I loved my Newton, but there are alternatives...
on
Newton Won't Die
·
· Score: 1
I held out until last year, and stuck with my Newton, and even bought a backup against the day when something bad happened to it. I then got given an iPaq at a conference, and found it better. Yes, the UI is not as good, but I found that the handwriting was just about as good. Having said that, I print, not write, so my handwriting is neater than most.
The important thing is the extras - I can put pictures of my daughter on it, and watch films on it. I gather that there is now an MP3 player for the Newton, so the iPaq has no advantage there. The only real problem with the iPaq is (a) the Mac synchronization is a pain and (b) the battery life leaves something to be desired. But I never thought I would give up my Newton, and I eventually did.
I don't disagree with the general tendency of the US to impose its own moral agenda on other countries, as shown in today's Register article about the FBI hacking into Russian computers.
However, a small correction. The US imposed tariffs on Russian steel, and then the Russians started banning American chicken imports, supposedly on health grounds. As far as I am aware, US beef was always available here in Russia, although it's very expensive. The ban on chicken was lifted recently too. This mini trade war is not about moral agendas - it's good old protectionism and retaliation.
Look at any textbook on screenplays - it tells you to set up the character in act 1, put them in conflict with something in act 2, and resolve the conflict in act 3. How much fun would Quake be if your enemies strew flowers in your path, gave you backrubs (but only with your agreement, and in a nonsuggestive way), and made you cappucino? Or if when you enter a room in Castle Wolfenstein the Nazis walk up, welcome you to their encounter group, and attempt to resolve their disagreements through interpretative dance?
This is why Grand Theft Auto 3 sells better than Driving Miss Daisy 2: Shifting into Second Gear. You need conflict in order to have drama, and wars and gangsters have this ready made. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before we get The Sims: Domestic Violence. The Sims may seem non-conflictual, but it's all about the fact that the Sims and their neighbours never do exactly what you want.
But wouldn't this make Apple's iPod illegal, as well as other MP3 players. As far as I can see, they explicitly encourage you to take your legal CDs, and burn them as MP3s to use them on the iPod.
Apple included a sticker on the first iPod which said that it was not to be used to violate copyright, but I understood that this was about giving MP3s to other people, not listening to your legally purchased CDs on another medium. I assume that their lawyers, and those of the other producers of MP3 players, have a defense prepared.
Anyway, the point here is not really about the illegality of copying. The issue for the industry lobby is that they are dealing with an act that many people can do, and which few people consider to be criminal. As a general rule, society has laws to protect the majority from the antisocial behaviour of the minority. But in this case, the "minority" IS the majority, and society does not see a lot wrong with what they are doing. So the industry groups are fighting a losing battle, just as they did against cassettes and video players. Technology gives them a few new weapons to enforce the laws that the industry groups want, but it also gives great weapons to their opponents.
The courts are slow and inefficient, even when they are honest. I have not heard of a single case where copyright has been enforced. Every so often, the police do a big public action where they raid the CD markets, but the same sellers spring up somewhere else. The record companies do a bit of anti-piracy advertising but in general, I think that they have realize that there is not much that they can do, so they have reduced the prices of official CDs, and just resigned themselves to it.
This means that artists make money, as far as I can see, by advertising, and by touring. There are five or six big casinos who hire big name Russian artists, and very small-name Western artists (e.g. Boney M) to play as a means of attracting punters. This works for the bands that appeal to an older audience, and you get some of the bars hiring the younger bands. The teenybopper bands spend most of their time doing regional tours, as far as I can see.
This presumably means that the record companies take a more direct role in their acts, especially in the tours, since this is the main revenue source. They all have videos, and these are paid for in order to increase profile for the touring audience. Presumably the record companies are investing in acts now in the hope that they can also make some money off the official CDs (there are people who prefer to be honest, or certain of the product's quality) and will make more, when they find a way to beat the illegal CD market.
I think that this is not that different from Bowie's vision of the future, and I can't be sure if it will make it harder or easier for small bands to develop. It seems to me that you still need record labels, or management companies, or some corporate entity that can help an artist become famous, just as they do now. For one thing, most artists make bad businessmen or women, regardless of their field. Of course, there are exceptions, like Madonna, but these are basically exceptions. There was another good article in the NYT over the weekend about how hard it is to persuade newly rich artists to properly handle their finances.
Bottom line - corporates will always find a way to make money, but they will have to be flexible in doing this. It probably means that the music corporations will get bigger, not smaller, and will start to look after artists' tours as well. And all their image rights, and publicity appearances - I'm sure there's something in William Gibson about all this.
