be a part of the group and be forced to stay away from it.
No, the time cube nonsense is quite on par with your anti-GM FUD. Both are a joke.
You might consider taking a basic logic course, where you would learn that you cannot prove a negation. If you thing GM food will cause harm, it's up to you to prove it.
Show it happening, or be quiet about it. Virus' are not magic pixies that pick up genetic material and hand it out to school children. If you can submit a method for this actually happening and have it peer reviewed, I'll listen. Until then, you get to sit the fuck down, and shut the fuck up.
You're a bit incoherant here. If person Bob owns a toothbrush, and Bob is a member of a group, then that group owns a toothbrush. How they choose to deal with the toothbrush is up to the group. If Bob won't respect the decision of the group, he isn't a member of it, by definition.
Perhaps at the moment, but this is (historically) a fairly new concept, like fiat currency. That certainly doesn't prove that they have to have redistribution, or that redistribution is a basic property of modern nations.
No, wealth redistribution is as old as dirt, and is inherent in any stable society. It's used to pacify powerful entities, and reduce the likelyhood they'll try to just grab it. Feudalism is essentially a trade of loyalty for resources.
So, according to you, individuals really don't own anything, they just act as temporary "caretakers" of property for society?
No, no one truely "owns" anything in any real sense. It's all just social convention.
Slashdot Mirror
For security and privacy reasons, your session has timed out.
To go back to the Apple Store, please click on the link below.
Well, I just priced out a new workstation comparing the top of the line MacPro and an equivalently configured Dell. I ended up buying the 3.0Ghz version of the MacPro for $1000 cheaper than an equivalent Dell.
That's a bit rich, but I will give that Macs are not significantly more expensive than equivilent commodity products.
However, it doesn't go the other way. There is a rainbow of choice on the commodity side that Apple cannot match, at any price, because they do not offer it. So in practice, commodity PCs are much cheaper, because you can buy only what you need, and not what you don't. And, if you want something Apple doesn't sell, you're SOL in Mac world. Some examples would be a low end laptop with a large lcd, or a high end, compact laptop. Or, any laptop with a VGA port for connecting to projectors, which generally do not have DVI inputs.
No, they're two separate arguments. In one, he says that it isn't his resposibility to enforce the rules, and in the other he says that he doesn't know how to enforce them.
I realize he's hardly a sympathetic character, but that's not an excuse for intellectual dishonesty.
That's true, but it is a valid response to say that he'll stop when everyone else does. It isn't a *good* response, but it is a valid one.
And how many of those sets have support for HDMI? 0%? Which means no HD DVD/Bluray.
Putting on my devil's advocate hat, he does have a reasonable argument. It isn't fair to ask him not to cheat while allowing others to do so, and enforcement of the rules isn't the role of a player.
The number of people buying CDs can't go up. All else being equal, that means the number of CDs being sold will remain equal at best. There's no reason to believe the quality of music will impact one and not the other.
Yes, but if you explain that first thing to them, they tend to dislike it. Which is the evil bit on Apple's part, they know very well that DRM is not in the interests of the people buying from them.
I have more than 5 friends. They have friends too. It's perfectly legal to make private copies for each other where I live. Even if they happen to be on the other side of LimeWire.
"You can't give your music files to your friends" works. So does "You can't play your music files on most mp3 players".
Who said anything about intellectual debate? I talking about politics.
It already is free, and I don't have to watch ads.
How many people have 5% of their songs from the same independent record label?
I don't know about that, but I'd imagine you'd find most people purchased a lot more than 5% of their cds from one store.
Try explaining how iTunes works in laymans terms to people, and you'll find they don't like DRM very much.
Yeah, I see how that conclusion follows those two assumptions. How about, iTunes is successful because the iPod is successful and yet, that said, most people prefer to own a CD version of their digital music. Perhaps because they can encode either lossless or at a higher bitrate than offered by iTunes?
I think most people don't consider it "buying" unless they get something physical in return.
But I guess no one will read an article that says "iPod users gradually adopting iTunes Music Store to supplement CD sales."
I doubt very much this is happening. I would suspect there is a very low crossover between the sets of people who buy CDs, and the people who pay for iTunes.
CD sales aren't growing because they *can't*. The only way to increase the number of people in the developed world who have CD players is through birth and immigration. You may as well be comparing it to phone use. Everyone has one.
Ssh.
It may not be rational, but if it gets the plebes to opose DRM, it's good for everyone in the long run.
Banks create much more currency than governments do, so yes, it does essentially come from a "magic tree".
And finally, he states his underlying assumption.
There is no rational dispute on this matter. There is no physical property of ownership. Excluding metaphysics, I don't see how you could possibly disagree.
If you're going to interpret 'redistribution' to include trade, then yes, it's a basic part of society. If, however, you use the usual definition, then it only refers to fairly direct government funding to a specific group, like subsudies and welfare.
Um, no, not trade. You might want to read up on feudalism and vassalage. The guy with the biggest army would redistribute land and wealth to his generals in exchange for loyalty.
No. Bob owns his toothbrush, his church does not. End of story.
If his church decides on a communal toothbrush policy, either Bob shares his toothbrush, or he is not a member of the church. The fact that most groups aren't that strict is beside the point.
When Bob (an American) kills someone, he's not respecting the decision of the group (American citizens) to not kill, but he still is a member of the group of American citizens.
Ah, but the American group does not have a rule against killing. Murderers are not stripped of their citizenship. There are very few absolute rules in most nations. The American group *does* have rules requiring Bob to submit himself to the American justice system. If Bob kills Jane, he's still a citizen, but is required to go to court and be sentenced to a form of penance for killing Jane. Even if that penance is the death penalty, he's still a member of the group. If he refuses to submit to the justice system, he'll not be a part of the group and be forced to stay away from it.
No, the time cube nonsense is quite on par with your anti-GM FUD. Both are a joke.
You might consider taking a basic logic course, where you would learn that you cannot prove a negation. If you thing GM food will cause harm, it's up to you to prove it.
Show it happening, or be quiet about it. Virus' are not magic pixies that pick up genetic material and hand it out to school children. If you can submit a method for this actually happening and have it peer reviewed, I'll listen. Until then, you get to sit the fuck down, and shut the fuck up.
No, I don't see any arguments in there.
You're a bit incoherant here. If person Bob owns a toothbrush, and Bob is a member of a group, then that group owns a toothbrush. How they choose to deal with the toothbrush is up to the group. If Bob won't respect the decision of the group, he isn't a member of it, by definition.
Perhaps at the moment, but this is (historically) a fairly new concept, like fiat currency. That certainly doesn't prove that they have to have redistribution, or that redistribution is a basic property of modern nations.
No, wealth redistribution is as old as dirt, and is inherent in any stable society. It's used to pacify powerful entities, and reduce the likelyhood they'll try to just grab it. Feudalism is essentially a trade of loyalty for resources.
So, according to you, individuals really don't own anything, they just act as temporary "caretakers" of property for society?
No, no one truely "owns" anything in any real sense. It's all just social convention.