[Photoshop] certainly is an extremely useful tool and can't be banned outright, however, they could impose very clear limits on retouching photos of people.
Who is "they" and how would they impose these arbitrary limits on photo retouching?
The problem isn't necessarily with the advertising agencies who are trying their best to fool us that their client/product is "better" than they actually are. That's what they've always done and that is what they will continue to do.
The problem is with the increasing number of people in our society who lack critical thinking skills and don't question what is presented to them.
What's nefarious about this particular DMCA take down notice is that its only purpose is to squelch critical opinion on advertising techniques. (It is also just another example of how the DMCA has little to do with copyright protection and is more about handing over control of our culture to the media companies).
Your logic would be spot on if Microsoft's Mac offering were indeed direct ports of their Windows counterparts. But they are not.
One of the major reasons the MBU exists is because of the horribly ill-fated idea of throwing out the Mac-native Word for Mac 5.0/5.1 and using the Word for Windows 2.0/3.0 codebase to come up with Word 6.0 for both Mac and Windows. (You can read details of this debacle directly from a MBU employee).
The majority of Microsoft's Mac products are complete re-implementations of the features in their Windows counterparts (and the reason why there is not complete feature-parity between the two versions).
I think the reason that the MBU has such high profit margins is that are fewer "cooks in the kitchen" relative to Microsoft's Windows-related projects. It's a small group of dedicated employees who are in the unenviable position of trying to make great Mac software while being viewed by some on the outside as just more drones from the evil Windows empire.
To all of the righteous "downloading is a crime" types: get some priorities and complain about things that really matter, children.
Wait. What about how illegal downloading effects the children of the intellectual "property" owners (who, by the way are hardly ever the intellectual property creators). My god, at this rate they will only be able to afford 1 italian sports car and not 2 or more!
Well, the Apple TV does just that. You use iTunes to buy movies and songs with a remote control. In other words, it's not really a bad idea if they manage to figure out how to do this well.
I'm pretty sure they are talking about buying things other than music and movies. I been able to get music (via MusicChoice) and movies (via Amazon Unbox) on my HD Tivo for quite some time.
On my PC, compared to on my Macs, I was relatively encouraged to understand and tweak my system.
Interesting. I grew up using DOS/Windows and Unix/Linux and absolutely *hated* pre-OS X Mac for this very reason.
On the Mac, all kinds of stuff happened automagically in the background--but when it didn't work, you were screwed because there was not much you could do to fix the problem.
Then Microsoft started implementing brain-dead automagic into Windows, Apple released Mac OS X (based on BSD) and the tables turned.
After years of being a PC guy, I switched to Mac 3 years ago and couldn't be happier.
The official OpenOffice for Mac port will eventually replace NeoOffice, but not right away.
OOo/Aqua is Intel only, so PPC users have no choice other than NeoOffice.
Also OOo/Aqua is still lacking the "fit and finish" of NeoOffice. There are little things like: the window sizer widget being overlapped by UI elements; dialog backgrounds have Tiger-style pinstripes even in Leopard; floating toolbars have KDE-style window controls. You know, douche bag OS X user niggles.;)
So while the "official" Mac port of OOo is getting there, NeoOffice is still has its place.
many people don't want to throw out even one item of hardware so they could use Vista
Microsoft is being bit by its own successful campaign of getting hardware manufactures to only support Windows with "Designed for Windows" hardware. These WinDevices (WinModems, WinPrinters, WinScanners, etc.) rely on Windows to do the bulk of their processing and if you change the way Windows interfaces with these devices (as is the case with Vista) you need to create brand new drivers from scratch. The problem is that hardware manufactures are not going to invest the time and money to make a discontinued piece of hardware work with Vista when they can sell you a shiny new one.
If Microsoft would have promoted "real" hardware that did not need specialized driver software which is intimately entangled in the internals of Windows, they would not be in this position. Take, for example, a standard Postscript printer: complicated low-level drivers are unnecessary in most operating systems and it just works (to steal a line from the Mac world).
