Use Debian and apt-get. No, seriously, could it be much easier?
Funny you should ask that. Yes, it could be much
easier. Software Update pops up a window every so
often with a list of software for which I don't have the
latest versions. I uncheck anything that I don't want
to install, and click a button. Minutes later, the
software are downloaded and installed, and I'm
prompted to restart the computer if necessary.
Unsurprisingly, Software Update is a MacOS X
feature.
apt-get is a wonderful foundation to build a real
user friendly tool on. I used it for a few years, and
appreciated its improvements over the old RPM,
but it's not the easiest thing in the world, particularly
to install for the first time. The autodetection is
grossly inadequate for anybody except the most
experienced PC users.
these people are all terrorists, unless you have a definition other than the one in the dictionary.
Actually, the 9/11 hijackers do not fit the classic
definition of a terrorist, who uses violence to intimidate
or coerce a population. The al Qaeda organization
appears to want to wipe America off the face of the
planet, and Osama bin Laden would be better
compared to Hitler than to Arafat in terms of intent.
One is going for religious purity, the other for racial
purity.
Kim Jong-Il is a ruthless dictator, but kidnapping is
not terrorism. The kidnappings were of course
tragic to the families and the victim, but they were
not politicized violence. In fact, they weren't even
made public until recently. Using nuclear weapons in
blackmail is also not terrorism. Do you think bin Laden
will be blackmailing or blowing up New York if he had
nukes?
McVeigh and the Unabomber were terrorists. Their
attacks were political in nature. In fact, they are
classic terrorists, hoping that their violent actions
would spur or force political change. They did not
intend to kill everybody in the US.
You're a little confused about the term. What
distinguishes a terrorist is not their attack on
innocent civilians, but their political objective.
A man can rape and kill a little girl - a brutal act
against defenseless innocents - and that makes
him a rapist and a killer, but not a terrorist. Not
everything that frightens us is terrorism.
News sources like Al Jezera will slant everything the US does and paint it in a conspiratorial light. They habitually blame all their problems on us.
Do you believe everything you hear from the Fox News
Channel? If not, why not? The answer is education.
The answer is ensuring that when these people gain
enough wisdom (in the media interpretation and
anti-manipulation sense) to see the truth, the truth
is actually that the US is being fair.
We are? I'm assuming you're talking about small arms fire here.
The example I had in mind when I wrote that were the
Stinger (portable anti-aircraft) missiles that the US
sold (gave?) to the Mujahedin in Afghanistan who were
fighting the Soviet invaders. Many are worried that
these can be used against airliners.
I doubt you could appease Kim Chong-il, Timothy McVeigh, Bin Laden, and the Unibomber all at the same time
First of all, they're not all terrorists, so
there are different ways to engage each
threat. Let's assume you're talking about
terrorists.
They need a friendly environment in which to
hide and train. This is easy today, with
many people hating the US. The hatred can
be tempered by deeds: perceived sensitivity
and fairness in dealing with Palestine;
transparent and fair rebuilding of Iraq.
Basically, improve the chances that a
righteous Arab would call the cops on the
terrorists living next door.
They need money. People angry at the US
give money to terrorists. Decrease this
anger, and they are left with a few
independently wealthy fundamentalists,
whose assets are much easier to track down
and seize.
They need weapons. You might be aware that
the US is one of the biggest exporters of
weapons. You don't have to cut it out, but
you do want to be more careful who you sell
them to.
A situation like this arose in a couple assignments in computer science courses I've taken. This one professor I had, who was super anal and also did not understand this principle, accused myself and some of my peers of copying each others' code.
The situations are not very alike at all. In
a class, students are assigned small, specific
problems with clear solutions. The likelihood
of similar code being submitted is very high.
In sophisticated software such as an OS, the
partitioning of the system into modules is
already non-obvious. The choice of core data
structures is also non-obvious, as some
implementations are more sensitive to size
and others to speed. Many commercial code
have strange historical requirements that
affected the design in specific ways that
cannot reasonably be explained by the
offending code.
Now, I'm not suggesting one way or the
other, just pointing out that school and
real code have different properties when it
comes to catching "cheaters".
Who knows when that particular piece of code was placed there. 20 years ago? Yesterday? Or just before they go to court to present the evidence?
