Well, time for one, having to record all the information about where each file was stored, what it's name was etc. It would either eat memory, or create a huge log file. You may only have a hundred files, but there are people with several thousand files. And of course, it would need to keep the log file until you manualy delete it since you may decide after a day that you don't like the new scheme.
And of course there is the matter of, should it undo the organization if you uninstall? Or should it leave it like that? What happens if you add some new files? Should it remember where those were too?
Doesn't it seem more sensable to assume your user is intelligent enough to process the question "Do you want iTunes to organize your music?" It stands to reason if you like your current organization scheme, that you would say no.
Think about it for a second. You move one file (or multiple files at once) hit undo, and it undoes the last move.
How many moves do you think iTunes does? Between creating a new directory structure, and moving each song to it's new location, what good would an undo do you? Take back the last song it moved?
There has never been an undo option for changes to file locations on the drive.
And how could you not know what it means? It seems pretty clear to me.
Organize your MP3s means just that. It's simple english, so unless english is your second or third language, I don't see where there could be confusion.
You expected an honest evaluation from As the Apple Turns? You are an idiot aren't you? Let me guess, you also expect a comprehensive analysis of celebrity happenings from the Enquirer and the Sun
Are you windows users so hard set in your ways of having to outsmart your system that you can't grasp the concept of when a program asks if you want to have iTunes organize your MP3s and you say yes that it will actualy do what it says?
The terminal is set by default to ask you if you want to quit if you have processes running. If you turned that off, it's your fault for not thinking ahead.
Your ignorance into how the mind of a consumer works leads me to wonder why you posted. Just because something is technicaly superior does not make it the superior product for the target consumer. On a server level, yes, linux and it's brethren are superior to windows, however, on a desktop level, a level targeted at the mass consumer market, Linux is the inferior product because it is difficult to use and maintain properly.
To continue with the all too popular car analogies:
Linux is like a manual transmission car. Technicaly it's superior, if you know how to use it properly.
But to average consumers, an automatic is the superior product because it requires minimal effort on the part of the consumer to accomplish the same task.
No one said it had to be vastly profitable, it just has to make ends meet. People will pay for music because people will pay for that which they enjoy. But just because it isn't a multi billion dollar industry does not make it a doomed industry.
That was hundreds of years ago, there's no way the founders could have anticipated the future of this country.
Modern communication is much easier today than it was back then. Everyone and their mother can write and publish things without a printing press. There's complete anonmity and no accountability. It's much easier to spread lies and information that is dangerous to people. The founders sure as hell didn't anticipate anrchists having websites accessable from every school building.
The problem with the US is that there are a lot of paranoid voters who only care about one issue. Pro-Free speech groups are quite happy to vote all their rights away.
Besides, do you really think you being able to say what you want is going to change anything? When push comes to shove, the government can lock you up and ductape your mouth.
Down with free speech.... maybe you should rethink that "out dated" argument
So you mean to tell me that the framers of the constitution. The same people who had just used civil insurrection to overthrow a tyranical government and free themselves speciicaly wrote into the constitution a law prohibiting them from owning guns, the very thing they just used to win a war? Think about that.
I may not know everything that's going on, but having been an Apple customer since the early 90's I think I have a pretty damn good idea of how the company operates (or as good of an idea as a customer can get without being inside). I think I could probably make a better educated guess based on past behavior than you could based on an anonymous paraphrase.
Because we all know that america is made up only of Oaklahoma, Wyoming and Fox news right? Give me a fucking break. Just about everyone I come across hates GWB, usualy for no good reason (or if they have a good reason, they don't understand it). If you believe the election numbers only a minority of the US actualy likes and supports GWB, and everyone else hates him.
Here's the deal. If GWB had vetoed the bill, the very first headline out of CNN would have been:
"Bush vetoes act to increase american security"
and the same people that pissed and moaned that the FBI hadn't done enough to stop 9/11 (many of whom were the same people in the streets of NY with Bush=Hitler signs) would have been decrying th epresident as a traitor to america.
For some strange reason, companies balk at spending, say, $2000 to license code; and they seemingly have no problem spending a lot more than that to have it written in-house (developer salary to write, debug, document; plus loaded cost of developer time: health insurace, office space, equipment use, etc).
Just a thought, but that might have something to do with if they write it in house, they maintain full controll and rights to the code as well as have the option to profit not only from the finished product, but from licensing their own code.
