The prankster in me enjoys the irony of Linux sites taking money from MS, but I fear you are right, although for other reasons than those you stated, which are moral ones. Moral reasons should be enough in an ideal world.
There are practical reasons as well. When a site generates income from the likes of Microsoft, they begin to depend on that revenue to pay for staff, infrastructure, whatever. If they are a for profit venture, the owners or investors want a profit.
This gives MS and others a huge wedge should they want to effect editorial content. In journalism there is supposed to be an unbreachable wall between editorial and advertising, but we've seen egregious breaches in the past in print journalism. Why should we expect different online and with a known dirty dealer like Microsoft. We know that pretty much nothing is beneath MS.
Now, if the advertisments are randomly assigned by a third party, that adds some insulation to the editorial side, but I'm sure clever people can find ways around that to infect editorial.
Next time, just stay the fuck out of our country. I hate it when Americans act like this (i.e., ugly), and I hate it just as much when people from other countries (especially fucking Canadians) get all snooty about things here in the U.S.
I hate it even more when the snooty Canadian has some sort of Asian fetish.
=)
If you don't like guns, stay the fuck away from borders. And stay the hell out of Mexico (where I now live). The cops there are armed to the fucking teeth. (Actually, if you want to visit Mexico, look me up in Guanajuato. The cops there are pretty nice about not pointing their guns at you, and there are a fair amount of Japanese students and tourists. You Asian freak.)
Dynamic Range and the SIZE of the CCD!!
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
First of all, no one has mentioned DYNAMIC RANGE yet. This is the range between absolute black and absolute white. Whether you are using film or digital, this range is crushed compared to the human eye. Digital dynamic range tends to be worse than film, which is one reason film isn't going to go completely away any time soon.
Greater dynamic range will give you better details in your shadows and highlights. This is very important for the serious photog, although probably not important for snaps of your kid's Bar Mitzvah.
The other thing that matters is the actual size of the CCD. Manufacturers are using various technical tricks to squeeze out more pixels from the same size CCD, and the results are sometimes pretty bad. The worst problem I've seen was purple fringing in bright red objects that were backlit. Totally ruined an otherwise beautiful photograph.
You've got an excellent point. I'm generally turned off by the preachy tone of downhill battle, but this is a pretty neat little hack, and is the sort of thing that might lead to real changes in music distribution. More functionality and less ideology, please.
It's completely a deal killer. In camera image stablization might be appropraite for your mom's vacation video, but if you have even the least pretension, turn it off and and learn how to hold the camera. I can do steadier handheld than this guy does with his "steadycam". His idea isn't bad, but it is nowhere near the same league as a real steadicam. One of the main problems to my mind is keeping the camera level when turning corners at any speed. You really have to fight the centripetal force when performing such a maneuver with one of this "weighted stick steadicams."
1) Apple can do no wrong. Drink the Kool Aid, bathe in the warm glow of the Reality Distortion Field, and shut up.
2) This patent seems to involve the graphical display of content and features of a MP3 player through a hierarchical menu structure and through playlists.
3) They are patenting a feature on a physical device, not a software method. They're not patenting the software. The technology they are patenting is embodied in a physical device.
4) A patent can be based on other work, even other patented work. If any previous art that Apple has built on is patented and that patent is owned by another company, Apple must still pay that other company. If a third party wants to license the technology, they must pay both Apple and the other company.
5) Patents mostly suck, unless Apple applies for them, because of 1).
I think you're absolutely right. Opening up Fairplay to other music stores probably wouldn't hurt and could very well help Apple.
What I don't think is likely is that Apple would allow other hardware makers to play protected iTunes music. Fully understandable for the portable MP3 player market, although it would be nice to have car and home CD players that can play protected AAC files. I can still plug in my iPod into my home stereo, but I can't use it with my boom box or my car stereo, which is without an auxilary in.
I've never fully understood the skinning thing. Appearance is only a very small part of interface, and skinning is the most superficial layer of appearance.
I'm not against skinning or customizing. I just didn't find skinning that useful or interesting for my own wants and needs. I've played with skins before, but returned to default within a short time.
