If the labels were launching a new medium now from scratch, then it would be DRMed. No question. Now that computers &c make it easy to copy and transfer unprotected audio data, any new medium they created would be protected somehow, whether directly via DRM, or indirectly by not providing any way to get at the data directly (e.g. MD, SACD).
And if they thought they could wean people away from CD onto a protected format, they'd do it. They're already trying, in various ways, such as protected pretend-CDs, and the various online stores.
But at the moment, they're stuck with CD for the foreseeable future. They can't force people to upgrade by any of their usual means, because CD already has good enough quality, convenience, and longevity, and it has such dominance that it would take something very special to even begin to displace it. The one major gap in its armour was the lack of recordability (which MD sort of filled for a while), but the advent of ubiquitous CD burners has filled that.
I guess it's now up to us to make sure we hold on to CD and its freedoms...
It's a shame about Braga. Back in TNG, his name on a story was almost a guarantee of strong, well-developed science fiction ideas and great viewing. What happened since?
As much as Star Trek is dogged for it's techno-babble dialog you're actually advocating more of that and less of the interpersonal relationship focus.
If you're equating 'science fiction' with 'technobabble' then you get my strong disagreement!
As far as I'm concerned, proper science fiction is about ideas. The bigger the better. The nature of causality and time, the confusion of reality and computer-generated fantasy, insanity, the nature of language and communication, the reliability of memory, faith, &c are all big ideas that have led to (IMO) really great stories, in Trek and elsewhere. Technology per se, and the alien of the week, do not necessarily make proper science fiction, unless they are part of an interesting idea. Similarly, relationships and personal development aren't necessarily excluded, provided that they relate directly to the big idea.
For me, then, The Truman Show counted as science fiction, even though you saw very little technology, no aliens, no laser beams, no starships, no robots, and none of the usual SF trappings, because it had at its core an amazing idea. Whereas I count most of the Star Wars films as space opera, not science fiction, despite the presence of all of those things. I consider Alien a horror film with SF trappings, but Bladerunner is true science fiction not just because it deals with replicants, but because it uses them to look at the nature of humanity.
I haven't followed Enterprise, so I can't quote you examples there. But I hope you can see my point. If the writers think that by just throwing in exotic aliens, weird energy beams, and some incomprehensible technobabble, that they're necessarily creating science fiction, then they've been doing the series -- and the general public -- a great disservice.
Those are interesting questions, actually -- it seems to me that Americans are much more likely to use a brand names in a generic fashion that us Brits.
For example, I always refer to tissues (unless they're actually made by Kleenex and I want to stress the fact), and I think pretty much everyone here does. Similarly, people generally refer to photocopying rather than Xeroxing, and to plasters instead of Band-Aids.
A few brand names do get used -- Coke is an obvious case, as is Sellotape. Tipp-Ex gets used for correction fluid, though some people still refer to Snopake which is confusing to us younger folks who've never seen it! Ditto biros, which are mostly made by Bic these days.
It's not consistent, though; for example, I'd guess that people are just as likely to refer to a vacuum cleaner as to a Hoover, though I'd be much more likely to hear Hoovering than vacuum cleaning, whatever the actual brand. (I gather that it's the other way around in the US...?)
Of course, some of our common brands are different from yours. We're unlikely to refer to Krazy Glue, for example, because it's not sold here (or if it is, I've not seen it); we call it Superglue instead. The same applies to Jell-O; we use the generic jelly here. (Yes, yes, I know you use that for something different; we call that jam.)
So folk who use brand names a lot should be aware that they don't always travel -- I for one have been confused and annoyed by references to popsicles, Q-tips, Tylenol, dumpsters, Sharpies, &c which aren't sold or generally recognised here. (I expect that some UK brand names would confuse Americans just as much -- except that, as I've said, I don't think we tend to use them as much!)
