Did I say that the G5 wasn't a blazingly fast computer, or did I say anything which can reasonably be construed as implying such. I'll give you a hint, the answer is no. So why do you think I would so surprised at the performance of a G5. If you take the time to actually read and comprehend my previous post. You will discover the point I was making is that the Intel adverts are every bit as misleading and dishonest as the Apple ones. I was saying that the difference between an explicit lie and an implicit lie is bogus, (the test of a lie being the meaning that the receiver of a statement is intended to take from it). I was saying that the ITC should pull the Intel advert, because it purposefully deceives the viewer.
The G5 is good computer, and in my opinion it is a good thing that Apple hardware is once again competitive with X86 architectures. However it is demonstrably not the fastest personal computer in existence, and was not so when the adverts were being aired. Therefor the Apple statement was a lie, and the were rightly called on it. Just as Intel should be called on their lies.
Why is it that you feel so defensive about your choice of computer that you have to rush to its defense when ever anyone implies that it might not be absolute perfection. It's only a computer like any other, in four years time it'll seem obsolete and useless, just like any other PC ever bought. Deal with reality, computers are tools, and investing your identity in the brand of hardware you buy is a silly thing to do. Brand loyalty is for gullible and the sheer extent of loyalty Apple instills in its devotees is worrying.
Yeah, but one gets the feeling that the folks at Virginia Tech haven't grasped what a computer is for.
To help keep the ambitious job on schedule, "we used an assembly line of volunteer students to unpack computers and perform many of the routine but time consuming functions." Patricia Arvin, associate vice president of information systems and computing,... [emphasis mine]
The Apple claim was explicit and an outright lie, the Intel claim is implicit and untrue. I think the distinction is bogus, and agree that Intel is being blatantly dishonest and misleading, However,that will be the reasoning behind why one advert gets pulled and not the other.
However, Mac OS systems do NOT comprise 3% of the total installed base of all computers. A more likely number of Mac OS systems in use is around 20-25%, if not a little larger.
Are you standing next to Steve Jobs, that's the funniest thing I've read since the last SCO press release.
Nice troll, but Open Office supply Linux binaries. Installation instructions are here. Shouldn't be too difficult for a computer literate chap like yourself.
Downloaded music quality won't (in the near future) come anywhere close to the quality of the CD.
That may be true but the reasons aren't technological. Don't believe me then go convert a variety of music from cd to ogg at various quality settings. Then burn the oggs to cd and listen to the results through high end equipment. Somwhere between q=7 and q=8 you will not be able to hear the difference.
Additionally with the new formats of digital audio media coming (like Super AudioCD) it's not likely that the size of the audio will decrease.
Yes the new formats do sound better but the masses don't use equipment that allow them to hear any real benefit. Not that that will prevent the record industry phasing out CD's to make way for the a new format. But if they do so it will be because the new formats are harder to copy. These formats do mean bigger file sizes, but much of the increased size will not result in a better audio experience for the listener. Most of the information will be lost by the human auditory perception system. It is precisely such psychological factors that compressed file formats take advantage of, so don't expect to see compressed files increase by anything like the size of uncompressed ones to achieve the same perceptible increase in quality.
Look at the record itself... It's still around (mostly because of the audiophiles).
A few audiophiles still profess to prefer vinyl but the are not the cause of vinyls longevity most vinyl produced today contains dance music and is produced for DJ's. DJ's cater for people who dance not people who listen.
Wrong. You need to read up on the doctrine of "fair use" with respect to copyright.
Actually I was thinking about how quoting is permitted by the various Berne Conventions on copyright. The Doctrine of Fair Use is a peculiarly American concept, and doesn't apply to those of us in the UK.
You might have made your point more elegantly by quoting the 3 paragraphs yourself!:-)
True, but I couldn't be arsed writing enough context to ensure I was covered.
From time to time, readers and vendors alike want to use excerpts from InfoWorld articles in their own material. Permission for such usage is required.
Taken from http://www.infoworld.com/about/abt_cpy.html#photoc opy1, and used as an example of how not everything you read on the internet is true. The text quoted above is a lie copyright can not be used to protect yourself from being quoted.
You've got it all wrong. For music you need big slow computers that take up entire buildings. You just can't get decent tones with solid state devices.
Then there are CDs like Dark Side of the Moon which took considerably longer. "Just start taking less time to make CDs" is also over-simplifying it.
Pink Floyd could afford a lot of studio time, by the time they made Dark Side of the Moon they were an established act with a massive following. They could afford big costs, and they could afford to be inneficient. Most acts can't afford such a luxury. The big record companies complain that they make a loss on most CD's, and that a few big sellers subsidize the majority of acts losses.