Slashdot Mirror
I held out until last year, and stuck with my Newton, and even bought a backup against the day when something bad happened to it. I then got given an iPaq at a conference, and found it better. Yes, the UI is not as good, but I found that the handwriting was just about as good. Having said that, I print, not write, so my handwriting is neater than most. The important thing is the extras - I can put pictures of my daughter on it, and watch films on it. I gather that there is now an MP3 player for the Newton, so the iPaq has no advantage there. The only real problem with the iPaq is (a) the Mac synchronization is a pain and (b) the battery life leaves something to be desired. But I never thought I would give up my Newton, and I eventually did.
I don't disagree with the general tendency of the US to impose its own moral agenda on other countries, as shown in today's Register article about the FBI hacking into Russian computers. However, a small correction. The US imposed tariffs on Russian steel, and then the Russians started banning American chicken imports, supposedly on health grounds. As far as I am aware, US beef was always available here in Russia, although it's very expensive. The ban on chicken was lifted recently too. This mini trade war is not about moral agendas - it's good old protectionism and retaliation.
Look at any textbook on screenplays - it tells you to set up the character in act 1, put them in conflict with something in act 2, and resolve the conflict in act 3. How much fun would Quake be if your enemies strew flowers in your path, gave you backrubs (but only with your agreement, and in a nonsuggestive way), and made you cappucino? Or if when you enter a room in Castle Wolfenstein the Nazis walk up, welcome you to their encounter group, and attempt to resolve their disagreements through interpretative dance? This is why Grand Theft Auto 3 sells better than Driving Miss Daisy 2: Shifting into Second Gear. You need conflict in order to have drama, and wars and gangsters have this ready made. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before we get The Sims: Domestic Violence. The Sims may seem non-conflictual, but it's all about the fact that the Sims and their neighbours never do exactly what you want.
But wouldn't this make Apple's iPod illegal, as well as other MP3 players. As far as I can see, they explicitly encourage you to take your legal CDs, and burn them as MP3s to use them on the iPod. Apple included a sticker on the first iPod which said that it was not to be used to violate copyright, but I understood that this was about giving MP3s to other people, not listening to your legally purchased CDs on another medium. I assume that their lawyers, and those of the other producers of MP3 players, have a defense prepared. Anyway, the point here is not really about the illegality of copying. The issue for the industry lobby is that they are dealing with an act that many people can do, and which few people consider to be criminal. As a general rule, society has laws to protect the majority from the antisocial behaviour of the minority. But in this case, the "minority" IS the majority, and society does not see a lot wrong with what they are doing. So the industry groups are fighting a losing battle, just as they did against cassettes and video players. Technology gives them a few new weapons to enforce the laws that the industry groups want, but it also gives great weapons to their opponents.
The courts are slow and inefficient, even when they are honest. I have not heard of a single case where copyright has been enforced. Every so often, the police do a big public action where they raid the CD markets, but the same sellers spring up somewhere else. The record companies do a bit of anti-piracy advertising but in general, I think that they have realize that there is not much that they can do, so they have reduced the prices of official CDs, and just resigned themselves to it. This means that artists make money, as far as I can see, by advertising, and by touring. There are five or six big casinos who hire big name Russian artists, and very small-name Western artists (e.g. Boney M) to play as a means of attracting punters. This works for the bands that appeal to an older audience, and you get some of the bars hiring the younger bands. The teenybopper bands spend most of their time doing regional tours, as far as I can see. This presumably means that the record companies take a more direct role in their acts, especially in the tours, since this is the main revenue source. They all have videos, and these are paid for in order to increase profile for the touring audience. Presumably the record companies are investing in acts now in the hope that they can also make some money off the official CDs (there are people who prefer to be honest, or certain of the product's quality) and will make more, when they find a way to beat the illegal CD market. I think that this is not that different from Bowie's vision of the future, and I can't be sure if it will make it harder or easier for small bands to develop. It seems to me that you still need record labels, or management companies, or some corporate entity that can help an artist become famous, just as they do now. For one thing, most artists make bad businessmen or women, regardless of their field. Of course, there are exceptions, like Madonna, but these are basically exceptions. There was another good article in the NYT over the weekend about how hard it is to persuade newly rich artists to properly handle their finances. Bottom line - corporates will always find a way to make money, but they will have to be flexible in doing this. It probably means that the music corporations will get bigger, not smaller, and will start to look after artists' tours as well. And all their image rights, and publicity appearances - I'm sure there's something in William Gibson about all this.