Could you imagine a world where every multi-function device used standard USB communication to interface to the Postscript/PCL printer, SANE/TWAIN scanner, and the built-in fax modem was a standard serial device that used AT command sequences? If Microsoft promoted such standards, this device could not only "just work" with Vista, but also Mac OS (X or otherwise) Linux, OS/2, BeOS... basically everything. The conspiracy theory part of my brain says that MS just can't stand for that, which is why it did not "discourage" hardware manufactures from tying basic functionality to Windows.
But now that it needs to change the internals of Windows, Microsoft's hardware lock-in is coming home to roost.
(BTW, does anyone else think it is monumentally stupid that Vista does not support generic Postscript or PCL printers out of the box and must rely on HP or Adobe for such drivers?)
While the new default Firefox 3 OS X theme (proto) is much nicer than Firefox 2, I still prefer Arronx's GrApple (Gran Paradiso Outlook). Been using it for the nightly builds for ages. Screenshot
I agree with everything you wrote, except for this:
Consider the piece of crap that were Windows ME and Windows 2000.
(emphasis mine)
I've been following the development of Windows since Windows 2.0 (anybody remember the POS that was "MS-DOS Executive"?) and I'd have to say that Windows 2000 has been, by far, the best version of Windows ever released by Microsoft. The Windows 3.x series were the first that were barely usable, but was far too dependent on the underlying DOS subsystem; NT 3.1, the first version of Windows to try and ditch the aging DOS dependency was in reality a 1.0 release, and it showed; NT 3.5x was the first real usable NT version but it still had an ass-backwards GUI; 95 was the first Windows version with any semblance of workable GUI but still had annoying ties to DOS, and still crash-prone; NT 4.0 brought the WIn 95 interface to NT but lagged behind the Windows 9x series in hardware (and games) support; 98 was like a bloated 95; ME--well, I'll just say I'm not sure what the exact point of ME was.
Windows 2000 was the first version of Windows that successfully combined the GUI, hardware and software support of 9x and the stability of NT. However, since there were not any flashy new features it could point to (other than it was the first Windows version to actually work well), Microsoft decided to only market 2000 to the business crowd. XP is essentially 2000 with a new default interface theme and product activation--and those are flashy features you can market to the consumer!:rolleyes: You do realize that that Windows 2000 identifies itself as Windows NT 5.0 and that XP identifies itself as Windows NT 5.1?
That being said, I abandoned the Windows platform soon after Windows 2000 came out because it marked the first time I ever got a virus (or more precisely, a worm) by just being connected to a network. (Up until that time, the only real way you could get a "virus" was by booting from an infected floppy or manually executing a trojan horse).
Windows 2000 was the best Windows Microsoft made to date but it was horribly insecure by default. I had hoped that this would get fixed by XP, but Microsoft seemed more interested in feature bloat and eye-candy than fixing glaring security issues. It took a major backlash and two service packs before MS made any real attempt to address the security problems. But once they did so, as a side-benefit, a lot of the security fixes that found their way into XP were quite easily "ported" to 2000 (since 2000 and XP were, essentially, separated at birth). This has always made 2000, in my mind, a better XP than XP.
I use a Mac these days--which I thought I would never do. Pre OS X Macs sucked harder than a Binford 3000XL shop-vac when it came to stability. Hell, OS X wasn't even that good until 10.3. But my Mac does what I need--and I'm not constantly f'ing with the system like I often had to when I ran Windows as my primary OS. And on the rare occasion when I need to run a Windows application, I fire up a fully patched copy of Windows 2000 (and not XP) in Parallels Workstation.
Long story short: Windows 2000 is the least-worst version of Windows I've ever encountered.:P
Pfft. Don't make me fire up my IBM Model 40 and hit the site with Internet Explorer 2.0 on Windows For Workgroups 3.11. Or if that ain't old enough for you, I think I've got some Yggdrasil floppies floating around somewhere...