This was the original rationale for developing and releasing the iPod: to drive computer sales. However, it's pretty safe to say that the success of the iPod has given it it's own reason for being. iPod is now a major profit center for Apple. If this wasn't the case, they wouldn't have created a Windows version (originally released with MusicMatch jukebox software, then with iTunes for Windows).
True, they still hope consumers will become interested in purchasing a Mac. It's still a wedge strategy (or as Steve Jobs has put it, an Apple Trojan horse).
Let's start over with what Joe said in the context of advising someone to buy a new mac and see who is doing the twisting here.
The #1 reason is that there are no virus problems on a Mac, and no major problems with spyware, malware, and general browser hijacking.
You say this is a lie, because in the past, in the pre-OS X days, there were a few (a very few) viruses. I believe Joe is giving his reasons for recommending macs today. There is no indication that he is advising people to buy an older OS mac. Thus his statement is truthful, as I read it. Macs as they are now are not plagued by any viruses, directly. We do suffer from the epidemics that plague Windows computers, but indirectly, not because our machines are infected.
The statement that there are currently no viruses for Macs is valid and true.
Could a virus be developed for Mac OS X or Unix? Certainly. It's quite possible, even probable, but because of the system archiitecture, it is unlikely to be as damaging as your garden variety Windows virus. At any rate, no one has said there never will be.
Joe also mentions spyware. There very well could be spyware that runs under OS X, but I don't know of any mac user that has had problems with spyware. Not one. I know many Windows users that seem to constantly have problems with spyware.
The #2 reason is the digital hub aspect. Adult's want mostly the same things from their home computers: Music, Digital Photos, Email, Internet Access, and Instant Messaging. All things that a Mac does better or the same as a PC minus most of the security woes and difficulty of setup. Most of the stuff they want to do will work right out of the box, nothing to install or mess with.
You called this a lie and a stretch, then tried to change the argument to be about professional users, when Joe specifically is talking about home users and home computers. Ordinary people.
The #3 reason is investment. After 3 years, you can sell your Mac and still get a lot of money for it. Try selling a 3 year old PC and you will get a fraction of what a Mac resells for.
You also said this is also a lie, but you haven't refuted it, nor have you refuted the evidence I provided for it. Bringing up warranties is irrelevant, and calling the many people who purchase valuable older equipment fools because you wouldn't do the same is arrogant. You bring up component failure, but that doesn't really prove your point either. Maybe you are used to cheap crappy components in your computers.
One of the worst lies is to call someone who is telling the truth a liar, when confronted with evidence that they are right. It's a form of intellectual violence. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should be twice as ashamed for somehow trying to use 9/11 to butress your "argument". That just struck me as a weird non-sequitar, to be honest.
> mean, the only reason anybody would ever consider listening to Nick Cave is to show off how cool they are for listening to Nick Cave. The. Only. Reason.
You should be modded up as insightful and funny, although I can think of one other reason, having to do with being gothic but denying that you're gothic.
It's been pointed out elsewhere ( I definitely saw a comment in the Money article article), but the pricing structure is definitely part of the the clever plan to upsell.
For $50 bucks more, you get that 11 GB more storage. For $100 more than that, you get over $100 worth of accessories and 5 GB more storage.
I was lucky. When the dockable iPods came out, I managed to snag a 2nd Gen 10 GB with all the accessories for $169 from the Apple Store refurb section. The kicker is that it wasn't refurbed, but new, sealed in the retail box.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to get nit picky, Linux is a kernel.
GNU/Linux is an OS.
And now it's a political and social movement.
I'm sorry, but denial is not the way to free yourself from economics, politics, or living in society.
The prankster in me enjoys the irony of Linux sites taking money from MS, but I fear you are right, although for other reasons than those you stated, which are moral ones. Moral reasons should be enough in an ideal world.
There are practical reasons as well. When a site generates income from the likes of Microsoft, they begin to depend on that revenue to pay for staff, infrastructure, whatever. If they are a for profit venture, the owners or investors want a profit.