I don't know why the preference for brand names should differ like this. To me excessive use seems parochial and common; and while at times that can be a useful effect (as used by people like Alan Bennett and Victoria Wood), it's not usually the sort of impression you want to give.
Maybe it's a result of advertising -- from what I've seen, the industry seems much more aggressive in the USA, and maybe Americans are happy to comply. I still don't understand why they're so happy to do part of their jobs for them, though...
BTW, Wikipedia has a page discussing genericised trademarks, though it makes no mention of the geographical variation. Hmm, maybe I should suggest it...
Your ramblings are excused only if you'll excuse mine:) (At least you have an excuse -- though it doesn't seem related to what we call 'football' where I live:)
What worries me most about this whole debate is that far too often, people argue for restriction, punishment, whatever by casting the molester as some sort of sub-human creature -- which is exactly the same line of thinking that has led to all sorts of discrimination, persecution, and unthinkable atrocities of the sort which would lead to Godwin's law being invoked, as well as many more recent ones.
It seems very fashionable for the media to demonise particular people or groups -- recently it's mostly been child molesters and illegal immigrants here, and presumably Muslims and 'terrorists' where you are, but many others have suffered it in the past. But it's not fair. It's not fair to the people concerned, but it's not fair to the debate either -- you can't consider something rationally when you're thinking of crude stereotypes and foaming at the mouth...
I'm not saying that child molestation isn't a terrible crime -- it is, and I think that jail sentences are probably appropriate in many cases. But demonising the molesters isn't good for them or for the issues -- or for us, in the long run.
(And in this example, we probably wouldn't be demonising the right people anyway! IIRC, and as Roy's case shows, the majority of child molesters are family or friends, not strangers, whether over the Internet or not. So the original story makes little sense!)
These people... have no business walking the street.
Why?
I'm not trying to downplay or excuse what happened, and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think we should be clear on the reasons here. It's not as if the streets would then be 100% safe -- after all, we're all human, and any of us is potentially capable of great cruelty (and great kindness), whether we've done one or other before, or not.
in all likelyhood he will not reoffend
what if he did and it was YOUR daughter?
You can play 'what if' games as long as you like. What if he happened to be passing and saved her life by pushing her out of the way of a speeding car? What if someone else molested her? What if Roy is now spending his time trying to prevent other people from doing that sort of thing? (Which sounds fairly close to what's actually happening.)
I don't have children, so maybe I'm not qualified to discuss this, but as I said, there is a chance that almost anyone might commit a crime like that -- if the probability of reoffence isn't significantly larger than that, then I don't see how you can use that argument.
If you want him locked away as punishment, as a way of extracting society's retribution by making him suffer, then that would be a valid argument. Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, but it would be a logical point to make. But if that's what you think, then please say so.
Sounds like the old problem of oversimplistic labelling. Most people still try to fit all political thinking into a one-dimensional mental map, with 'left' (meaning anything from communist to liberal) on one side, and 'right' (meaning anything from small-c conservative to fascist) on the other.
And yet there are many types of issue, and people's thinking about economics doesn't necessarily correlate with that on social issues, or morality, or the military, or culture, &c. Being aware of the difference can help you to think more clearly about them.
For example, Political Compass uses a two-dimensional grid for displaying political positions, with an economic axis (traditional left/right), and a social one (libertarian/authoritarian). On that scale, for example, the opposite of communism (at the extreme left) is neo-liberalism (at the extreme right), and the opposite of anarchism (at the extreme libertarian end) is fascism (at the extreme authoritarian end).
It's still simplistic in many ways, but presents a vastly more useful way of thinking about politics. Recommended.
Consensus vs Choice
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The first problem is working out where to start. Some say that X itself is a good protocol, and that you just need to build a new GUI system on top of that. Others say that the problem is just the widget sets, and that new widgets would solve most of the problems. Still others say (like you) that it's best to throw the whole lot out and start from scratch. So you'd need to get a consensus.