Somebody like SCO who has a shipping product,
say, in 1998, has essentially a dated binary
image as proof of their code. These binaries
are on CD-ROMs in the possession of various
independent customers, and are not easily
falsified. Now, SCO shows the court that
their old source code compiles exactly* to the
shipped binaries, thereby dating the source
code as well. They'll need to have the right
version of the compilers.
(If a company can't rebuild a shipping product
from source, they don't deserve to win a
case like this.)
* Expert witnesses will testify on SCO's
behalf that compilers add time stamps and
such, and you never really get a bit-perfect
rebuild. The relevant parts should still be
identical, though.
which programmer is more likely to grab some peice of code that just works?
As a professional programmer, I resent that
implication. I have never taken code that is
not properly licensed (i.e. BSD license) for
use in commercial software. I do not know of
any colleagues or former colleagues who have
done this. I consider it a fireable offense.
In fact, when developing a particular piece
of software, I deliberately refrained from
looking at free equivalents to avoid
accidental "contamination", although I did
briefly monitor developer mailing lists to
see what sort of problems they face. If it
matters, the software I was developing (full
time) quickly overtook the free equivalent,
even though there were more developers on
their project. My schedules would not have
allowed me to wait for them to finish
coding.
Please, most of us have ethics, and unless
you have proof of rampant code theft, at
least give us the benefit of the doubt.
We no longer live in a world of IF's, we live in a world of WHEN's.
The problem is, as 9/11 illustrates, we don't
know when. If somebody sufficiently convincing
had illustrated the particular mode of attack
(hijack airplane, crash into building), and
possibly even showed a simulation of how the
WTC is so susceptible to high temperature fires,
maybe something would've been done to prevent
it.
Obviously, I don't know his motives, but I
wouldn't fault anybody for putting together
off-the-shelf components to show us a
terrible weapon. The question is will this
warning shock somebody into action.
In Open Source the users should contribute,
and if they don't they shouldn't complain about
features lacking or not lacking.
You are entitled to your opinion of what should
be in the open source world. I'm not trying to
change your mind.
What I am pointing out is that successful
projects do keep their "customers" in mind.
If a security hole is discovered in Apache,
by your logic, nobody can demand a patch,
much less an immediate patch. That's fine,
but Apache wouldn't be successful if things
worked that way.
Also, it's easy to say "you should help",
but the nature of software is that it is
usually many times harder for anybody else
to fix something than the original author.
This is even more true with bigger projects.
The fix from the original author is more
likely to fit in well with the overall
design, and be less buggy.
So I'm not arguing that you should listen to
every random idiot with an opinion. However,
your statement leans too far the other way,
probably resulting in software that only
developers will use. The freedom inherent
in open source software permits higher quality
software, but IMHO not if you ignore the end
user too much.
what if I want to listen to downloaded music on the equipment I invested in that only supports MP3? AAC wont work in my Aiwa CDC-MP3, will it?
This is no different than Apple selling Final
Cut Pro only for MacOS, and you can't run it
on the Windows PC you invested thousands on...
NO. Guess I stay with Limewire.
...and then concluding that you should just
illegally download a video editor application
for Windows instead.
Civil disobedience of bad laws is a laudable
thing. However, you sound like you'd be on
board if Apple sold MP3s instead, which
sounds like you think you should be able to
take a product for free if you don't like
its price or limited features. I think you
forget that you're free to not listen to
music if you don't like the way it's priced
or sold.
Open Source development isn't about what
everyone wants, its about what the developer
wants
Really? The Linux kernel (the Linus tree,
in particular) contains lots of driver code
for hardware I'm sure Linus doesn't personally
own. A lot of risky changes are meant for
architectures that Linus doesn't have, or may
not even have seen. In fact, it may be
interesting to see what percentage of Linux
(in terms of lines of code or whatever) Linus
personally uses.
Yet Linus accommodates these changes, and
adds them to his tree. They make Linux a
better product for many other people, even
though it does less than nothing (any feature
you don't need is an unnecessary potential
bug) for him. Do you think Linux would be
nearly as successful if Linus refused patches
for any hardware he didn't own?
Sure, the developer can do whatever he or she
wants, but the successful projects keep their
users in mind.
The problem is I do actually want higher quality versions of just those tracks.
There are several things to consider here.