Maybe it's just me, but could this be a reason why the GPL has a hard time being accepted outside of the RMS following community? Wouldnt it have made more sense to design the GPL so that any direct changes to the source (of the GPLed code) had to be released, and they had to release the code that hooks the GPLed code into their program (what functions it calls etc) but beyond that they shouldn't be required to release any other code?
I think that would tend to promote the use of GPL much better.
In a highsecurity area, where you are concerned because recently there have been car bombings, a vehicle that is not stopping at a checkpoint but instead speeding through is a threat and valid target.
Does it suck that in the end there was no real danger, yes, but such is life in and arround combat areas.
It's not a poll test. The ballot was designed and approved by both political parties. The instructions on the ballot are quite clear, and all polling places are required to have someone on hand to assist those who are confused or disabled. In the end, this is a voter disenfranchising themselves.
I get it now, so when the vote is close, then we care that people get votes. But if it's not so close, then we don't care who's disenfranchised. Got it.
You also assume that the people voting for bush were just as incompetant as the people voting for gore. Is it not possible that the bush voters actualy read the damn ballot?
It was pure and simple stupidity on the part of the voter, and failure to vote properly is a failure to vote. No one is to blame but the voter for not reading things clearly. They caused their own vote not to be counted.
Even the statement "I don't know of any plans to patch" could easily have been translated as a no by anyone. Corporate and government doublespeak often use "I don't know of any plans" to say no, but cover their ass if plans change. But since there was no official statement from Apple, he spoke to one person, and could not even provide a direct quote, I would take the statement with a grain of salt.
It's not different than the "anonymous sources close to the whitehouse said..." those sources could just have easily been the president or the janitor. That is why you should take anonymous statements with a grain of salt.
No one is trying to rewrite history, as there was no definative statement from Apple.
One person's "initial conversations" That could have been as simple as him calling tech support and asking the question. Or asking one of the employees at the apple store. Not everyone in Apple knows everything that's going on at every minute.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, time for one, having to record all the information about where each file was stored, what it's name was etc. It would either eat memory, or create a huge log file. You may only have a hundred files, but there are people with several thousand files. And of course, it would need to keep the log file until you manualy delete it since you may decide after a day that you don't like the new scheme.
And of course there is the matter of, should it undo the organization if you uninstall? Or should it leave it like that? What happens if you add some new files? Should it remember where those were too?
Doesn't it seem more sensable to assume your user is intelligent enough to process the question "Do you want iTunes to organize your music?" It stands to reason if you like your current organization scheme, that you would say no.
Think about it for a second. You move one file (or multiple files at once) hit undo, and it undoes the last move.
How many moves do you think iTunes does? Between creating a new directory structure, and moving each song to it's new location, what good would an undo do you? Take back the last song it moved?
There has never been an undo option for changes to file locations on the drive.
And how could you not know what it means? It seems pretty clear to me.
Organize your MP3s means just that. It's simple english, so unless english is your second or third language, I don't see where there could be confusion.
You expected an honest evaluation from As the Apple Turns? You are an idiot aren't you? Let me guess, you also expect a comprehensive analysis of celebrity happenings from the Enquirer and the Sun
Are you windows users so hard set in your ways of having to outsmart your system that you can't grasp the concept of when a program asks if you want to have iTunes organize your MP3s and you say yes that it will actualy do what it says?
I'm going to guess illegal characters refer to any reserved symbols that get used where they aren't supposed to be used.
The terminal is set by default to ask you if you want to quit if you have processes running. If you turned that off, it's your fault for not thinking ahead.
Your ignorance into how the mind of a consumer works leads me to wonder why you posted. Just because something is technicaly superior does not make it the superior product for the target consumer. On a server level, yes, linux and it's brethren are superior to windows, however, on a desktop level, a level targeted at the mass consumer market, Linux is the inferior product because it is difficult to use and maintain properly.
To continue with the all too popular car analogies:
Linux is like a manual transmission car. Technicaly it's superior, if you know how to use it properly.
But to average consumers, an automatic is the superior product because it requires minimal effort on the part of the consumer to accomplish the same task.
How are they different. Be honest here. Name a large difference between console and PC games.
No one said it had to be vastly profitable, it just has to make ends meet. People will pay for music because people will pay for that which they enjoy. But just because it isn't a multi billion dollar industry does not make it a doomed industry.
So wait a minute let me see if I get this right. An artist is going to pay for advertizing, so that he can make money via advertizing? Right.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather see less ads.
I would be more concerned if I saw someone actively engaged in reading an article titled:
"The dehumanizing of chickens"
or
"Preventing death by eating veggies"
in fact, I would feel much safer in a world where every able bodied adult owned, carried and was trained in the proper use of a firearm.