But consensus is really the key. Why does OS X work so well? It's not just because they have a different window manager and widget set. It's because they build in consistency and uniformity from the ground up. That covers widgets, fonts, colours, textures, menu layouts, shortcut keys, toolbars, cut'n'paste, drag'n'drop, file locations, selection, high-level GUI metaphors like drawers and tabs, Dock behaviour, and so on throughout everything in the system. It's all been designed to work the same way (i.e. the way you expect), and to interoperate.
It's not perfect, of course; some choices are questionable, and there's the occasional oddity. But in general, apps look, feel, behave, and work the way you expect them to. And I think it's this consistency which is the real difference from Linux: not just in the low-level look of individual components, but in the mindset and user experience too.
The flip side of this is that it gives developers less choice. Using the system widgets (where appropriate) stops you getting creative in designing your own. Letting the user choose colours and skins may make your app stand out, but it detracts from the whole system. I don't want the choice of umpteen skins and looks -- I want ONE that WORKS PROPERLY! (Sorry for shouting, but I've struggled against so many apps whose authors seem to think that providing a choice of skin or other decoration is the answer to an ugly, awkward or unusable UI.) Similarly, using non-standard shortcut keys or whatever may be better for your app, but the lack of consistency reflects on all apps.
So IMV the main problem with getting a decent UI which is easy for casual users is that it requires app developers to be disciplined and to restrain (or at least channel) their natural creativity and ego. That's why a corporate setting is probably the best bet for such a system; not because individual developers lack the skills, direction, or organisation (as Linux &c have shown), but because a decent GUI needs restraint, obedience, and submission to central authority.
The only way such a system could be possible would be to have a very strong leader who knew exactly what he wanted and could take steps to ensure that apps complied, but who could also inspire lots of developers to join in -- a tough combination.
In the meantime, while developers still consider the natural unit of functionality to be the application and not the whole system, I'll keep on using OS X!
Thanks for an informed and informative post. (That sort of thing tends to stand out round here...)
A couple of points occur to a layman such as me, though, which make me wonder whether many of the arguments over these EULAs are moot.
Firstly, the argument over whether opening a shrink-wrap package means you're deemed to have accepted the licence conditions, while important, isn't the real issue here. If the licence were printed obviously and visibly under the shrink-wrap, then things would be a little clearer. Similarly, if the packaging contained a clear web link to the conditions, or if people had the terms explained to them by the salesperson before sale, then you'd have no legal excuse -- and still people would buy them (and complain!). So the problem of licences hidden inside packaging is just a side issue, albeit an important one.
And secondly, AIUI, a contract cannot take away your statutory rights. For example, here in the UK, goods you buy must be properly described, of saleable quality and fit for purpose, even if your (implied or express) contract with the vendor states otherwise. (In fact, it's a criminal offence to ask consumers to give up these rights.) Things will differ slightly in other jurisdictions, but I think most readers will be in a broadly similar situation.
So if you have a legal right to reverse engineer software for interoperability purposes, then you still have that right even if a clause in an EULA claims otherwise.
To take another example, I don't know if the First Sale Doctrine counts as a statutory right for this purpose, but if it does, then it doesn't matter whether the EULA is valid, or whether you're deemed to have accepted it, because a clause preventing resale wouldn't be enforceable anyway.
Nothing better to do at night than look at the stars? Hmm, I bet you're expecting me to make a stereotypical slashdot-geeks-wouldn't-even-know-what-to-do-with- a-girlfriend-if-they-got-one type comment, aren't you? Well, I'm not going to. So there.
Whatever the intent of the patent system, right now its main use is for threatening other companies into cross-licensing agreements. Which is where Open Source comes a cropper, because it's not a legal entity that can enter into such agreements, and has no patents to cross-license.
But IBM's pledge works around that, by providing some patents for OSS to work with, and showing how to 'cross-licence' even without an OSS legal entity.