One is bandwidth. The high quality versions
require more bandwidth to download, and Apple
may actually want to sacrifice you so that
other users get a better experience. (Think
ISP throttling back subscribers who use the
most bandwidth.)
Two, the recording industry. What you see
today is doubtlessly a compromise. The
industry is leery of unprotected high quality
tracks. Thus, Apple gives some protection,
and lowers the quality somewhat. I expect
that if Apple insisted on high quality, the
industry would demand strong DRM, and if
Apple insisted on zero DRM, the industry
would only permit low quality downloads.
Record companies are going to make a killing on cost [s]avings alone if this pans out.
I'm pretty sure the recording industry is nowhere
near as confident as you are. Once the unit of
music purchase changes significantly from album
to song, they have to deal with a whole new
business model. At the very least, a band that
sells 100,000 albums can make them as much money
as an artist who sells 1,000,000 songs. The
second obvious thing is that artists (especially
the most successful ones who can afford the
recording but not the distribution) can just
cut out the middleman and pocket more profits
from their work. These are dramatic
changes in the dynamic among the artists, the
recording industry, and the consumers.
This presents tremendous opportunities, but
as with any major shift in business model,
existing interests can get hurt.
With only about 5% of the market, (Apple, anyone?), the developers will devote about that much concern to whether their games will run under WineX.
It's not the percentage size of the market that
matters. Adobe and Microsoft both sell flagship
products on MacOS, for example.
The equation will have to do with how many
units you expect to sell and how much it will
cost to port (tangible costs like developer
time, as well as intangible ones like
introducing potential bugs into the source
due to the port). If it's really cheap to
port to WineX, they'll probably do it, even
if they don't sell all that many units.
Also, note that the Linux/WineX game market
is a very different one than the Windows
market, precisely because many games don't
work on WineX. Less competition can mean
that your game gets a bigger share of the
5% than in the 95%.
The balance of power is still firmly on the side of an armed citizenry, actively resisting the government, wiping the floor with whatever police and/or military forces are stupid enough as to try and retake the city by force.
I disagree, but since this is hypothetical, I'm
afraid we'll have to just leave it like that.
I will point out one thing, though. The
"bloodiness" of a revolt will change the
threshold of tolerance somewhat. That is,
even if you are right and the citizens are
ultimately victorious, the losses in life
and property have to be worth whatever you're
fighting for.
For example, I don't think there will be
organized armed revolution if just one of the
Bill of Rights is revoked. (I don't wish to
argue this hypothetical too much, either.)
Like I've recommended that you do twice now: ask cops and ask soldiers what they would think [...]
Like I've ignored twice now: I don't trust
their opinions on this subject. "Invading"
an American city is a highly political
exercise, so the possibility of success
depends highly on the morale of the invading
force. I don't think I can get a good answer
between "can't win because we won't do it"
and "can't win because we can't do it".
If you think 18th century armies weren't dependent on morality for their good conduct
[...]
I'm not sure how you misread me. What I
mean is that, in the triangle of political
leadership, military, and civilians, the
military has an increased responsibility to
act morally to go with their increased
abilities.
Interesting discussion, but I fear the
points are merely being rehashed now.
The Second Amendment does not exist, and never has existed, to be a deterrent against unlawful encroachments upon individual liberty against the government. The Second Amendment exists to make damn certain that once the government goes too far, it will soon be dissolved by force of arms.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not
going to argue about why the amendment was put
in place. I don't think we're really in
disagreement about the following points,
though:
A citizenry armed with rifles in 1900
poses as an actual deterrent against tyranny.
The relative balance of power in terms of
arsenal has shifted towards the government
in recent decades, even using only
conventional weapons.
Therefore, to prevent tyranny more
responsibility is placed on the military to
be nationalized (as opposed to personalized),
and to have independent judgement. That is,
soldiers must no longer justify every act by
a direct order.
I think you're right that the civilian guns
still pose a consideration to a potential
tyrant, compared to a completely unarmed
citizenry. I just think that a moral
military machine plays an increasingly big
role in this equation.
No, you (and the RIAA et al) still miss the point.
I did not miss your point. I just wanted to
stress where the responsibility to be honest
lies. Yes, Apple and the RIAA can make it
easier to be honest.
However, as much as I dislike the RIAA, they
do face widespread copyright infringement*.