Better yet it should be able to float, but that's asking too much for something made of metal.
Yes, that would be an engineering nightmare. If only we could get figure out a way to make something like a boat or a ship out of metal... then we'd be on to something!
Perhaps you should go back to stealing. It'll cost you less (jail) time and money if you get caught shoplifting a physical CD than if you are accused of making an unauthorized copy of it.
Hell, they can't even sell their OWN music on their on website because... it's not compatible with iPod!!!
Sure they could.
They could sell MP3s or AAC or FLAC or even WAV files--all playable on the iPod. Hell, if they sold plain-jane MP3s, every digital music player in existence (not just the iPod) could play them.
The RIAA is *not* being forced to distribute digital music through exclusively through iTunes if they want access to the most popular portable digital media player in existence. It's a decision the labels willingly made as Apple conceded to including DRM in the iTunes/iPod product in exchange for access to their content. Now the RIAA is upset because now they realize they gave the keys to the kingdom to Apple and Apple, understandably, won't give them back. Using this metaphor, the only way to bypass the locks the RIAA installed, and no longer have the keys for, is to remove the locks.
But they know as soon as they do that, there will be no barriers for entry into the music business kingdom and they'll have to actually compete on the merit of their product--which is a scary proposition for an industry that's made it's fortune by locking out competitors.
Which is why the RIAA appears to be trying to have it both ways. They want DRM but they also want access to the iPod--and currently the only way to do that is through Apple. But I'm sure they are going to do everything in their power to change that fact.
Personally, I'm partial to "the turn of the millennium" for the aught years. ("Turn of the century" still conjures images of the 1900s for me).
I'm just waiting for the next two years to pass to see if people will start using "twenty" instead of "two-thousand": i.e. "twenty-ten" instead of "two-thousand-ten".
Even if we were all whisked away and our nuclear reactors melted down, it would have a surprisingly little effect on the planet. Chernobyl gives hope to this end. 'I really expected to see a nuclear desert there,' says Ronald Chesser, an environmental biologist. 'I was quite surprised. When you enter into the exclusion zone, it's a very thriving ecosystem.'
Slashdot Mirror
[Photoshop] certainly is an extremely useful tool and can't be banned outright, however, they could impose very clear limits on retouching photos of people.
Who is "they" and how would they impose these arbitrary limits on photo retouching?
The problem isn't necessarily with the advertising agencies who are trying their best to fool us that their client/product is "better" than they actually are. That's what they've always done and that is what they will continue to do.
The problem is with the increasing number of people in our society who lack critical thinking skills and don't question what is presented to them.
What's nefarious about this particular DMCA take down notice is that its only purpose is to squelch critical opinion on advertising techniques. (It is also just another example of how the DMCA has little to do with copyright protection and is more about handing over control of our culture to the media companies).
You do realize that nearly all (if not, all) music on iTunes are non-DRMed AAC (a.k.a. .m4a) files now, right?
Your logic would be spot on if Microsoft's Mac offering were indeed direct ports of their Windows counterparts. But they are not.
One of the major reasons the MBU exists is because of the horribly ill-fated idea of throwing out the Mac-native Word for Mac 5.0/5.1 and using the Word for Windows 2.0/3.0 codebase to come up with Word 6.0 for both Mac and Windows. (You can read details of this debacle directly from a MBU employee).
The majority of Microsoft's Mac products are complete re-implementations of the features in their Windows counterparts (and the reason why there is not complete feature-parity between the two versions).
I think the reason that the MBU has such high profit margins is that are fewer "cooks in the kitchen" relative to Microsoft's Windows-related projects. It's a small group of dedicated employees who are in the unenviable position of trying to make great Mac software while being viewed by some on the outside as just more drones from the evil Windows empire.
Well, you might get away with charging $130... but only if your name is Apple. ;)
To all of the righteous "downloading is a crime" types: get some priorities and complain about things that really matter, children.