In fact, it might be the start of a 'viral' subversion of the patent system, in just the way that the GPL is for copyright. Imagine a time in a few years, where a lot of companies have done the same thing that IBM does. Each of those companies is then committed to the OSS patent pool, and can't threaten any OSS with a lawsuit on any particular patent without losing access to all the rest. And of course, the more companies that join in, the more patents are in the pool, and the more attractive it becomes.
What's important now is how other companies react to this now. If a few more come on board, this could be the Start Of Something Big!
Hmm... Right now I'm watching a programme ('Drunk and Dangerous', BBC1) following the police in my town as they sort out the drunken brawls and other public disorder problems directly caused by alcohol.
And yet weed is dangerous...
(Disclaimer: I've never even tried any illegal drugs, nor am I advocating their use; but most of the arguments against the legalisation of weed don't seem to make much sense to me.)
Mmm. As I see it, the immediate issue is ignorance, not stupidity.
Remember, the two are different, no matter how many people use the terms interchangeably; and the former is perfectly understandable and often excusable if you don't compound it with the latter.
In order for them to consider taking action over an NDA breach, the information must be accurate.
...some of the information must be accurate. Doesn't mean that some can't be inaccurate, misleading, or downright wrong. It might not even have been wrong at the time of the leak, but the situation might have changed since.
And partial accuracy can be even more damaging. Suppose, for example, they got the technical details mostly right, but gave a much sooner ship date -- everyone will hold off buying existing kit until the release, hurting Apple's business and everyone else's purchasing plans. Or suppose they got the price tag wrong; or gave details for a product that's since been dropped or drastically changed. In each case, there would be enough to sue on, but enough inaccuracy to do a lot of damage.
Yeah, maybe, but it's not as if ThinkSecret thought they were acting within the spirit of the law, or in the interests of Apple or the greater good, is it? They knew what they were doing and the risks they were taking, so it sounds like just desserts to me.
CD quality is arguably good enough for final storage of the finished product, used for listening -- at least, when properly mastered, dithered, &c.
But it's not really good enough to use during production, when all the various stages of EQ and other effects, mixing, processing, mastering, &c will cause round-off errors to compound progressively into a far greater issue.
24/96 may be overkill for listeners, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile for studios and other professionals.
Slashdot Mirror
Historical reasons.
If the labels were launching a new medium now from scratch, then it would be DRMed. No question. Now that computers &c make it easy to copy and transfer unprotected audio data, any new medium they created would be protected somehow, whether directly via DRM, or indirectly by not providing any way to get at the data directly (e.g. MD, SACD).
And if they thought they could wean people away from CD onto a protected format, they'd do it. They're already trying, in various ways, such as protected pretend-CDs, and the various online stores.
But at the moment, they're stuck with CD for the foreseeable future. They can't force people to upgrade by any of their usual means, because CD already has good enough quality, convenience, and longevity, and it has such dominance that it would take something very special to even begin to displace it. The one major gap in its armour was the lack of recordability (which MD sort of filled for a while), but the advent of ubiquitous CD burners has filled that.
I guess it's now up to us to make sure we hold on to CD and its freedoms...
It's a shame about Braga. Back in TNG, his name on a story was almost a guarantee of strong, well-developed science fiction ideas and great viewing. What happened since?
If you're equating 'science fiction' with 'technobabble' then you get my strong disagreement!
As far as I'm concerned, proper science fiction is about ideas. The bigger the better. The nature of causality and time, the confusion of reality and computer-generated fantasy, insanity, the nature of language and communication, the reliability of memory, faith, &c are all big ideas that have led to (IMO) really great stories, in Trek and elsewhere. Technology per se, and the alien of the week, do not necessarily make proper science fiction, unless they are part of an interesting idea. Similarly, relationships and personal development aren't necessarily excluded, provided that they relate directly to the big idea.