Music costs what it costs to make
Now that is an over simplification. An efficient operation can undercut an inefficient one. The big record companies can afford to be inneficient because they rely on cross subsidies, and the artist bears the biggest brunt of any losses.
It may just so happen that the sort of music you prefer is the type that can be produced in a short amount of time and with minimal expense, and that's perfectly fine, but at the same time, you'll recognize that it's not everybody's preference.
Actually my taste in music is broad and varied. But since you brought up Dark Side of the Moon, here's a link to an album
that more than matches it for production quality, and complexity. I couldn't tell you off hand what it cost, (next time I bump into one of the guys involved I'll ask), but i can guarantee it wont have cost anything like $50,000. In music, like software, there is little correlation between cost and quality.
OK then I'll give you a studio budget of $10,000 dollars per day, to cover a few session musicians, studio time, engineer and producer. That's a good budget, I know of very high prouction quality albums that have been put together for that sort of total budget. Now if it costs you $50,000 to produce a single track that means you've spent five days in the studio to produce that track. If it takes you that long to produce one track then you weren't ready to go into the studio in the first place, and your costs are out of control.
Then it's time to get your fucking costs under control.
High recording costs are a function of the high price of recorded music not the other way round. High quality recordings can be, and are, made for a fraction of that cost. The price of recording equipment has never been cheaper than it is today.
These inflated costs are nothing more than a means for the recording industry to distribute the money amongst a select few, and justify the small pecentage they pay the artist. They are a con bordering on fraud.
Out of the five machines in my house only one runs windows. My wife needs some windows only software for her work, and my son likes to play RPG's, (so a games console is not an option). I've installed Mozilla on that machine, and explained the reasons to use that instead of IE. My wife and son both use Mozilla without any complaint or problem, but I can't rip out IE. My system is reasonably secure, I have NAT and firewalls on each machine. Yet I can't hall out this damnable piece of software which can reach out download all sorts of crap. I don't want it, my wife doesn't want it and my son doesn't want it, yet we can't get rid of it, and other applications can fire it up. What should I do, deny my family access to the software they need or want to run?
If you want another browser, fine install it and tweak the system to make it use that, or, don't install windows.
The point is even if you have tweaked the system to use another browser WMP is harcoded so that it calls IE, which you can't remove from your system. To use your analogy it's as if Honda welded their engines into their cars so that you couldn't swap the engine if you wanted to. A browser shouldn't be welded into the system, nor should a buy button provided with the OS be hardcoded to go to a particular site. If MS want to put in their site as a default fine, but at least let me alter the defaults. It's my OS I paid for it, I don't demand control of what they do with the money I paid them.
I entirely agree, wanting my personal computer to do what I want it to do is just so unreasonable. Next thing you know people will want to be able to program the damn things themselves. Where will this madness end.
Newsflash! Books and computer files do not contain intellectual property they contain information. Intelectual property is a legal fiction and refers to the rights to use and or distribute information or knowledge. It is the copyright itself which is intelectual property not the material to which the copyright refers. As for inherent value, here is a piece of information you are talking crap, you might find that piece of information valuable, and it will not lose its value just because others also know you are talking crap. However if you lose sight of the fact that you are talking crap you will have lost something of value, although you will not of lost any intellectual property.
Why should even high school teachers or students be required to make Powerpoint presentations?
Absolutely, I've yet to see a presentation done with powerpoint that couldn't have been done at least as well with bog standard HTML and a browser. Simple cheap and effective, but put people in front of a computer and they become easy prey for marketing sharks.
Child pornography, phhft. It's pretty hypocritical, when the media exploitation of the newest underage pop star is verging on just that.
You're spot on, some of the stuff the music industry does is beyond anything a society with any sense of values should tolerate. Don't get me wrong I love Zappa and he not only crossed the line but tore it apart. However, Zappa's intended audience consisted af adults, much of the manufactured pop of today blurs the line between children's entertainment and pornography, and that's entertainment for children under twelve not teenagers. The bastards that push this stuff are the ones that should be jailed, not the kids that use P2P to get their fix.
Slashdot Mirror
Did I say that the G5 wasn't a blazingly fast computer, or did I say anything which can reasonably be construed as implying such. I'll give you a hint, the answer is no. So why do you think I would so surprised at the performance of a G5. If you take the time to actually read and comprehend my previous post. You will discover the point I was making is that the Intel adverts are every bit as misleading and dishonest as the Apple ones. I was saying that the difference between an explicit lie and an implicit lie is bogus, (the test of a lie being the meaning that the receiver of a statement is intended to take from it). I was saying that the ITC should pull the Intel advert, because it purposefully deceives the viewer.