Wait. What about how illegal downloading effects the children of the intellectual "property" owners (who, by the way are hardly ever the intellectual property creators). My god, at this rate they will only be able to afford 1 italian sports car and not 2 or more!
ucsb evoting attack
... hosted on an .edu server?
This can't end well.
I'm downloading now, will convert to mpeg4, and post a torrent to mininova (if the server doesn't melt before the download completes).
Well, the Apple TV does just that. You use iTunes to buy movies and songs with a remote control. In other words, it's not really a bad idea if they manage to figure out how to do this well.
I'm pretty sure they are talking about buying things other than music and movies. I been able to get music (via MusicChoice) and movies (via Amazon Unbox) on my HD Tivo for quite some time.
Not that I do...
Interesting. I grew up using DOS/Windows and Unix/Linux and absolutely *hated* pre-OS X Mac for this very reason.
On the Mac, all kinds of stuff happened automagically in the background--but when it didn't work, you were screwed because there was not much you could do to fix the problem.
Then Microsoft started implementing brain-dead automagic into Windows, Apple released Mac OS X (based on BSD) and the tables turned.
After years of being a PC guy, I switched to Mac 3 years ago and couldn't be happier.
The official OpenOffice for Mac port will eventually replace NeoOffice, but not right away.
OOo/Aqua is Intel only, so PPC users have no choice other than NeoOffice.
Also OOo/Aqua is still lacking the "fit and finish" of NeoOffice. There are little things like: the window sizer widget being overlapped by UI elements; dialog backgrounds have Tiger-style pinstripes even in Leopard; floating toolbars have KDE-style window controls. You know, douche bag OS X user niggles. ;)
So while the "official" Mac port of OOo is getting there, NeoOffice is still has its place.
Microsoft is being bit by its own successful campaign of getting hardware manufactures to only support Windows with "Designed for Windows" hardware. These WinDevices (WinModems, WinPrinters, WinScanners, etc.) rely on Windows to do the bulk of their processing and if you change the way Windows interfaces with these devices (as is the case with Vista) you need to create brand new drivers from scratch. The problem is that hardware manufactures are not going to invest the time and money to make a discontinued piece of hardware work with Vista when they can sell you a shiny new one.
If Microsoft would have promoted "real" hardware that did not need specialized driver software which is intimately entangled in the internals of Windows, they would not be in this position. Take, for example, a standard Postscript printer: complicated low-level drivers are unnecessary in most operating systems and it just works (to steal a line from the Mac world).
Could you imagine a world where every multi-function device used standard USB communication to interface to the Postscript/PCL printer, SANE/TWAIN scanner, and the built-in fax modem was a standard serial device that used AT command sequences? If Microsoft promoted such standards, this device could not only "just work" with Vista, but also Mac OS (X or otherwise) Linux, OS/2, BeOS... basically everything. The conspiracy theory part of my brain says that MS just can't stand for that, which is why it did not "discourage" hardware manufactures from tying basic functionality to Windows.
But now that it needs to change the internals of Windows, Microsoft's hardware lock-in is coming home to roost.
(BTW, does anyone else think it is monumentally stupid that Vista does not support generic Postscript or PCL printers out of the box and must rely on HP or Adobe for such drivers?)
While the new default Firefox 3 OS X theme (proto) is much nicer than Firefox 2, I still prefer Arronx's GrApple (Gran Paradiso Outlook). Been using it for the nightly builds for ages. Screenshot
I'm confused. How can anyone steal something they already have? Shouldn't it be "leaked" nuclear secrets?
(non-) feature parity?
I've been following the development of Windows since Windows 2.0 (anybody remember the POS that was "MS-DOS Executive"?) and I'd have to say that Windows 2000 has been, by far, the best version of Windows ever released by Microsoft. The Windows 3.x series were the first that were barely usable, but was far too dependent on the underlying DOS subsystem; NT 3.1, the first version of Windows to try and ditch the aging DOS dependency was in reality a 1.0 release, and it showed; NT 3.5x was the first real usable NT version but it still had an ass-backwards GUI; 95 was the first Windows version with any semblance of workable GUI but still had annoying ties to DOS, and still crash-prone; NT 4.0 brought the WIn 95 interface to NT but lagged behind the Windows 9x series in hardware (and games) support; 98 was like a bloated 95; ME--well, I'll just say I'm not sure what the exact point of ME was.
