IANAL, but the case about books and literature is much, much more complicated than that and has a wide ranging impact on the basics of referring information on the Internet, what constitutes fair use, and what counts as a "reproduction"
Don't fall for the feelgood idiot riffing on the "Evil Google" narrative.
Its like its authors decided the age-old concept of 'files' was not good enough anymore so their software (poorly) tries to portray the real-life concept of a dusty box filled with records while dumping every song into some random folder with a cryptic filename. But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.
I'm sure you're just going to yell "FANBOI FANBOI FANBOI" at me, but seriously, if you want to use 'mv' and 'cp' to manage your files, why did you think a GUI music library program was going to be useful to you at all? Also, if you're so leet, how come you didn't figure out that you can turn off their file management features? Is it because they didn't give you a CLI tool to edit the pref file?
Consider this: to a proprietary vendor the only safe failure mode for "license management code" is one where everything stops.
That's sooo not true. How is it "safe" for any company to have a bug like this? There's many very real costs that are associated with an incident of this magnitude, this very thread is an example of the brand being hurt and customer perceptions about reliability being changed. Do you think companies enjoy the bad press and fallout with customers over things like this?
The funny thing is that these shirts tend to end up on girls that are actually cute. The difference is in the cost of exposing the lie. It's stands out when a uncute girl wears a shirt that says "cutie." Ironic goals statements aside, most girls probably want to avoid wearing a cutie shirt when they aren't cute. Whereas exposing the lie of a politician who is spinning some truthiness on the news involves much more digging around to expose the lie. So in a sense, politicians can get away with lies, while uncute girls have a much harder time. So who ends up telling the truth more often? And is.safe like an ugly girl or a politician?
I don't understand the question. Google does lots of things, do I trust google to do what? Provide good search results? Keep my email secure? Keep my private data? (answers: yes, mostly yes, and no). Regardless, these trust relationships aren't formed by some fancy domain or prolomation of security, they're developed over time through their reputation and my evaluation of them as a service provider. That's how trust should be built and maintained.
You can't just say your model is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong.
This is important to point out, because its the sort of thing that gets uptaken and repeated by people trying to paint themselves as intellectual victims: Nowhere did I say or imply that anyone who disagrees with a model is wrong. In fact, I said it's perfectly valid to criticize a model. I probably picked a bad example, but the fact is, we use models in all sorts of applications to predict behavior, and that to say that "models are only useful in fields not named climate prediction" as the great-grand parent implies is wrong.
Food for thought: We continue to test models when they show everything is all right (such as in aircraft design), when things go wrong in the model, we modify the design of the air craft. Climate change models are predicting a crash, and our reaction is the fiddle with the model. Difference? Our presumtion in air craft design is that things will probably go wrong. Our presumption in climate change is that everything will probably be all right. Is that an assuption that we really want to keep?
I just don't trust anything that comes out and says "trust me, I'm safe." This isn't a good idea, it teaches people to let their guard down as opposed to being aware of the risks of blanketly trusting a website. What if someone gets some exploit code on one of these sites? I think it'll just take a few notable hacked up website before the whole trust of.safe is lost.
Sorry your friends are getting shouted down, maybe if they had some data to prove their criticisms, they'd be more likely to be heard?
They question the methods used, such as using computer models to "prove" things (a model doesn't prove anything), the data gathered, the understanding of the system and so on.
We use data models for all sorts of shit, for example, 'proving' that the design of the aircraft you're flying in won't crash and burn on takeoff, or like better understanding the conditions that form
tornados and any number of things. Apparently you'll trust your life with data models, but when it comes to global warming, they're suddenly useless. Granted, it's completely valid to examine a particular model and critcise the flaws that is has, but that's not what you're doing, you're implying that categorically, they're not useful in understanding climate data, and that's plain wrong
All the time new areas of science open up that reveal that a long accepted theory was, in fact, an oversimplification. Doesn't mean it was a bad theory or didn't do a good job describing the facts, just that not everything was understood and now we have a better one.
So how close to 100% of all possible knowledge and accuracy of the chemical mechanism of black powder and projectile physics do you need the scientific community to have before you'll duck when someone fires a gun at you?