The high quality unencumbered MP3s you want
makes life easier for you, but it also makes
life easier for the infringers. I'm sure
you realize that a being honest doesn't
usually exempt you from restrictions that
try to prevent dishonesty. I never carry
bombs onto airplanes, yet I walk through the
same metal detectors as everybody else.
If I'm dishonest enough to use this service and then spread the music all over Kazaaland, then I'm dishonest enough to skip using this service and get the music directly from Kazaa.
I've found that humans are not that binary.
Convenience plays a big role in whether people
violate rules. Just look at all the drivers
who make illegal U-turns to save 20 seconds
of time as an example.
* Whether this infringement actually harms
their revenue is a separate debate in which
nobody seems to have real numbers.
So why encourage dishonesty by intentionally crippling the honest methods by making them harder to use?
Except in very desperate cases
(stealing bread to survive winter), honesty
is a personal choice. Fundamentally, nobody
has an obligation to make it easy for you to
be honest. In fact, it's usually harder to
be honest.
Secondly, this is most likely a compromise
deal between Apple and the record labels.
In fact, Apple just made it more convenient
to obtain music legally, yet people whine
about how it's still not as convenient as
stealing. Guess what? Shoplifting is also
more convenient than lining up to pay the
cashier.
Now, I'm sure Apple appreciates feedback to
improve its service, but the tone of the
post I responded to did not read to me as
constructive criticism.
using WMDs on civilian centers is
ultimately counterproductive, from a
fighting-guerrillas standpoint.
We're not talking about the same things.
I'm saying that civilian rifles do not
deter the US military's full arsenal if it
can be convinced to use them, and therefore
civil liberties rely on the US military to
do the right thing.
You're saying that
the US military can't win even if it used
WMDs against its own people. Maybe, but
that didn't stop the political leadership
in Russia from invading Chechnya, or
Saddam from gassing the Kurds. Remember
I'm talking about deterrence.
It wont matter to you or Apple if you
buy 5 songs through them or 5,000; its
just a few more transactions in a
database.
In either case the transaction has a more
or less fixed cost that can be divided over
a $5 purchase or a $5,000 purchase. The
cost is not just server disk space or
bandwidth, but also operator salaries and
other costs. Credit card companies also
charge per transaction, which is why many
small merchants require a minimum purchase
before they accept credit cards.
Basically, it's telling that every post I've
read complaining about the price has no idea
how the 99 cents break down, yet is quite
willing to say that's "overcharging".
Most importantly, in a free market, price is
not tightly related to cost. The question is
what the product or service is worth to the
buyer, not how much it costs to deliver.
Apple will have speed, quality and reliability, but they still need to price it so its not worth people's time to download it off the net w/o paying for it.
Actually, I don't believe that Apple is going
for the p2p demographic. I think Apple is
going for the CD-buying demographic, which is
at least proven to be willing to pay for
music. You need to remember that Apple's
customers are those who are willing to pay
extra for something they value.
Given that I have access to the free,
better, but dishonest alternative, why the
f*** would you put restrictions on how I
can use what I buy that are only to prevent
me from being dishonest?
Sounds like you're asking how you can be
expected to be honest when it's so damned
convenient to be dishonest. Are you
expecting a reward for being honest?
News flash: honesty has a price. Honesty
means you work all your life, while others
get rich on all sorts of illegal activities
and deplete your savings. How many people
from Enron benefited from honesty?
This Apple venture pokes a big hole in the
usual excuses for copyright infringement.
It doesn't remove every excuse, because
Apple is not trying to save your soul, to
use a religious metaphor. Your integrity
remains your own problem, your own choice.
Maybe it also covers paying premium prices for hardware just because the case looks cool.
My G4 tower case does not just "look cool".
I'm going to give examples of why I like it.
It has handles, and so it's much easier to
move around than the beige boxes.
The door hinges on the bottom of the right
side, opening 90 degrees down. This exposes
the entire motherboard for easy replacement
of peripherals, RAM, or CPU. Very few
cables are flying around.
The case doubles as an Airport antenna,
which means you won't need a fragile little
antenna sticking out the side.
The case is quiet.
The hard drives are mounted on the bottom
of the case, along the width of the case.
This means that the ribbon cables are only
a few inches long.