Windows 2000 was the first version of Windows that successfully combined the GUI, hardware and software support of 9x and the stability of NT. However, since there were not any flashy new features it could point to (other than it was the first Windows version to actually work well), Microsoft decided to only market 2000 to the business crowd. XP is essentially 2000 with a new default interface theme and product activation--and those are flashy features you can market to the consumer! :rolleyes: You do realize that that Windows 2000 identifies itself as Windows NT 5.0 and that XP identifies itself as Windows NT 5.1?
That being said, I abandoned the Windows platform soon after Windows 2000 came out because it marked the first time I ever got a virus (or more precisely, a worm) by just being connected to a network. (Up until that time, the only real way you could get a "virus" was by booting from an infected floppy or manually executing a trojan horse).
Windows 2000 was the best Windows Microsoft made to date but it was horribly insecure by default. I had hoped that this would get fixed by XP, but Microsoft seemed more interested in feature bloat and eye-candy than fixing glaring security issues. It took a major backlash and two service packs before MS made any real attempt to address the security problems. But once they did so, as a side-benefit, a lot of the security fixes that found their way into XP were quite easily "ported" to 2000 (since 2000 and XP were, essentially, separated at birth). This has always made 2000, in my mind, a better XP than XP.
I use a Mac these days--which I thought I would never do. Pre OS X Macs sucked harder than a Binford 3000XL shop-vac when it came to stability. Hell, OS X wasn't even that good until 10.3. But my Mac does what I need--and I'm not constantly f'ing with the system like I often had to when I ran Windows as my primary OS. And on the rare occasion when I need to run a Windows application, I fire up a fully patched copy of Windows 2000 (and not XP) in Parallels Workstation.
Long story short: Windows 2000 is the least-worst version of Windows I've ever encountered. :P
Pfft. Don't make me fire up my IBM Model 40 and hit the site with Internet Explorer 2.0 on Windows For Workgroups 3.11. Or if that ain't old enough for you, I think I've got some Yggdrasil floppies floating around somewhere...
Perhaps you should go back to stealing. It'll cost you less (jail) time and money if you get caught shoplifting a physical CD than if you are accused of making an unauthorized copy of it.
Sure they could.
They could sell MP3s or AAC or FLAC or even WAV files--all playable on the iPod. Hell, if they sold plain-jane MP3s, every digital music player in existence (not just the iPod) could play them.
The RIAA is *not* being forced to distribute digital music through exclusively through iTunes if they want access to the most popular portable digital media player in existence. It's a decision the labels willingly made as Apple conceded to including DRM in the iTunes/iPod product in exchange for access to their content. Now the RIAA is upset because now they realize they gave the keys to the kingdom to Apple and Apple, understandably, won't give them back. Using this metaphor, the only way to bypass the locks the RIAA installed, and no longer have the keys for, is to remove the locks.
But they know as soon as they do that, there will be no barriers for entry into the music business kingdom and they'll have to actually compete on the merit of their product--which is a scary proposition for an industry that's made it's fortune by locking out competitors.
Which is why the RIAA appears to be trying to have it both ways. They want DRM but they also want access to the iPod--and currently the only way to do that is through Apple. But I'm sure they are going to do everything in their power to change that fact.
Personally, I'm partial to "the turn of the millennium" for the aught years. ("Turn of the century" still conjures images of the 1900s for me).
I'm just waiting for the next two years to pass to see if people will start using "twenty" instead of "two-thousand": i.e. "twenty-ten" instead of "two-thousand-ten".
Okay, so that was a piss-poor joke. I won't let it happen again.