For me, then, The Truman Show counted as science fiction, even though you saw very little technology, no aliens, no laser beams, no starships, no robots, and none of the usual SF trappings, because it had at its core an amazing idea. Whereas I count most of the Star Wars films as space opera, not science fiction, despite the presence of all of those things. I consider Alien a horror film with SF trappings, but Bladerunner is true science fiction not just because it deals with replicants, but because it uses them to look at the nature of humanity.
I haven't followed Enterprise, so I can't quote you examples there. But I hope you can see my point. If the writers think that by just throwing in exotic aliens, weird energy beams, and some incomprehensible technobabble, that they're necessarily creating science fiction, then they've been doing the series -- and the general public -- a great disservice.
Yeah, the two-inch drop was a standard technique. I remember it being standard advice for certain problems with the Atari ST range.
For example, I always refer to tissues (unless they're actually made by Kleenex and I want to stress the fact), and I think pretty much everyone here does. Similarly, people generally refer to photocopying rather than Xeroxing, and to plasters instead of Band-Aids.
A few brand names do get used -- Coke is an obvious case, as is Sellotape. Tipp-Ex gets used for correction fluid, though some people still refer to Snopake which is confusing to us younger folks who've never seen it! Ditto biros, which are mostly made by Bic these days.
It's not consistent, though; for example, I'd guess that people are just as likely to refer to a vacuum cleaner as to a Hoover, though I'd be much more likely to hear Hoovering than vacuum cleaning, whatever the actual brand. (I gather that it's the other way around in the US...?)
Of course, some of our common brands are different from yours. We're unlikely to refer to Krazy Glue, for example, because it's not sold here (or if it is, I've not seen it); we call it Superglue instead. The same applies to Jell-O; we use the generic jelly here. (Yes, yes, I know you use that for something different; we call that jam.)
So folk who use brand names a lot should be aware that they don't always travel -- I for one have been confused and annoyed by references to popsicles, Q-tips, Tylenol, dumpsters, Sharpies, &c which aren't sold or generally recognised here. (I expect that some UK brand names would confuse Americans just as much -- except that, as I've said, I don't think we tend to use them as much!)
I don't know why the preference for brand names should differ like this. To me excessive use seems parochial and common; and while at times that can be a useful effect (as used by people like Alan Bennett and Victoria Wood), it's not usually the sort of impression you want to give.
Maybe it's a result of advertising -- from what I've seen, the industry seems much more aggressive in the USA, and maybe Americans are happy to comply. I still don't understand why they're so happy to do part of their jobs for them, though...
BTW, Wikipedia has a page discussing genericised trademarks, though it makes no mention of the geographical variation. Hmm, maybe I should suggest it...
And how do you propose to achieve the one without the other?
Alternatively, what sort of business model do you propose considering that thousands of P2P users will instantly be sharing the product for free?
I'm not saying that this sort of thing wouldn't be a good idea, but at least try to look at it from the other perspective.
I'm sorry, but having character and story arcs doesn't make it hard SF, it just makes it a soap opera.
...else of another keyboard with twenty-six functions on each key?
What worries me most about this whole debate is that far too often, people argue for restriction, punishment, whatever by casting the molester as some sort of sub-human creature -- which is exactly the same line of thinking that has led to all sorts of discrimination, persecution, and unthinkable atrocities of the sort which would lead to Godwin's law being invoked, as well as many more recent ones.
It seems very fashionable for the media to demonise particular people or groups -- recently it's mostly been child molesters and illegal immigrants here, and presumably Muslims and 'terrorists' where you are, but many others have suffered it in the past. But it's not fair. It's not fair to the people concerned, but it's not fair to the debate either -- you can't consider something rationally when you're thinking of crude stereotypes and foaming at the mouth...
I'm not saying that child molestation isn't a terrible crime -- it is, and I think that jail sentences are probably appropriate in many cases. But demonising the molesters isn't good for them or for the issues -- or for us, in the long run.