Many of these are not hard to duplicate, but
the point is that it's not just good looks.
I can't believe it's that hard to duplicate
a Mac's ease-of-use features.
What's your (lack of) belief based on? If
it's easy, then surely by now there'd be
other competitors that have duplicated or
surpassed it, and you'll be able to cite
specific examples.
And lots of us would be very happy to see a low-budget way to play with software that only runs on the Mac platform.
Why do you want to play with it, if the "Mac
experience" is so overrated, expensive, and
easily duplicated?
He said that you can buy a permit for any weapon (except nukes, duh!)
What you call "duh" is the crux of my
argument. As long as there are weapons
that are off limits, it means that the
government drew a line. Whether the
line is between conventional and NBC
weapons or between guns and knives is
very much arguable.
Advocates who justify gun ownership because
a knife can also be used as a weapon are
missing this point. Advocates who don't
feel they need to argue are also missing
this point. There's simply no absolute right
to own weapons.
Assume the USG becomes so tyrannical that 1% of the firearms owners decide to take arms against the government, and 10% decide to support and shelter the 1% who will fight.
Suddenly you've got an armed guerrilla uprising of 1.5 million people and 15 million support personnel.
How many nuclear warheads, among the thousands
in the control of the US government, do you
think that will require?
If you don't think the US Armed Forces will
use nukes on its own people, that's precisely
my point of how a moral and informed military
protects the people.
Now, if a foreign country sends that million
strong invasion force into the US, and is
threatening to take over the country, do you
think the US will use nukes to preserve itself?
Possibly. (In fact, it used nukes even when
the survival of the US was no longer at risk.)
This is no simple feat. The Iraqi military
obeyed orders to use chemical weapons against
civilians just a few years ago. What would
semi-automatic rifles have done for the Kurds?
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you should ask that. Yes, it could be much easier. Software Update pops up a window every so often with a list of software for which I don't have the latest versions. I uncheck anything that I don't want to install, and click a button. Minutes later, the software are downloaded and installed, and I'm prompted to restart the computer if necessary. Unsurprisingly, Software Update is a MacOS X feature.
apt-get is a wonderful foundation to build a real user friendly tool on. I used it for a few years, and appreciated its improvements over the old RPM, but it's not the easiest thing in the world, particularly to install for the first time. The autodetection is grossly inadequate for anybody except the most experienced PC users.
Actually, the 9/11 hijackers do not fit the classic definition of a terrorist, who uses violence to intimidate or coerce a population. The al Qaeda organization appears to want to wipe America off the face of the planet, and Osama bin Laden would be better compared to Hitler than to Arafat in terms of intent. One is going for religious purity, the other for racial purity.
Kim Jong-Il is a ruthless dictator, but kidnapping is not terrorism. The kidnappings were of course tragic to the families and the victim, but they were not politicized violence. In fact, they weren't even made public until recently. Using nuclear weapons in blackmail is also not terrorism. Do you think bin Laden will be blackmailing or blowing up New York if he had nukes?
McVeigh and the Unabomber were terrorists. Their attacks were political in nature. In fact, they are classic terrorists, hoping that their violent actions would spur or force political change. They did not intend to kill everybody in the US.
You're a little confused about the term. What distinguishes a terrorist is not their attack on innocent civilians, but their political objective. A man can rape and kill a little girl - a brutal act against defenseless innocents - and that makes him a rapist and a killer, but not a terrorist. Not everything that frightens us is terrorism.
Do you believe everything you hear from the Fox News Channel? If not, why not? The answer is education. The answer is ensuring that when these people gain enough wisdom (in the media interpretation and anti-manipulation sense) to see the truth, the truth is actually that the US is being fair.
The example I had in mind when I wrote that were the Stinger (portable anti-aircraft) missiles that the US sold (gave?) to the Mujahedin in Afghanistan who were fighting the Soviet invaders. Many are worried that these can be used against airliners.
Before that, Iran had F-14s.
First of all, they're not all terrorists, so there are different ways to engage each threat. Let's assume you're talking about terrorists.
They need a friendly environment in which to hide and train. This is easy today, with many people hating the US. The hatred can be tempered by deeds: perceived sensitivity and fairness in dealing with Palestine; transparent and fair rebuilding of Iraq. Basically, improve the chances that a righteous Arab would call the cops on the terrorists living next door.
