I don't own an iPod, so I can't say with certainty, but I suspect it's the same, yes.
But compare that to the $30 toy I bought last week: it reads regular mp3 files (128kbs max, unfortunately) off a regular FAT-formatted USB thumb drive and broadcasts them on one of a few FM frequencies. It's powered from the cigarette lighter, and does a decent job.
So note the difference: no supplied software -- I put files on it using any OS I chose, using whatever UI I happen to have handy. Yes, it's limited somewhat in that it cannot navigate directories, and it can't play truly high-fidelity files, but for $30, it's terrific. AND, it's tolerant of non-MP3 files on the data source. (I found it it Target, but can't remember the brand.)
I strongly suspect Sony makes no money from their piddly-shit Connect music store, so why do they strap me down with all the DRM crap? Ditto Apple.
Should I have bought iRiver?
It's interesting that the history of SonicStage, the software Sony distributes with their consumer Walkman-type stuff (minidisc, "mp3" players, etc) is similar. The "preferred" format is ATRAC (.omg/.oma) a proprietary one that no other software supports. When MP3 was finally added, it was not truly MP3 -- rather it required you to process MP3 files through their software which SONY-ized it to a more propietary form of MP3. Today, when you plug a Bean player (Sony's previous generation iPod competitor) to a USB port, it's recognized as an external disc drive, but you cannot just drag-n-drop MP3 files (or even.omg files) to it and expect them to play: Sony insists on getting their hands into your audio data.
Original versions of Sony's minidisc platform wouldn't allow you to digitally upload material you had recorded. You had to route the audio outout and use an analog process to get the stuff to your PC. When customers complained, they responded by providing the upload capability, but you only had one shot at it: the recording was then marked uncopyable!!! Finally, they currently support unlimited uploading, but I suspect it has other odious restrictions.
If I didn't have so much invested in Sony hardware, I'd drop them like a rock.
None of this stuff has much to do with the vast majority of musicians. Look at the names being bandied about: what Madonna, Bowie, Macca, et al, have in common is a huge population of hangers-on who also depend on the artist for income. It wouldn't hurt my feelings (or deplete my music collection) one whit for any major label artist to disappear entirely.
Like a growing number of people (who refuse to be pigeonholed as "consumers"), I'm re-discovering what music actually means to me. There are many more 2nd-tier (or lower) artists who cannot charge $200 for concert seats. They still depend on earning money in dribs and drabs -- many just get by, and would starve if they couldn't get a gig next week. No shiny-suited lawyer-biz types hanging on these guys. Yet they make meaningful, vibrant, living art. Better still, it's cheaper to try out an unknown artist. For a $10 cover charge, you may have a great time dancing, meeting people, and perhaps as a bonus, discover a musician whose art actually touches you in a way Madonna never could. (And even if she could, would you want her to????)
Or, heaven forfend! you should gather with some friends around a piano or guitar and bongos and actually make your own music! Wow! what a concept!
Excuse my ignorance, but how is this an argument against instrumentalism? I mean, from a scientific POV at least, that means ideas needn't be true so much as useful at explaining things, right? Does "anti-instrumentalism" require objective truth? Or does it demand that ideas not explain anything?
While I usually applaud any attempt at mini-revolutions from within, I think in this case they'd get better results collecting money with which to bribe members already in parliament. Voters vote conscience: MPs vote $. (Or whatever symbol the Swedes use for their currency.)
I suggest people consider boycotting _all_ RIAA member labels, not just Sony. They just happened to be the fools who fell for this particular version. It's not hte implementation that's anathema, it's the concept of DRM. When in doubt, consult RIAA Radar. Don't buy discs produced by RIAA members, it't that simple.
Amen. I just got a 17" wide Fujitsu "laptop" and wouldn't dream of subjecting my lap to it. It does look nice, tho. But 19"? 20?!? That's insane unless it has wheels.