Apple is dominant in a particular market segment, the 'too cool for you' market segment. Just about no one else cares at all, and rather, a lot of people see Apple and die hard Apple users as elitist techno snobs.
Actually the reverse is true, no one other than a niche of computer geeks cares about the alleged techno-snobbery of mac users. Everyone else thinks Apple's commercials are funny and their computers look cool. You think mom and pop really care about the stereotypical post-cool hip punk that works the genious bar?
There's Slashdot and then there's the rest of society (which, last time I checked, is fairly large in comparison to this site).
To be honest, the whole thing worked because i had supportive parents. There was playtime and Nintendo/TV time, and there was also reading time and watching educational programming time. I mean, I sure wasted a lot of time watching crap on the TV and generally doing kids stuff, but I honestly think that played a big role in my creative development. I was free to do fun projects - things I wanted to do, like playing the violin and piano, building model airplanes or learn how to break/fix my family's computer (which is something that's led me to my current career). If I had lots of homework, those activites wouldn't be a part of my life and I think i'd be a very different person.
I didn't have homework for most of elementary school. In fact, I remember when we finally did start getting it in the sixth grade, and then it was less than 3 hours a week or so. Is dumping lots of homework on kids these days a new thing or did I just go to some hippie school? I think an important part of my development was to have time to do kids things, and even learn and explore on my own. If I'm spending all my thinking time on the things that they want me to learn, where am I supposed to get any creativity?
No offense, but that's the point! Handing over my money in exchange for goods at Best Buy shouldn't require reading some tome of rules and conditions. If they were conducting an honest business, they wouldn't be trying to slip in a bunch of "gotchas" in the fine print.
I disagree with the internal HD requirement. The size, weight, battery power it takes to drive those HD's places all sorts of constraints on the design. You're much more flexible to make an innovative industrial design if you use flash memory. There ain't nothing wrong with having 10 GB of flash storage on your phone. Take the the 60 gig iPod and the think about the extra hardware that has to go into it to make it a phone, I can't imagine that being a slim or lightweight phone. To me the crutial factors are:
The same great integation experience as with the iPod
A an excellent software interface
Great physical design (lightweight and reasonably small)
Innovative input mechanisms
Interestingly, the mp3 player market (pre-iPod) and phone market are similar in these respects: poor integration, terrible interfaces, poor industrial design and input mechanisms that are laborious to use. Apple could really drop a bomb on the cell phone market if they do this right.
You're actually missing Steve's point. He's not saying wireless sharing of music isn't a useful feature, he's saying that it's too complicated to be useful right now. So yes, he'll change his tune but only after Apple finds a way to do it "right".
Even if I set aside the flawed logic, why does the music biz get it all? What about other businesses that are hurt by "copying". Surely some of this money should go to software companies, as well as private media/content producers that distribute their work via CDs.
Damn right -- the ultimate censor is if nobody provided search services except for some sort of gov't run site where every page is cleared ahead of time.
So I'll ask, do you have any clue what you're talking about?
The only books displayed in full-text were those in the public domain (out of copyright). You only got exerpts of books that were copyrighted. But that's not the heart of the case. The publishers are suing google over the index they're creating, scanning the books and making a copy for themselves without clearing copyright. They're not doing evil, there's legitimate issues here, like whether or not this index a legit extention of the library's ability to lend books (i.e. doctrine of first sale).
Furthermore, I'd ask you on a higher level, how is it evil to make all the world's knowledge easily accessible to all? Sure there's some copyright issues here, but are you really ready to take the side of the book publishers that want to profit from keeping the world's knowledge scattered and inaccessable?
What are the book publishers doing to advance the possibilities in our digial world?
Not meant to be a troll, but what splashy and cool stuff that's appealing to the public has Microsoft done lately outside of the XBOX 360 that might merit some coverage?
It bewilders me to think that the Recording industry is wasting their money sponsoring crap studies that paint their customers as theives instead of genuinely trying to understand their changing userbase to better serve them and thus MAKE MORE MONEY.
Seriously, who is running these companies and why are investors not extremely upset about this?
... with all the other IM servies I have to sign in on at once to be in contact with everyone. MSN, AIM, misc jabber servers... and on and on. I wonder what google thinks they're going to add to chat services?