They need money. People angry at the US give money to terrorists. Decrease this anger, and they are left with a few independently wealthy fundamentalists, whose assets are much easier to track down and seize.
They need weapons. You might be aware that the US is one of the biggest exporters of weapons. You don't have to cut it out, but you do want to be more careful who you sell them to.
The situations are not very alike at all. In a class, students are assigned small, specific problems with clear solutions. The likelihood of similar code being submitted is very high. In sophisticated software such as an OS, the partitioning of the system into modules is already non-obvious. The choice of core data structures is also non-obvious, as some implementations are more sensitive to size and others to speed. Many commercial code have strange historical requirements that affected the design in specific ways that cannot reasonably be explained by the offending code.
Now, I'm not suggesting one way or the other, just pointing out that school and real code have different properties when it comes to catching "cheaters".
Somebody like SCO who has a shipping product, say, in 1998, has essentially a dated binary image as proof of their code. These binaries are on CD-ROMs in the possession of various independent customers, and are not easily falsified. Now, SCO shows the court that their old source code compiles exactly* to the shipped binaries, thereby dating the source code as well. They'll need to have the right version of the compilers.
(If a company can't rebuild a shipping product from source, they don't deserve to win a case like this.)
* Expert witnesses will testify on SCO's behalf that compilers add time stamps and such, and you never really get a bit-perfect rebuild. The relevant parts should still be identical, though.
As a professional programmer, I resent that implication. I have never taken code that is not properly licensed (i.e. BSD license) for use in commercial software. I do not know of any colleagues or former colleagues who have done this. I consider it a fireable offense.
In fact, when developing a particular piece of software, I deliberately refrained from looking at free equivalents to avoid accidental "contamination", although I did briefly monitor developer mailing lists to see what sort of problems they face. If it matters, the software I was developing (full time) quickly overtook the free equivalent, even though there were more developers on their project. My schedules would not have allowed me to wait for them to finish coding.
Please, most of us have ethics, and unless you have proof of rampant code theft, at least give us the benefit of the doubt.
The problem is, as 9/11 illustrates, we don't know when. If somebody sufficiently convincing had illustrated the particular mode of attack (hijack airplane, crash into building), and possibly even showed a simulation of how the WTC is so susceptible to high temperature fires, maybe something would've been done to prevent it.
Obviously, I don't know his motives, but I wouldn't fault anybody for putting together off-the-shelf components to show us a terrible weapon. The question is will this warning shock somebody into action.
You are entitled to your opinion of what should be in the open source world. I'm not trying to change your mind.
What I am pointing out is that successful projects do keep their "customers" in mind. If a security hole is discovered in Apache, by your logic, nobody can demand a patch, much less an immediate patch. That's fine, but Apache wouldn't be successful if things worked that way.
Also, it's easy to say "you should help", but the nature of software is that it is usually many times harder for anybody else to fix something than the original author. This is even more true with bigger projects. The fix from the original author is more likely to fit in well with the overall design, and be less buggy.
So I'm not arguing that you should listen to every random idiot with an opinion. However, your statement leans too far the other way, probably resulting in software that only developers will use. The freedom inherent in open source software permits higher quality software, but IMHO not if you ignore the end user too much.
This is no different than Apple selling Final Cut Pro only for MacOS, and you can't run it on the Windows PC you invested thousands on...
NO. Guess I stay with Limewire.
Civil disobedience of bad laws is a laudable thing. However, you sound like you'd be on board if Apple sold MP3s instead, which sounds like you think you should be able to take a product for free if you don't like its price or limited features. I think you forget that you're free to not listen to music if you don't like the way it's priced or sold.
Really? The Linux kernel (the Linus tree, in particular) contains lots of driver code for hardware I'm sure Linus doesn't personally own. A lot of risky changes are meant for architectures that Linus doesn't have, or may not even have seen. In fact, it may be interesting to see what percentage of Linux (in terms of lines of code or whatever) Linus personally uses.
Yet Linus accommodates these changes, and adds them to his tree. They make Linux a better product for many other people, even though it does less than nothing (any feature you don't need is an unnecessary potential bug) for him. Do you think Linux would be nearly as successful if Linus refused patches for any hardware he didn't own?