Yep, this entire discussion is useless. Books have lasted for hundreds of years precisely because they're nearly perfect as is. If today you were to see the first book ever printed and assembled, you'd know exactly what it was for and how to use it. The probability of that being true for ebook hardware just a few decades from now aproaches zero. Jeez, there won't even be any batteries for them soon enough.
The fact that a few techno-geeks think that ebooks are better doesn't mean the technology will ever take off (or over or whatever).
I'll certainly never mod you down for that. I switched too NOD32 when Kaspersky KAV4.x bloated up like Norton/Symantec, and I'm oh-so-glad I did. I've never used their enterprise stuff, but I'm so pleased with the single-machine version that I'd not hesitate to give it a try were I in the market.
And no I don't work for NOD or Eset or whoever it is.
In trying to figure out who and how to submit my comments, I'm finding it pretty tough to decode all the loopy instructions. (In my defense, it's too early for me to be typing anything.)
It appears that email isn't an option; and that hardcopies have to be submitted in sextuplicate(!). Even more confusing to me:
The Office requests that responses to this supplemental notice of inquiry be made part of the responders' comments on the July 22nd Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
I can't be the only one who found those slightly less than
funny, can I? Just as a reminder,
amusing: arousing or provoking laughter; "an amusing film with a steady stream of pranks and pratfalls"; "an amusing fellow"; "a comic hat"; "a comical look of surprise"; "funny stories that made everybody laugh"; "a very funny writer"; "it would have been laughable if it hadn't hurt so much"; "a mirthful experience"; "risible courtroom antics"
The very act of figuring out how to accomplish some
task would be more instructive than using yet another
piece of MSware to drag an icon around.
I'm being serious, here, so don't ding me for being anti-opensource.
I'm in fact very anti-MS, pro LaATIG (Linux and All That is Good).
I'm posting this as a rant, as much as anything, without benefit of reading any of the already-posted/.er responses. I'm sure what I'll say has been said before, and said better. That's not important, so long as I unload. I'll also resist the tempation to hide behind anonymity since I think I have karma to burn. So....
Why not just allow the IDers (or Creation Scientists, or whatever they call themselves this year) have their day in school? I claim that doing so will uncover the vapidness of their "science" faster than any debate or argument could. There's quite literally nothing to be said about it after the initial premise is stated. I.D. consists solely of the observation that a lot of people disagree with current scientific explanations of biology and prefer to attribute it to a sentient Creator. All else reduces to "yes, but it could be that He wanted it that way!" They have no positive observations to fall back on, only weak refutations of Darwinist theory. I claim that no area of serious study with so little foundation can exist for long in the light of day.
Follow along: what happens if Kansans mandate that such a thing be taught in their schools? Do you think anyone could create a full-semester course in I.D.? There's nothing there to teach! So could they require biology/botany teachers to give equal time to ID? That would consist of ending each lecture or textbook paragraph with a restatement of the it-can't-be-cause-I-don't-believe-it argument. After the 4th or 5th time, students will recognize it as meaningless and will tune it out. If they attempt to push the argument any further, it would be obvious to all that it was religion, yes? So what? Students will survive even that indignity.
After all, I was forced to attend church regularly until the age of eight or so, with a couple of Summers consisting of something called "Bible Camp." (I kid you not!) All of this happened several years prior to my introduction to anything like biology, botany, evolution, or any hard science. I suspect the same thing happened to a majority of/.ers as well, many for much longer than 8 years. What was the result? Did I or many (any?!?) of us buy it? How many intelligent people do you know who disavow the truth of evolution by natural selection? Be real, now. I know way too many people who profess to believe in a "higher power" or God or Cosmic Muffin or whatever, but almost none of them insist that we should refute Darwinism. The spittle-spewers who believe that are pretty much outside my sphere, and are really a minority. There are scads of people doing e.g. research in pharmacology who also go to church regularly. But do we see Blessitol, "the only antibacterial medication approved by the Holy See!" down at the local Walgreen's? (Yes, yes, I know they have "holistic" and "homeopathic" crap at Walgreens, and yet... life goes on, doesn't it?)