This gives MS and others a huge wedge should they want to effect editorial content. In journalism there is supposed to be an unbreachable wall between editorial and advertising, but we've seen egregious breaches in the past in print journalism. Why should we expect different online and with a known dirty dealer like Microsoft. We know that pretty much nothing is beneath MS.
Now, if the advertisments are randomly assigned by a third party, that adds some insulation to the editorial side, but I'm sure clever people can find ways around that to infect editorial.
Yeah, I'd be happy to give you a fag. In fact, I brought some Cuban fags home with me from vacation.
Are you some sort of fag?
Next time, just stay the fuck out of our country. I hate it when Americans act like this (i.e., ugly), and I hate it just as much when people from other countries (especially fucking Canadians) get all snooty about things here in the U.S.
I hate it even more when the snooty Canadian has some sort of Asian fetish.
=)
If you don't like guns, stay the fuck away from borders. And stay the hell out of Mexico (where I now live). The cops there are armed to the fucking teeth. (Actually, if you want to visit Mexico, look me up in Guanajuato. The cops there are pretty nice about not pointing their guns at you, and there are a fair amount of Japanese students and tourists. You Asian freak.)
First of all, no one has mentioned DYNAMIC RANGE yet. This is the range between absolute black and absolute white. Whether you are using film or digital, this range is crushed compared to the human eye. Digital dynamic range tends to be worse than film, which is one reason film isn't going to go completely away any time soon.
Greater dynamic range will give you better details in your shadows and highlights. This is very important for the serious photog, although probably not important for snaps of your kid's Bar Mitzvah.
The other thing that matters is the actual size of the CCD. Manufacturers are using various technical tricks to squeeze out more pixels from the same size CCD, and the results are sometimes pretty bad. The worst problem I've seen was purple fringing in bright red objects that were backlit. Totally ruined an otherwise beautiful photograph.
The bigger the CCD the better.
You've got an excellent point. I'm generally turned off by the preachy tone of downhill battle, but this is a pretty neat little hack, and is the sort of thing that might lead to real changes in music distribution. More functionality and less ideology, please.
It's completely a deal killer. In camera image stablization might be appropraite for your mom's vacation video, but if you have even the least pretension, turn it off and and learn how to hold the camera. I can do steadier handheld than this guy does with his "steadycam". His idea isn't bad, but it is nowhere near the same league as a real steadicam. One of the main problems to my mind is keeping the camera level when turning corners at any speed. You really have to fight the centripetal force when performing such a maneuver with one of this "weighted stick steadicams."
I wish I had mod points.
Reminds me of something another DP told me, "Art is long, but crap takes forever."
Why browse for porn when you've got powerful command line utilities like porn-get from the Lesbian Distro?
1) Apple can do no wrong. Drink the Kool Aid, bathe in the warm glow of the Reality Distortion Field, and shut up.
2) This patent seems to involve the graphical display of content and features of a MP3 player through a hierarchical menu structure and through playlists.
3) They are patenting a feature on a physical device, not a software method. They're not patenting the software. The technology they are patenting is embodied in a physical device.
4) A patent can be based on other work, even other patented work. If any previous art that Apple has built on is patented and that patent is owned by another company, Apple must still pay that other company. If a third party wants to license the technology, they must pay both Apple and the other company.
5) Patents mostly suck, unless Apple applies for them, because of 1).
Latency might be a problem for gaming, but probably not if everyone is wireless.
You get some tissue, wad it up, and stick it in your ears. Common practice among show goers that don't want to damage their hearing.
>So go see them. Nobody's stopping you.
I'm a brain in a jar, you insensitive clod.
I think you're absolutely right. Opening up Fairplay to other music stores probably wouldn't hurt and could very well help Apple.
What I don't think is likely is that Apple would allow other hardware makers to play protected iTunes music. Fully understandable for the portable MP3 player market, although it would be nice to have car and home CD players that can play protected AAC files. I can still plug in my iPod into my home stereo, but I can't use it with my boom box or my car stereo, which is without an auxilary in.
I just wanted to add that Apple did more than implement ZeroConf in Rendevous. They played a major part in developing Zeroconf.
I've also written to the CEO of Veridisc, Gregory Halpern, with some questions about Fairplay. I'll post to slashdot if I get a reply.