Sure, the developer can do whatever he or she wants, but the successful projects keep their users in mind.
There are several things to consider here.
One is bandwidth. The high quality versions require more bandwidth to download, and Apple may actually want to sacrifice you so that other users get a better experience. (Think ISP throttling back subscribers who use the most bandwidth.)
Two, the recording industry. What you see today is doubtlessly a compromise. The industry is leery of unprotected high quality tracks. Thus, Apple gives some protection, and lowers the quality somewhat. I expect that if Apple insisted on high quality, the industry would demand strong DRM, and if Apple insisted on zero DRM, the industry would only permit low quality downloads.
I'm pretty sure the recording industry is nowhere near as confident as you are. Once the unit of music purchase changes significantly from album to song, they have to deal with a whole new business model. At the very least, a band that sells 100,000 albums can make them as much money as an artist who sells 1,000,000 songs. The second obvious thing is that artists (especially the most successful ones who can afford the recording but not the distribution) can just cut out the middleman and pocket more profits from their work. These are dramatic changes in the dynamic among the artists, the recording industry, and the consumers.
This presents tremendous opportunities, but as with any major shift in business model, existing interests can get hurt.
It's not the percentage size of the market that matters. Adobe and Microsoft both sell flagship products on MacOS, for example.
The equation will have to do with how many units you expect to sell and how much it will cost to port (tangible costs like developer time, as well as intangible ones like introducing potential bugs into the source due to the port). If it's really cheap to port to WineX, they'll probably do it, even if they don't sell all that many units.
Also, note that the Linux/WineX game market is a very different one than the Windows market, precisely because many games don't work on WineX. Less competition can mean that your game gets a bigger share of the 5% than in the 95%.
I disagree, but since this is hypothetical, I'm afraid we'll have to just leave it like that.
I will point out one thing, though. The "bloodiness" of a revolt will change the threshold of tolerance somewhat. That is, even if you are right and the citizens are ultimately victorious, the losses in life and property have to be worth whatever you're fighting for.
For example, I don't think there will be organized armed revolution if just one of the Bill of Rights is revoked. (I don't wish to argue this hypothetical too much, either.)
Like I've recommended that you do twice now: ask cops and ask soldiers what they would think [...]
Like I've ignored twice now: I don't trust their opinions on this subject. "Invading" an American city is a highly political exercise, so the possibility of success depends highly on the morale of the invading force. I don't think I can get a good answer between "can't win because we won't do it" and "can't win because we can't do it".
If you think 18th century armies weren't dependent on morality for their good conduct [...]
I'm not sure how you misread me. What I mean is that, in the triangle of political leadership, military, and civilians, the military has an increased responsibility to act morally to go with their increased abilities.
Interesting discussion, but I fear the points are merely being rehashed now.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to argue about why the amendment was put in place. I don't think we're really in disagreement about the following points, though:
- A citizenry armed with rifles in 1900
poses as an actual deterrent against tyranny.
The relative balance of power in terms of
arsenal has shifted towards the government
in recent decades, even using only
conventional weapons.
- Therefore, to prevent tyranny more
responsibility is placed on the military to
be nationalized (as opposed to personalized),
and to have independent judgement. That is,
soldiers must no longer justify every act by
a direct order.
I think you're right that the civilian guns still pose a consideration to a potential tyrant, compared to a completely unarmed citizenry. I just think that a moral military machine plays an increasingly big role in this equation.I did not miss your point. I just wanted to stress where the responsibility to be honest lies. Yes, Apple and the RIAA can make it easier to be honest.
However, as much as I dislike the RIAA, they do face widespread copyright infringement*. The high quality unencumbered MP3s you want makes life easier for you, but it also makes life easier for the infringers. I'm sure you realize that a being honest doesn't usually exempt you from restrictions that try to prevent dishonesty. I never carry bombs onto airplanes, yet I walk through the same metal detectors as everybody else.
If I'm dishonest enough to use this service and then spread the music all over Kazaaland, then I'm dishonest enough to skip using this service and get the music directly from Kazaa.
I've found that humans are not that binary. Convenience plays a big role in whether people violate rules. Just look at all the drivers who make illegal U-turns to save 20 seconds of time as an example.
* Whether this infringement actually harms their revenue is a separate debate in which nobody seems to have real numbers.