Slashdot Mirror
Twitter reports that /. has a thread that says that CNN has some info about some iPhone stuff.
A marvel of modern communication
IANAL, but the case about books and literature is much, much more complicated than that and has a wide ranging impact on the basics of referring information on the Internet, what constitutes fair use, and what counts as a "reproduction"
Don't fall for the feelgood idiot riffing on the "Evil Google" narrative.
I think by definition, you are not the savviest of users if you fall victim to a phishing attack.
I'm sure you're just going to yell "FANBOI FANBOI FANBOI" at me, but seriously, if you want to use 'mv' and 'cp' to manage your files, why did you think a GUI music library program was going to be useful to you at all? Also, if you're so leet, how come you didn't figure out that you can turn off their file management features? Is it because they didn't give you a CLI tool to edit the pref file?
That's sooo not true. How is it "safe" for any company to have a bug like this? There's many very real costs that are associated with an incident of this magnitude, this very thread is an example of the brand being hurt and customer perceptions about reliability being changed. Do you think companies enjoy the bad press and fallout with customers over things like this?
The funny thing is that these shirts tend to end up on girls that are actually cute. The difference is in the cost of exposing the lie. It's stands out when a uncute girl wears a shirt that says "cutie." Ironic goals statements aside, most girls probably want to avoid wearing a cutie shirt when they aren't cute. Whereas exposing the lie of a politician who is spinning some truthiness on the news involves much more digging around to expose the lie. So in a sense, politicians can get away with lies, while uncute girls have a much harder time. So who ends up telling the truth more often? And is .safe like an ugly girl or a politician?
I don't understand the question. Google does lots of things, do I trust google to do what? Provide good search results? Keep my email secure? Keep my private data? (answers: yes, mostly yes, and no). Regardless, these trust relationships aren't formed by some fancy domain or prolomation of security, they're developed over time through their reputation and my evaluation of them as a service provider. That's how trust should be built and maintained.
You can't just say your model is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong.
This is important to point out, because its the sort of thing that gets uptaken and repeated by people trying to paint themselves as intellectual victims: Nowhere did I say or imply that anyone who disagrees with a model is wrong. In fact, I said it's perfectly valid to criticize a model. I probably picked a bad example, but the fact is, we use models in all sorts of applications to predict behavior, and that to say that "models are only useful in fields not named climate prediction" as the great-grand parent implies is wrong.
Food for thought: We continue to test models when they show everything is all right (such as in aircraft design), when things go wrong in the model, we modify the design of the air craft. Climate change models are predicting a crash, and our reaction is the fiddle with the model. Difference? Our presumtion in air craft design is that things will probably go wrong. Our presumption in climate change is that everything will probably be all right. Is that an assuption that we really want to keep?
I just don't trust anything that comes out and says "trust me, I'm safe." This isn't a good idea, it teaches people to let their guard down as opposed to being aware of the risks of blanketly trusting a website. What if someone gets some exploit code on one of these sites? I think it'll just take a few notable hacked up website before the whole trust of .safe is lost.
Sorry your friends are getting shouted down, maybe if they had some data to prove their criticisms, they'd be more likely to be heard?
They question the methods used, such as using computer models to "prove" things (a model doesn't prove anything), the data gathered, the understanding of the system and so on.We use data models for all sorts of shit, for example, 'proving' that the design of the aircraft you're flying in won't crash and burn on takeoff, or like better understanding the conditions that form tornados and any number of things. Apparently you'll trust your life with data models, but when it comes to global warming, they're suddenly useless. Granted, it's completely valid to examine a particular model and critcise the flaws that is has, but that's not what you're doing, you're implying that categorically, they're not useful in understanding climate data, and that's plain wrong
All the time new areas of science open up that reveal that a long accepted theory was, in fact, an oversimplification. Doesn't mean it was a bad theory or didn't do a good job describing the facts, just that not everything was understood and now we have a better one.So how close to 100% of all possible knowledge and accuracy of the chemical mechanism of black powder and projectile physics do you need the scientific community to have before you'll duck when someone fires a gun at you?