(And in this example, we probably wouldn't be demonising the right people anyway! IIRC, and as Roy's case shows, the majority of child molesters are family or friends, not strangers, whether over the Internet or not. So the original story makes little sense!)
Why?
I'm not trying to downplay or excuse what happened, and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think we should be clear on the reasons here. It's not as if the streets would then be 100% safe -- after all, we're all human, and any of us is potentially capable of great cruelty (and great kindness), whether we've done one or other before, or not.
You can play 'what if' games as long as you like. What if he happened to be passing and saved her life by pushing her out of the way of a speeding car? What if someone else molested her? What if Roy is now spending his time trying to prevent other people from doing that sort of thing? (Which sounds fairly close to what's actually happening.)
I don't have children, so maybe I'm not qualified to discuss this, but as I said, there is a chance that almost anyone might commit a crime like that -- if the probability of reoffence isn't significantly larger than that, then I don't see how you can use that argument.
If you want him locked away as punishment, as a way of extracting society's retribution by making him suffer, then that would be a valid argument. Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, but it would be a logical point to make. But if that's what you think, then please say so.
And yet there are many types of issue, and people's thinking about economics doesn't necessarily correlate with that on social issues, or morality, or the military, or culture, &c. Being aware of the difference can help you to think more clearly about them.
For example, Political Compass uses a two-dimensional grid for displaying political positions, with an economic axis (traditional left/right), and a social one (libertarian/authoritarian). On that scale, for example, the opposite of communism (at the extreme left) is neo-liberalism (at the extreme right), and the opposite of anarchism (at the extreme libertarian end) is fascism (at the extreme authoritarian end).
It's still simplistic in many ways, but presents a vastly more useful way of thinking about politics. Recommended.
But consensus is really the key. Why does OS X work so well? It's not just because they have a different window manager and widget set. It's because they build in consistency and uniformity from the ground up. That covers widgets, fonts, colours, textures, menu layouts, shortcut keys, toolbars, cut'n'paste, drag'n'drop, file locations, selection, high-level GUI metaphors like drawers and tabs, Dock behaviour, and so on throughout everything in the system. It's all been designed to work the same way (i.e. the way you expect), and to interoperate.
It's not perfect, of course; some choices are questionable, and there's the occasional oddity. But in general, apps look, feel, behave, and work the way you expect them to. And I think it's this consistency which is the real difference from Linux: not just in the low-level look of individual components, but in the mindset and user experience too.
The flip side of this is that it gives developers less choice. Using the system widgets (where appropriate) stops you getting creative in designing your own. Letting the user choose colours and skins may make your app stand out, but it detracts from the whole system. I don't want the choice of umpteen skins and looks -- I want ONE that WORKS PROPERLY! (Sorry for shouting, but I've struggled against so many apps whose authors seem to think that providing a choice of skin or other decoration is the answer to an ugly, awkward or unusable UI.) Similarly, using non-standard shortcut keys or whatever may be better for your app, but the lack of consistency reflects on all apps.
So IMV the main problem with getting a decent UI which is easy for casual users is that it requires app developers to be disciplined and to restrain (or at least channel) their natural creativity and ego. That's why a corporate setting is probably the best bet for such a system; not because individual developers lack the skills, direction, or organisation (as Linux &c have shown), but because a decent GUI needs restraint, obedience, and submission to central authority.
The only way such a system could be possible would be to have a very strong leader who knew exactly what he wanted and could take steps to ensure that apps complied, but who could also inspire lots of developers to join in -- a tough combination.
In the meantime, while developers still consider the natural unit of functionality to be the application and not the whole system, I'll keep on using OS X!
A couple of points occur to a layman such as me, though, which make me wonder whether many of the arguments over these EULAs are moot.
