Apple iPods have decoder chips which can decode WMA. However, they refuse to enable this functionality to force users to buy songs from iTMS, locking out their competitors. No doubt they will try the same bs with their TiVO line if they buy it, selecting only video formats they like.
"BTW, Gnumeric is a great replacement for XL, but I can't get it to print to my laser printer properly.:/"
That's what cracks me up about Linux zealots. They bitch about every little Windows idiosyncracy, but gloss over glaring problems with OSS. How is it great if you can't even make a printout?
This post is so bad I almost busted out laughing. Saying allofmp3.com has any kind of legitimacy is like saying MS is doing well in China because most computers there run pirated versions of Windows.
You're no libertarian, BTW. Libertarians respect property rights.
All the sob stories you here about artists not making any money are usually on their 1st record contract, where their worth is around $0. If they make it big, when their contract expires, they can negotiate with a great deal of leverage because they have shown that they can sell albums. The original post is correct. If you think a band like U2 is not making a ton of money, you've been totally mislead
Saying broadband wireless is a ultilty is like saying cell phone providers are utilities. There is no reason any company should have a de facto monopoly in an area. anti-trust is not an issue, unless you allow govts to set up wireless networks, at which point their tax subsidized systems are difficult to compete against.
The providers supporting this bill will soon be providing WiMax access which blows away any cobled together hack of a WiFi network. If your community goes ahead anyway and puts in a crappy WiFi network, don't complain when the providers decide not to put WiMax in your area because of the cheap crappy WiFi you have there.
Broadband wireless is not a monopoly. With WiMax, a number of competitors can exist in 1 market, like with cell phone services. Having the govt step in is a bad idea because the private sector cannot compete against taxpayer subsidized monopolies. The govt should stay out of broadband wireless.
In the US, we believe the free market is about freedom. Having the majority of people vote to take your money and spend it on things for themselves is not freedom. If 55% of the population said you are a slave because of the color of your skin, is that a free society. It meets your criteria, i.e. govt did what the electorate wanted.
Aside from a brief period of enlightenment, Europe has gone stright from feudalism to socialism, substituting one form of tyranny for another.
That's how liberals twist things. They claim people who make more money have an obligation to give that money to people who make less. Liberals claim to stand for freedom, but in this respect their policies are very opressive.
The US govt usually only gets involved in infrastructure projects that aren't practival for free market. These involve things like roads, pipe, power lines, etc. that aren't practical to let just anyone build so they either do it themselves or choose a company and regulate them.
Now broadband wireless is not one of these markets. Using WiMax, a large number of companies can compete much like they do now for cell phone service. Local govts. are already wasting their money on shrt sighted WiFi based projects. They clearly don't know what they're doing. Once the govt. system is in place, you'll be stuck with it since it's tough to compete with a free system, even if your solution is much better
WiFi was designed for small networks. instead of trying to "tweak" it to do something it was not intended to do (i.e. increase tx output power), just wait for WiMax, which has a broadcast range in kilometers.
Revenue lost world-wide due to p2p piracy is not particularly good for the USA, especially given its trade defecit. CA is a blue state BTW, so you can't blame Bush for this one.
"Social Security also delivers a considerable nonmonetary benefit: people who have contributed throughout their working lives know that, regardless of the ebb and flow of their careers and, indeed, of the stock market, a guaranteed pension awaits them."
Today, sure. Tomorrow, who knows. The whole point is that social security cannot pay out the same benefits in the future as they do today assuming we approach zero population growth and continue to extend life expectancy. Without any fundamental change to social security, they will either have to raise the retirement age, cut benefits, raise taxes, or some combination of the above. Conservatives hate it because it is a socialist program where the payout is skewed in favor of those who pay in less, so they want to get rid of it. Private accounts is a step in that direction
Yes, Microsoft has proven that people just want things to be compatible. They don't care about lock-in. People here hate MS, so they bitch about MS customer lock-in. People here like Apple, so they are complacent about Apple customer lock-in.
"Well, all of them except for *the* major online retailer that is."
And why is that? We already know that Apple refused to license their IP for fairtplay to real. Probably the same for Creative. But their Apple, so no one bitches about their monopolistic practices.
Corporations are owned and run by people, people with the same rights as any other individual. The New York Times isn't a person either. Are you implying this group doesn't have 1st amendment rights either?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple iPods have decoder chips which can decode WMA. However, they refuse to enable this functionality to force users to buy songs from iTMS, locking out their competitors. No doubt they will try the same bs with their TiVO line if they buy it, selecting only video formats they like.
"BTW, Gnumeric is a great replacement for XL, but I can't get it to print to my laser printer properly. :/"
That's what cracks me up about Linux zealots. They bitch about every little Windows idiosyncracy, but gloss over glaring problems with OSS. How is it great if you can't even make a printout?