Apple is dominant in a particular market segment, the 'too cool for you' market segment. Just about no one else cares at all, and rather, a lot of people see Apple and die hard Apple users as elitist techno snobs.
Actually the reverse is true, no one other than a niche of computer geeks cares about the alleged techno-snobbery of mac users. Everyone else thinks Apple's commercials are funny and their computers look cool. You think mom and pop really care about the stereotypical post-cool hip punk that works the genious bar?
There's Slashdot and then there's the rest of society (which, last time I checked, is fairly large in comparison to this site).
If we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age on the Internet
Too bad the moon landing never happened!
To be honest, the whole thing worked because i had supportive parents. There was playtime and Nintendo/TV time, and there was also reading time and watching educational programming time. I mean, I sure wasted a lot of time watching crap on the TV and generally doing kids stuff, but I honestly think that played a big role in my creative development. I was free to do fun projects - things I wanted to do, like playing the violin and piano, building model airplanes or learn how to break/fix my family's computer (which is something that's led me to my current career). If I had lots of homework, those activites wouldn't be a part of my life and I think i'd be a very different person.
I didn't have homework for most of elementary school. In fact, I remember when we finally did start getting it in the sixth grade, and then it was less than 3 hours a week or so. Is dumping lots of homework on kids these days a new thing or did I just go to some hippie school? I think an important part of my development was to have time to do kids things, and even learn and explore on my own. If I'm spending all my thinking time on the things that they want me to learn, where am I supposed to get any creativity?
No offense, but that's the point! Handing over my money in exchange for goods at Best Buy shouldn't require reading some tome of rules and conditions. If they were conducting an honest business, they wouldn't be trying to slip in a bunch of "gotchas" in the fine print.
- The same great integation experience as with the iPod
- A an excellent software interface
- Great physical design (lightweight and reasonably small)
- Innovative input mechanisms
Interestingly, the mp3 player market (pre-iPod) and phone market are similar in these respects: poor integration, terrible interfaces, poor industrial design and input mechanisms that are laborious to use. Apple could really drop a bomb on the cell phone market if they do this right.You're actually missing Steve's point. He's not saying wireless sharing of music isn't a useful feature, he's saying that it's too complicated to be useful right now. So yes, he'll change his tune but only after Apple finds a way to do it "right".
Even if I set aside the flawed logic, why does the music biz get it all? What about other businesses that are hurt by "copying". Surely some of this money should go to software companies, as well as private media/content producers that distribute their work via CDs.
Damn right -- the ultimate censor is if nobody provided search services except for some sort of gov't run site where every page is cleared ahead of time.
You might have a point if this was a laptop chip, but it's not. You should have stopped after "isn't typical of Intel processors"
So I'll ask, do you have any clue what you're talking about?
The only books displayed in full-text were those in the public domain (out of copyright). You only got exerpts of books that were copyrighted. But that's not the heart of the case. The publishers are suing google over the index they're creating, scanning the books and making a copy for themselves without clearing copyright. They're not doing evil, there's legitimate issues here, like whether or not this index a legit extention of the library's ability to lend books (i.e. doctrine of first sale).
Furthermore, I'd ask you on a higher level, how is it evil to make all the world's knowledge easily accessible to all? Sure there's some copyright issues here, but are you really ready to take the side of the book publishers that want to profit from keeping the world's knowledge scattered and inaccessable?
What are the book publishers doing to advance the possibilities in our digial world?
Not meant to be a troll, but what splashy and cool stuff that's appealing to the public has Microsoft done lately outside of the XBOX 360 that might merit some coverage?
It bewilders me to think that the Recording industry is wasting their money sponsoring crap studies that paint their customers as theives instead of genuinely trying to understand their changing userbase to better serve them and thus MAKE MORE MONEY.
Seriously, who is running these companies and why are investors not extremely upset about this?
... with all the other IM servies I have to sign in on at once to be in contact with everyone. MSN, AIM, misc jabber servers... and on and on. I wonder what google thinks they're going to add to chat services?
Direct to DVD? Does this mean we get an uncut version never intended for television?
*gasp* lets all hope Zap Brannigan's hem line doesn't creep any higher.
Come Kiff! Hold up my blur circle so as not to traumatize my audience!