For centuries now, a segment of every society has choosen to study the hard sciences in an attempt to better explain stuff. This in the face of powerful arguments in favor of more simple-minded explanations. That's not going to change! If exposure to mysticism were enough to dispel rational thought, then everyone would be a preacher/mystic/prophet/guru/naval-gazer. As a militant rationalist, I am proof-positive that such is not the case.
What would Darwin do? He'd say "Tsk, tsk, those unfortunate fools!" and go on about his business studying barnacles or fruit flies or whatever.
The whole reason they're doing this is VERY simple.
Release a tool that does some huge good - i.e. Busting child porn purveyors.
Make it open source, so the criminals can read the code.
The criminals can see how they're getting caught, and adapt.
Microsoft then proves that Open Source is evil, because it lets criminals get away.
All they did was find a limited-case example where releasing the code might be harmful, and implement it. This will be thoroughly epic FUD a year from now.
My thoughts exactly, and I'm hardly a conspiracy nut. Mark our words well: this is designed to disparage FOSS.
Slashdot Mirror
Wet/whet, whistle/appetite, whatever. I saw nothing in TFA that made me eager for version 3. What'd I miss?
So how come my client says "invalid response format" when I use freedb2.org, but still works fine with freedb.org?
So note the difference: no supplied software -- I put files on it using any OS I chose, using whatever UI I happen to have handy. Yes, it's limited somewhat in that it cannot navigate directories, and it can't play truly high-fidelity files, but for $30, it's terrific. AND, it's tolerant of non-MP3 files on the data source. (I found it it Target, but can't remember the brand.) I strongly suspect Sony makes no money from their piddly-shit Connect music store, so why do they strap me down with all the DRM crap? Ditto Apple. Should I have bought iRiver?
Original versions of Sony's minidisc platform wouldn't allow you to digitally upload material you had recorded. You had to route the audio outout and use an analog process to get the stuff to your PC. When customers complained, they responded by providing the upload capability, but you only had one shot at it: the recording was then marked uncopyable!!! Finally, they currently support unlimited uploading, but I suspect it has other odious restrictions.
If I didn't have so much invested in Sony hardware, I'd drop them like a rock.
This was also the watershed book for me, way back when. Nothing I've seen since has had more impact, and every lesson in it is still applicable.
So can we now expect prices on the smaller ones to finally fall to reasonable levels? That's all that's prevented me from buying one, actually.
Like a growing number of people (who refuse to be pigeonholed as "consumers"), I'm re-discovering what music actually means to me. There are many more 2nd-tier (or lower) artists who cannot charge $200 for concert seats. They still depend on earning money in dribs and drabs -- many just get by, and would starve if they couldn't get a gig next week. No shiny-suited lawyer-biz types hanging on these guys. Yet they make meaningful, vibrant, living art. Better still, it's cheaper to try out an unknown artist. For a $10 cover charge, you may have a great time dancing, meeting people, and perhaps as a bonus, discover a musician whose art actually touches you in a way Madonna never could. (And even if she could, would you want her to????)
Or, heaven forfend! you should gather with some friends around a piano or guitar and bongos and actually make your own music! Wow! what a concept!
Really, does it surprise anyone that it's Florida doing this?
Excuse my ignorance, but how is this an argument against instrumentalism? I mean, from a scientific POV at least, that means ideas needn't be true so much as useful at explaining things, right? Does "anti-instrumentalism" require objective truth? Or does it demand that ideas not explain anything?
Oops....is my cynicism showing?
I gotta believe that it takes very little information to overload the average reader of USA Today.
The finest pair of performers since Uncle Miltie's falsies!
Good riddance, I'd say. One down, forty nine to go. Maybe the 2006 elections can be fair afterall.
I suggest people consider boycotting _all_ RIAA member labels, not just Sony. They just happened to be the fools who fell for this particular version. It's not hte implementation that's anathema, it's the concept of DRM. When in doubt, consult RIAA Radar. Don't buy discs produced by RIAA members, it't that simple.