Firstly, the argument over whether opening a shrink-wrap package means you're deemed to have accepted the licence conditions, while important, isn't the real issue here. If the licence were printed obviously and visibly under the shrink-wrap, then things would be a little clearer. Similarly, if the packaging contained a clear web link to the conditions, or if people had the terms explained to them by the salesperson before sale, then you'd have no legal excuse -- and still people would buy them (and complain!). So the problem of licences hidden inside packaging is just a side issue, albeit an important one.
And secondly, AIUI, a contract cannot take away your statutory rights. For example, here in the UK, goods you buy must be properly described, of saleable quality and fit for purpose, even if your (implied or express) contract with the vendor states otherwise. (In fact, it's a criminal offence to ask consumers to give up these rights.) Things will differ slightly in other jurisdictions, but I think most readers will be in a broadly similar situation.
So if you have a legal right to reverse engineer software for interoperability purposes, then you still have that right even if a clause in an EULA claims otherwise.
To take another example, I don't know if the First Sale Doctrine counts as a statutory right for this purpose, but if it does, then it doesn't matter whether the EULA is valid, or whether you're deemed to have accepted it, because a clause preventing resale wouldn't be enforceable anyway.
Is that right?
Nothing better to do at night than look at the stars? Hmm, I bet you're expecting me to make a stereotypical slashdot-geeks-wouldn't-even-know-what-to-do-with- a-girlfriend-if-they-got-one type comment, aren't you? Well, I'm not going to. So there.
That's a sad comment. Most Christians I know take a very different view (and I include myself in that).
...or does the title immediately remind anyone else of the Famous Five and the Secret Seven?
Whatever the intent of the patent system, right now its main use is for threatening other companies into cross-licensing agreements. Which is where Open Source comes a cropper, because it's not a legal entity that can enter into such agreements, and has no patents to cross-license.
But IBM's pledge works around that, by providing some patents for OSS to work with, and showing how to 'cross-licence' even without an OSS legal entity.
In fact, it might be the start of a 'viral' subversion of the patent system, in just the way that the GPL is for copyright. Imagine a time in a few years, where a lot of companies have done the same thing that IBM does. Each of those companies is then committed to the OSS patent pool, and can't threaten any OSS with a lawsuit on any particular patent without losing access to all the rest. And of course, the more companies that join in, the more patents are in the pool, and the more attractive it becomes.
What's important now is how other companies react to this now. If a few more come on board, this could be the Start Of Something Big!
And yet weed is dangerous...
(Disclaimer: I've never even tried any illegal drugs, nor am I advocating their use; but most of the arguments against the legalisation of weed don't seem to make much sense to me.)
Remember, the two are different, no matter how many people use the terms interchangeably; and the former is perfectly understandable and often excusable if you don't compound it with the latter.
Even if they know or suspect that the information was obtained illegally? Doesn't that make them a party to the crime?
Haven't OLEDs (like LEPs and similar technologies) been promised 'in another 2-3 years' for getting on for a decade now?
And partial accuracy can be even more damaging. Suppose, for example, they got the technical details mostly right, but gave a much sooner ship date -- everyone will hold off buying existing kit until the release, hurting Apple's business and everyone else's purchasing plans. Or suppose they got the price tag wrong; or gave details for a product that's since been dropped or drastically changed. In each case, there would be enough to sue on, but enough inaccuracy to do a lot of damage.
Yeah, maybe, but it's not as if ThinkSecret thought they were acting within the spirit of the law, or in the interests of Apple or the greater good, is it? They knew what they were doing and the risks they were taking, so it sounds like just desserts to me.
CD quality is arguably good enough for final storage of the finished product, used for listening -- at least, when properly mastered, dithered, &c.
But it's not really good enough to use during production, when all the various stages of EQ and other effects, mixing, processing, mastering, &c will cause round-off errors to compound progressively into a far greater issue.
24/96 may be overkill for listeners, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile for studios and other professionals.
Oh, that's easy: you just light it up by shining a... er, hang on...