Except in very desperate cases (stealing bread to survive winter), honesty is a personal choice. Fundamentally, nobody has an obligation to make it easy for you to be honest. In fact, it's usually harder to be honest.
Secondly, this is most likely a compromise deal between Apple and the record labels. In fact, Apple just made it more convenient to obtain music legally, yet people whine about how it's still not as convenient as stealing. Guess what? Shoplifting is also more convenient than lining up to pay the cashier.
Now, I'm sure Apple appreciates feedback to improve its service, but the tone of the post I responded to did not read to me as constructive criticism.
We're not talking about the same things. I'm saying that civilian rifles do not deter the US military's full arsenal if it can be convinced to use them, and therefore civil liberties rely on the US military to do the right thing.
You're saying that the US military can't win even if it used WMDs against its own people. Maybe, but that didn't stop the political leadership in Russia from invading Chechnya, or Saddam from gassing the Kurds. Remember I'm talking about deterrence.
In either case the transaction has a more or less fixed cost that can be divided over a $5 purchase or a $5,000 purchase. The cost is not just server disk space or bandwidth, but also operator salaries and other costs. Credit card companies also charge per transaction, which is why many small merchants require a minimum purchase before they accept credit cards.
Basically, it's telling that every post I've read complaining about the price has no idea how the 99 cents break down, yet is quite willing to say that's "overcharging".
Most importantly, in a free market, price is not tightly related to cost. The question is what the product or service is worth to the buyer, not how much it costs to deliver.
Apple will have speed, quality and reliability, but they still need to price it so its not worth people's time to download it off the net w/o paying for it.
Actually, I don't believe that Apple is going for the p2p demographic. I think Apple is going for the CD-buying demographic, which is at least proven to be willing to pay for music. You need to remember that Apple's customers are those who are willing to pay extra for something they value.
Sounds like you're asking how you can be expected to be honest when it's so damned convenient to be dishonest. Are you expecting a reward for being honest?
News flash: honesty has a price. Honesty means you work all your life, while others get rich on all sorts of illegal activities and deplete your savings. How many people from Enron benefited from honesty?
This Apple venture pokes a big hole in the usual excuses for copyright infringement. It doesn't remove every excuse, because Apple is not trying to save your soul, to use a religious metaphor. Your integrity remains your own problem, your own choice.
My G4 tower case does not just "look cool". I'm going to give examples of why I like it.
- It has handles, and so it's much easier to
move around than the beige boxes.
-
The door hinges on the bottom of the right
side, opening 90 degrees down. This exposes
the entire motherboard for easy replacement
of peripherals, RAM, or CPU. Very few
cables are flying around.
-
The case doubles as an Airport antenna,
which means you won't need a fragile little
antenna sticking out the side.
-
The case is quiet.
-
The hard drives are mounted on the bottom
of the case, along the width of the case.
This means that the ribbon cables are only
a few inches long.
Many of these are not hard to duplicate, but the point is that it's not just good looks.I can't believe it's that hard to duplicate a Mac's ease-of-use features.
What's your (lack of) belief based on? If it's easy, then surely by now there'd be other competitors that have duplicated or surpassed it, and you'll be able to cite specific examples.
And lots of us would be very happy to see a low-budget way to play with software that only runs on the Mac platform.
Why do you want to play with it, if the "Mac experience" is so overrated, expensive, and easily duplicated?
What you call "duh" is the crux of my argument. As long as there are weapons that are off limits, it means that the government drew a line. Whether the line is between conventional and NBC weapons or between guns and knives is very much arguable.
Advocates who justify gun ownership because a knife can also be used as a weapon are missing this point. Advocates who don't feel they need to argue are also missing this point. There's simply no absolute right to own weapons.
How many nuclear warheads, among the thousands in the control of the US government, do you think that will require?
If you don't think the US Armed Forces will use nukes on its own people, that's precisely my point of how a moral and informed military protects the people. Now, if a foreign country sends that million strong invasion force into the US, and is threatening to take over the country, do you think the US will use nukes to preserve itself? Possibly. (In fact, it used nukes even when the survival of the US was no longer at risk.)
This is no simple feat. The Iraqi military obeyed orders to use chemical weapons against civilians just a few years ago. What would semi-automatic rifles have done for the Kurds?