Yeah, you missed one thing.
Release Unix under the GPL.
I can't tell you how much I want to see GNU/ Unix.
I've never fully understood the skinning thing. Appearance is only a very small part of interface, and skinning is the most superficial layer of appearance.
I'm not against skinning or customizing. I just didn't find skinning that useful or interesting for my own wants and needs. I've played with skins before, but returned to default within a short time.
This was the original rationale for developing and releasing the iPod: to drive computer sales. However, it's pretty safe to say that the success of the iPod has given it it's own reason for being. iPod is now a major profit center for Apple. If this wasn't the case, they wouldn't have created a Windows version (originally released with MusicMatch jukebox software, then with iTunes for Windows).
True, they still hope consumers will become interested in purchasing a Mac. It's still a wedge strategy (or as Steve Jobs has put it, an Apple Trojan horse).
I tried to create a content provider account, but I get an error when trying to register.
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'
anyone else have any luck?
Veridisc Registration Page
If you think like that, then the algae have already won.
Let's start over with what Joe said in the context of advising someone to buy a new mac and see who is doing the twisting here.
The #1 reason is that there are no virus problems on a Mac, and no major problems with spyware, malware, and general browser hijacking.
You say this is a lie, because in the past, in the pre-OS X days, there were a few (a very few) viruses. I believe Joe is giving his reasons for recommending macs today. There is no indication that he is advising people to buy an older OS mac. Thus his statement is truthful, as I read it. Macs as they are now are not plagued by any viruses, directly. We do suffer from the epidemics that plague Windows computers, but indirectly, not because our machines are infected.
The statement that there are currently no viruses for Macs is valid and true.
Could a virus be developed for Mac OS X or Unix? Certainly. It's quite possible, even probable, but because of the system archiitecture, it is unlikely to be as damaging as your garden variety Windows virus. At any rate, no one has said there never will be.
Joe also mentions spyware. There very well could be spyware that runs under OS X, but I don't know of any mac user that has had problems with spyware. Not one. I know many Windows users that seem to constantly have problems with spyware.
The #2 reason is the digital hub aspect. Adult's want mostly the same things from their home computers: Music, Digital Photos, Email, Internet Access, and Instant Messaging. All things that a Mac does better or the same as a PC minus most of the security woes and difficulty of setup. Most of the stuff they want to do will work right out of the box, nothing to install or mess with.
You called this a lie and a stretch, then tried to change the argument to be about professional users, when Joe specifically is talking about home users and home computers. Ordinary people.
The #3 reason is investment. After 3 years, you can sell your Mac and still get a lot of money for it. Try selling a 3 year old PC and you will get a fraction of what a Mac resells for.
You also said this is also a lie, but you haven't refuted it, nor have you refuted the evidence I provided for it. Bringing up warranties is irrelevant, and calling the many people who purchase valuable older equipment fools because you wouldn't do the same is arrogant. You bring up component failure, but that doesn't really prove your point either. Maybe you are used to cheap crappy components in your computers.
One of the worst lies is to call someone who is telling the truth a liar, when confronted with evidence that they are right. It's a form of intellectual violence. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should be twice as ashamed for somehow trying to use 9/11 to butress your "argument". That just struck me as a weird non-sequitar, to be honest.
> mean, the only reason anybody would ever consider listening to Nick Cave is to show off how cool they are for listening to Nick Cave. The. Only. Reason.
You should be modded up as insightful and funny, although I can think of one other reason, having to do with being gothic but denying that you're gothic.
It's been pointed out elsewhere ( I definitely saw a comment in the Money article article), but the pricing structure is definitely part of the the clever plan to upsell.
For $50 bucks more, you get that 11 GB more storage. For $100 more than that, you get over $100 worth of accessories and 5 GB more storage.
I was lucky. When the dockable iPods came out, I managed to snag a 2nd Gen 10 GB with all the accessories for $169 from the Apple Store refurb section. The kicker is that it wasn't refurbed, but new, sealed in the retail box.
I'm a pretender, but one day I hope to be an incompetent hack.
I guess this is the part where I call you an insensitive clod.