Ah, so _that's_ what that was all about! Kewl!
Amen. I just got a 17" wide Fujitsu "laptop" and wouldn't dream of subjecting my lap to it. It does look nice, tho. But 19"? 20?!? That's insane unless it has wheels.
The fact that a few techno-geeks think that ebooks are better doesn't mean the technology will ever take off (or over or whatever).
I'll certainly never mod you down for that. I switched too NOD32 when Kaspersky KAV4.x bloated up like Norton/Symantec, and I'm oh-so-glad I did. I've never used their enterprise stuff, but I'm so pleased with the single-machine version that I'd not hesitate to give it a try were I in the market.
And no I don't work for NOD or Eset or whoever it is.
It appears that email isn't an option; and that hardcopies have to be submitted in sextuplicate(!). Even more confusing to me: That's from the last paragraph at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.ht
WTF?!?
Apologies in advance if I've overlooked the obvious.
The very act of figuring out how to accomplish some task would be more instructive than using yet another piece of MSware to drag an icon around. I'm being serious, here, so don't ding me for being anti-opensource. I'm in fact very anti-MS, pro LaATIG (Linux and All That is Good).
Why not just allow the IDers (or Creation Scientists, or whatever they call themselves this year) have their day in school? I claim that doing so will uncover the vapidness of their "science" faster than any debate or argument could. There's quite literally nothing to be said about it after the initial premise is stated. I.D. consists solely of the observation that a lot of people disagree with current scientific explanations of biology and prefer to attribute it to a sentient Creator. All else reduces to "yes, but it could be that He wanted it that way!" They have no positive observations to fall back on, only weak refutations of Darwinist theory. I claim that no area of serious study with so little foundation can exist for long in the light of day.
Follow along: what happens if Kansans mandate that such a thing be taught in their schools? Do you think anyone could create a full-semester course in I.D.? There's nothing there to teach! So could they require biology/botany teachers to give equal time to ID? That would consist of ending each lecture or textbook paragraph with a restatement of the it-can't-be-cause-I-don't-believe-it argument. After the 4th or 5th time, students will recognize it as meaningless and will tune it out. If they attempt to push the argument any further, it would be obvious to all that it was religion, yes? So what? Students will survive even that indignity.
After all, I was forced to attend church regularly until the age of eight or so, with a couple of Summers consisting of something called "Bible Camp." (I kid you not!) All of this happened several years prior to my introduction to anything like biology, botany, evolution, or any hard science. I suspect the same thing happened to a majority of /.ers as well, many for much longer than 8 years. What was the result? Did I or many (any?!?) of us buy it? How many intelligent people do you know who disavow the truth of evolution by natural selection? Be real, now. I know way too many people who profess to believe in a "higher power" or God or Cosmic Muffin or whatever, but almost none of them insist that we should refute Darwinism. The spittle-spewers who believe that are pretty much outside my sphere, and are really a minority. There are scads of people doing e.g. research in pharmacology who also go to church regularly. But do we see Blessitol, "the only antibacterial medication approved by the Holy See!" down at the local Walgreen's? (Yes, yes, I know they have "holistic" and "homeopathic" crap at Walgreens, and yet ... life goes on, doesn't it?)
For centuries now, a segment of every society has choosen to study the hard sciences in an attempt to better explain stuff. This in the face of powerful arguments in favor of more simple-minded explanations. That's not going to change! If exposure to mysticism were enough to dispel rational thought, then everyone would be a preacher/mystic/prophet/guru/naval-gazer. As a militant rationalist, I am proof-positive that such is not the case.
What would Darwin do? He'd say "Tsk, tsk, those unfortunate fools!" and go on about his business studying barnacles or fruit flies or whatever.
Ok, I'm done for now.
Yer pal, DrDanny
How about by buying a Canon camera?
My thoughts exactly, and I'm hardly a conspiracy nut. Mark our words well: this is designed to disparage FOSS.
Ouch! Yeah, that's too much for just a fancy form of nerd-badge. Bummer.