Why?
Because if I get mugged or some crime occurs, you can be damn sure they aren't getting very far before they're being tracked by 20 guns.
Ever notice no one robs a gun show?
I would suggest you go look up the context of those quotes. It might save you from looking like an ass.
That was hundreds of years ago, there's no way the founders could have anticipated the future of this country.
... maybe you should rethink that "out dated" argument
Modern communication is much easier today than it was back then. Everyone and their mother can write and publish things without a printing press. There's complete anonmity and no accountability. It's much easier to spread lies and information that is dangerous to people. The founders sure as hell didn't anticipate anrchists having websites accessable from every school building.
The problem with the US is that there are a lot of paranoid voters who only care about one issue. Pro-Free speech groups are quite happy to vote all their rights away.
Besides, do you really think you being able to say what you want is going to change anything? When push comes to shove, the government can lock you up and ductape your mouth.
Down with free speech.
So you mean to tell me that the framers of the constitution. The same people who had just used civil insurrection to overthrow a tyranical government and free themselves speciicaly wrote into the constitution a law prohibiting them from owning guns, the very thing they just used to win a war? Think about that.
Do you dare suggest that parents should be responsible fo rtheir kids and do something like parenting?
/sarcasm
You must be some old geezer man, this is the new age. Free will for all. YOu can't hold people responsible man.
I may not know everything that's going on, but having been an Apple customer since the early 90's I think I have a pretty damn good idea of how the company operates (or as good of an idea as a customer can get without being inside). I think I could probably make a better educated guess based on past behavior than you could based on an anonymous paraphrase.
Because we all know that america is made up only of Oaklahoma, Wyoming and Fox news right? Give me a fucking break. Just about everyone I come across hates GWB, usualy for no good reason (or if they have a good reason, they don't understand it). If you believe the election numbers only a minority of the US actualy likes and supports GWB, and everyone else hates him.
Here's the deal. If GWB had vetoed the bill, the very first headline out of CNN would have been:
"Bush vetoes act to increase american security"
and the same people that pissed and moaned that the FBI hadn't done enough to stop 9/11 (many of whom were the same people in the streets of NY with Bush=Hitler signs) would have been decrying th epresident as a traitor to america.
For some strange reason, companies balk at spending, say, $2000 to license code; and they seemingly have no problem spending a lot more than that to have it written in-house (developer salary to write, debug, document; plus loaded cost of developer time: health insurace, office space, equipment use, etc).
Just a thought, but that might have something to do with if they write it in house, they maintain full controll and rights to the code as well as have the option to profit not only from the finished product, but from licensing their own code.
Maybe it's just me, but could this be a reason why the GPL has a hard time being accepted outside of the RMS following community? Wouldnt it have made more sense to design the GPL so that any direct changes to the source (of the GPLed code) had to be released, and they had to release the code that hooks the GPLed code into their program (what functions it calls etc) but beyond that they shouldn't be required to release any other code?
I think that would tend to promote the use of GPL much better.
In a highsecurity area, where you are concerned because recently there have been car bombings, a vehicle that is not stopping at a checkpoint but instead speeding through is a threat and valid target.
Does it suck that in the end there was no real danger, yes, but such is life in and arround combat areas.
It's not a poll test. The ballot was designed and approved by both political parties. The instructions on the ballot are quite clear, and all polling places are required to have someone on hand to assist those who are confused or disabled. In the end, this is a voter disenfranchising themselves.
I get it now, so when the vote is close, then we care that people get votes. But if it's not so close, then we don't care who's disenfranchised. Got it.
You also assume that the people voting for bush were just as incompetant as the people voting for gore. Is it not possible that the bush voters actualy read the damn ballot?
It was pure and simple stupidity on the part of the voter, and failure to vote properly is a failure to vote. No one is to blame but the voter for not reading things clearly. They caused their own vote not to be counted.
Even the statement "I don't know of any plans to patch" could easily have been translated as a no by anyone. Corporate and government doublespeak often use "I don't know of any plans" to say no, but cover their ass if plans change. But since there was no official statement from Apple, he spoke to one person, and could not even provide a direct quote, I would take the statement with a grain of salt.
It's not different than the "anonymous sources close to the whitehouse said..." those sources could just have easily been the president or the janitor. That is why you should take anonymous statements with a grain of salt.
No one is trying to rewrite history, as there was no definative statement from Apple.
One person's "initial conversations" That could have been as simple as him calling tech support and asking the question. Or asking one of the employees at the apple store. Not everyone in Apple knows everything that's going on at every minute.