"Who would have thought only a few years ago that Sun would be the new champion of Linux and AMD?"
I knew that the ultraSPARC was dead a few years ago. Not surprised at the current Sun situation.
This post is so bad I almost busted out laughing. Saying allofmp3.com has any kind of legitimacy is like saying MS is doing well in China because most computers there run pirated versions of Windows.
You're no libertarian, BTW. Libertarians respect property rights.
All the sob stories you here about artists not making any money are usually on their 1st record contract, where their worth is around $0. If they make it big, when their contract expires, they can negotiate with a great deal of leverage because they have shown that they can sell albums. The original post is correct. If you think a band like U2 is not making a ton of money, you've been totally mislead
"Remeber your ancient TNT graphics card that had 16MB of memory?"
I remember thinking a Mac Mini is obsolete the day you buy it since, among other things, it only comes with 32MB video RAM.
Come on. Popular songs with no DRM being served out of Russia. Does anything about that statement sound legal?
Saying broadband wireless is a ultilty is like saying cell phone providers are utilities. There is no reason any company should have a de facto monopoly in an area. anti-trust is not an issue, unless you allow govts to set up wireless networks, at which point their tax subsidized systems are difficult to compete against.
The providers supporting this bill will soon be providing WiMax access which blows away any cobled together hack of a WiFi network. If your community goes ahead anyway and puts in a crappy WiFi network, don't complain when the providers decide not to put WiMax in your area because of the cheap crappy WiFi you have there.
Cable and DSL providers don't want any wireless competition, private or public.
Broadband wireless is not a monopoly. With WiMax, a number of competitors can exist in 1 market, like with cell phone services. Having the govt step in is a bad idea because the private sector cannot compete against taxpayer subsidized monopolies. The govt should stay out of broadband wireless.
In the US, we believe the free market is about freedom. Having the majority of people vote to take your money and spend it on things for themselves is not freedom. If 55% of the population said you are a slave because of the color of your skin, is that a free society. It meets your criteria, i.e. govt did what the electorate wanted.
Aside from a brief period of enlightenment, Europe has gone stright from feudalism to socialism, substituting one form of tyranny for another.
That's how liberals twist things. They claim people who make more money have an obligation to give that money to people who make less. Liberals claim to stand for freedom, but in this respect their policies are very opressive.
The US govt usually only gets involved in infrastructure projects that aren't practival for free market. These involve things like roads, pipe, power lines, etc. that aren't practical to let just anyone build so they either do it themselves or choose a company and regulate them.
Now broadband wireless is not one of these markets. Using WiMax, a large number of companies can compete much like they do now for cell phone service. Local govts. are already wasting their money on shrt sighted WiFi based projects. They clearly don't know what they're doing. Once the govt. system is in place, you'll be stuck with it since it's tough to compete with a free system, even if your solution is much better
It's probably 16-QAM or maybe even 64-QAM
It's not 70Mb/s shared. It's 70Mb/s per channel. This service is competitve with DSL and Cable.
Why would they fight it? Instead, they would partner with WiMax providers to pull in more customers.
WiFi was designed for small networks. instead of trying to "tweak" it to do something it was not intended to do (i.e. increase tx output power), just wait for WiMax, which has a broadcast range in kilometers.
Revenue lost world-wide due to p2p piracy is not particularly good for the USA, especially given its trade defecit. CA is a blue state BTW, so you can't blame Bush for this one.
You mean like the fools and liars at the New York Times who wrote this opinion piece. This isn't journalism either.
"Social Security also delivers a considerable nonmonetary benefit: people who have contributed throughout their working lives know that, regardless of the ebb and flow of their careers and, indeed, of the stock market, a guaranteed pension awaits them."
Today, sure. Tomorrow, who knows. The whole point is that social security cannot pay out the same benefits in the future as they do today assuming we approach zero population growth and continue to extend life expectancy. Without any fundamental change to social security, they will either have to raise the retirement age, cut benefits, raise taxes, or some combination of the above. Conservatives hate it because it is a socialist program where the payout is skewed in favor of those who pay in less, so they want to get rid of it. Private accounts is a step in that direction
Yes, Microsoft has proven that people just want things to be compatible. They don't care about lock-in. People here hate MS, so they bitch about MS customer lock-in. People here like Apple, so they are complacent about Apple customer lock-in.
"Well, all of them except for *the* major online retailer that is."
And why is that? We already know that Apple refused to license their IP for fairtplay to real. Probably the same for Creative. But their Apple, so no one bitches about their monopolistic practices.
Corporations are owned and run by people, people with the same rights as any other individual. The New York Times isn't a person either. Are you implying this group doesn't have 1st amendment rights either?
IBM is notorious for making people write papers and patents as part of their job description.
Since this guy doesn't work for Apple, and presumably has no NDA agreement with them, the 1st amendment should protect him, like any other journalist.