The G5 is good computer, and in my opinion it is a good thing that Apple hardware is once again competitive with X86 architectures. However it is demonstrably not the fastest personal computer in existence, and was not so when the adverts were being aired. Therefor the Apple statement was a lie, and the were rightly called on it. Just as Intel should be called on their lies.
Why is it that you feel so defensive about your choice of computer that you have to rush to its defense when ever anyone implies that it might not be absolute perfection. It's only a computer like any other, in four years time it'll seem obsolete and useless, just like any other PC ever bought. Deal with reality, computers are tools, and investing your identity in the brand of hardware you buy is a silly thing to do. Brand loyalty is for gullible and the sheer extent of loyalty Apple instills in its devotees is worrying.
Yeah, but one gets the feeling that the folks at Virginia Tech haven't grasped what a computer is for.
To help keep the ambitious job on schedule, "we used an assembly line of volunteer students to unpack computers and perform many of the routine but time consuming functions." Patricia Arvin, associate vice president of information systems and computing,... [emphasis mine]
http://computing.vt.edu/research_computing/teras cale/pressrelease.html
The Apple claim was explicit and an outright lie, the Intel claim is implicit and untrue. I think the distinction is bogus, and agree that Intel is being blatantly dishonest and misleading, However,that will be the reasoning behind why one advert gets pulled and not the other.
However, Mac OS systems do NOT comprise 3% of the total installed base of all computers. A more likely number of Mac OS systems in use is around 20-25%, if not a little larger.
Are you standing next to Steve Jobs, that's the funniest thing I've read since the last SCO press release.
Nice troll, but Open Office supply Linux binaries. Installation instructions are here. Shouldn't be too difficult for a computer literate chap like yourself.
Updates and service packs for Windows have always been free. They have never once charged for them.
cough*Windows 98SE*cough
Downloaded music quality won't (in the near future) come anywhere close to the quality of the CD.
That may be true but the reasons aren't technological. Don't believe me then go convert a variety of music from cd to ogg at various quality settings. Then burn the oggs to cd and listen to the results through high end equipment. Somwhere between q=7 and q=8 you will not be able to hear the difference.
Additionally with the new formats of digital audio media coming (like Super AudioCD) it's not likely that the size of the audio will decrease.
Yes the new formats do sound better but the masses don't use equipment that allow them to hear any real benefit. Not that that will prevent the record industry phasing out CD's to make way for the a new format. But if they do so it will be because the new formats are harder to copy. These formats do mean bigger file sizes, but much of the increased size will not result in a better audio experience for the listener. Most of the information will be lost by the human auditory perception system. It is precisely such psychological factors that compressed file formats take advantage of, so don't expect to see compressed files increase by anything like the size of uncompressed ones to achieve the same perceptible increase in quality.
Look at the record itself... It's still around (mostly because of the audiophiles).
A few audiophiles still profess to prefer vinyl but the are not the cause of vinyls longevity most vinyl produced today contains dance music and is produced for DJ's. DJ's cater for people who dance not people who listen.
Wrong. You need to read up on the doctrine of "fair use" with respect to copyright.
Actually I was thinking about how quoting is permitted by the various Berne Conventions on copyright. The Doctrine of Fair Use is a peculiarly American concept, and doesn't apply to those of us in the UK.You might have made your point more elegantly by quoting the 3 paragraphs yourself! :-)
True, but I couldn't be arsed writing enough context to ensure I was covered.
Taken from http://www.infoworld.com/about/abt_cpy.html#photoc opy1, and used as an example of how not everything you read on the internet is true. The text quoted above is a lie copyright can not be used to protect yourself from being quoted.
You've got it all wrong. For music you need big slow computers that take up entire buildings. You just can't get decent tones with solid state devices.
Then there are CDs like Dark Side of the Moon which took considerably longer. "Just start taking less time to make CDs" is also over-simplifying it.
Pink Floyd could afford a lot of studio time, by the time they made Dark Side of the Moon they were an established act with a massive following. They could afford big costs, and they could afford to be inneficient. Most acts can't afford such a luxury. The big record companies complain that they make a loss on most CD's, and that a few big sellers subsidize the majority of acts losses.
Music costs what it costs to make
Now that is an over simplification. An efficient operation can undercut an inefficient one. The big record companies can afford to be inneficient because they rely on cross subsidies, and the artist bears the biggest brunt of any losses.
It may just so happen that the sort of music you prefer is the type that can be produced in a short amount of time and with minimal expense, and that's perfectly fine, but at the same time, you'll recognize that it's not everybody's preference.
Actually my taste in music is broad and varied. But since you brought up Dark Side of the Moon, here's a link to an album that more than matches it for production quality, and complexity. I couldn't tell you off hand what it cost, (next time I bump into one of the guys involved I'll ask), but i can guarantee it wont have cost anything like $50,000. In music, like software, there is little correlation between cost and quality.
OK then I'll give you a studio budget of $10,000 dollars per day, to cover a few session musicians, studio time, engineer and producer. That's a good budget, I know of very high prouction quality albums that have been put together for that sort of total budget. Now if it costs you $50,000 to produce a single track that means you've spent five days in the studio to produce that track. If it takes you that long to produce one track then you weren't ready to go into the studio in the first place, and your costs are out of control.
If the track cost $50,000.00 to produce
Then it's time to get your fucking costs under control.
High recording costs are a function of the high price of recorded music not the other way round. High quality recordings can be, and are, made for a fraction of that cost. The price of recording equipment has never been cheaper than it is today.
These inflated costs are nothing more than a means for the recording industry to distribute the money amongst a select few, and justify the small pecentage they pay the artist. They are a con bordering on fraud.
Out of the five machines in my house only one runs windows. My wife needs some windows only software for her work, and my son likes to play RPG's, (so a games console is not an option). I've installed Mozilla on that machine, and explained the reasons to use that instead of IE. My wife and son both use Mozilla without any complaint or problem, but I can't rip out IE. My system is reasonably secure, I have NAT and firewalls on each machine. Yet I can't hall out this damnable piece of software which can reach out download all sorts of crap. I don't want it, my wife doesn't want it and my son doesn't want it, yet we can't get rid of it, and other applications can fire it up. What should I do, deny my family access to the software they need or want to run?
If you want another browser, fine install it and tweak the system to make it use that, or, don't install windows.
The point is even if you have tweaked the system to use another browser WMP is harcoded so that it calls IE, which you can't remove from your system. To use your analogy it's as if Honda welded their engines into their cars so that you couldn't swap the engine if you wanted to. A browser shouldn't be welded into the system, nor should a buy button provided with the OS be hardcoded to go to a particular site. If MS want to put in their site as a default fine, but at least let me alter the defaults. It's my OS I paid for it, I don't demand control of what they do with the money I paid them.
The wife threw me out the house so I moved into a small flat and replaced her with a Palm.
I entirely agree, wanting my personal computer to do what I want it to do is just so unreasonable. Next thing you know people will want to be able to program the damn things themselves. Where will this madness end.
Everyone that I know in the industry has told be how worried they are
I hope I've caught you before you sent it.
It's spelt p-a-l-i-s-t-i-n-e.
Apple makes physical objects with a distinctive look.
Yep, they look like these. How cool is that?
Newsflash! Books and computer files do not contain intellectual property they contain information. Intelectual property is a legal fiction and refers to the rights to use and or distribute information or knowledge. It is the copyright itself which is intelectual property not the material to which the copyright refers. As for inherent value, here is a piece of information you are talking crap, you might find that piece of information valuable, and it will not lose its value just because others also know you are talking crap. However if you lose sight of the fact that you are talking crap you will have lost something of value, although you will not of lost any intellectual property.
Stealing a book from a library == theft.
Photocopying the same book ==copyright infringement != theft.
Burning the book == damage.
See how simple logic is when you're not trolling
Then why are musician bitching about owing the studios millions of dollars if it didn't cost that much to get them started?
You just answered your own question. They're bitching because record industry accounting practises amount to fraud.
Why should even high school teachers or students be required to make Powerpoint presentations?
Absolutely, I've yet to see a presentation done with powerpoint that couldn't have been done at least as well with bog standard HTML and a browser. Simple cheap and effective, but put people in front of a computer and they become easy prey for marketing sharks.
Child pornography, phhft. It's pretty hypocritical, when the media exploitation of the newest underage pop star is verging on just that.
You're spot on, some of the stuff the music industry does is beyond anything a society with any sense of values should tolerate. Don't get me wrong I love Zappa and he not only crossed the line but tore it apart. However, Zappa's intended audience consisted af adults, much of the manufactured pop of today blurs the line between children's entertainment and pornography, and that's entertainment for children under twelve not teenagers. The bastards that push this stuff are the ones that should be jailed, not the kids that use P2P to get their fix.