In a way, you've served to highlight one area where Apple shines a bit brighter than most. In any of those problems, Apple has done work to conform to standards where possible. iTunes works with ID3 tags, iPhoto can read at least some EXIF data, etc. What you're proposing is that Apple allow you to export your media to a standard intermediary format that supports all the features that you use in Apple's products.
In short, I think that's unrealistic.
First of all, such a format doesn't exist for a lot of these things. There's metadata in iTunes that just doesn't translate beyond the single file level. If these features are dealbreakers for you, then you're most likely an Apple user and will continue to be one. If not, then simply take your collection with all the metadata you can to another program. As an end user, that's really all you can do.
I guess my point is this. None of us should expect Apple to accommodate our moving off of their platform, and why should they? As consumers, we should understand the lowest common denominator involved with the data we use and be prepared to lose some functionality we like when a company does something screwy that we can't abide. It's not their fault that they want customers. They're under no obligation to do what we tell them, so let's use them while we can and dump them when they disappoint.
Um, okay. Then it's also Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. To be honest though, I don't think he was being referred to as an obstetrician in the context.
Personally, I see validity in suspecting fraud if the election results vary wildly from predictions. It's not proof, but it could be a symptom. Why not take a closer look?
Because of an editing error, an article in Business Day on Monday about Nintendo's video game consoles misstated the capabilities of one of the devices. A statement about movie-playing should have referred to the PlayStation Portable or PSP, made by Sony, not to the hand-held Nintendo DS. (The DS does not play movies.) The article also misspelled the surname of the president and chief operating officer of Nintendo of America. He is Reggie Fils-Amie, not Fils-Aimee.
Correction: January 3, 2008
An article in Business Day on Monday about Nintendo's video game consoles misspelled the surname of the president and chief operating officer of Nintendo of America, and a correction in this space on Tuesday gave another incorrect spelling. He is Reggie Fils-Aime -- not Fils-Amie or Fils-Aimee.
Hey, if Tim Schaffer's rationale for skipping the opportunity to make a sequel is to make something new and original, I'm totally on board. I have to think getting Day of the Tentacle, Full Throttle and Grim Fandango was better than getting three Tentacle games, but that's just me.
If you're up for some great reads, just take a look at Siracusa's other reviews. His Tiger review introduced me to some very interesting concepts about filesystem metadata at work in OS X.
He's my first choice for industry-grade, professional review of technology, and he's a perfect example as to why I frequent Ars as much as I do.
And you're arrogance is proven simply by the fact that you've decided to attack my way of life and my country while conveniently hiding your own nationality.
And sure, you could tell me, then I'd point out flaws in your country, and you'd point out dark parts of our history, but it wouldn't do either of us any good since we'd just be bickering about how the world should be a better place. Fuck that. The world is what we all make of it, and you can't point the finger at one guy (a guy who regularly votes against the fuckwits that start foreign "democracy parties," thank you very much).
Your world view a little murky? Bitching at me isn't gonna make it better. I'm already doing my part in the ways that I can. I ignore the "advice" of foreigners because you honestly have no idea what actually goes on here unless you're here. That's not arrogance, that's a fact.
I wasn't aware that if you live in a country that does some stupid things, you were not allowed to criticize another country that also does stupid things.
Allowed? Most certainly, just don't expect me to pay any heed, given the source. Just like I wouldn't expect a country to listen to us about, say, the benefits of killing their leader and implanting democracy. I wouldn't expect anyone (including Iraq) to come to that show.
I take it Americans are still allowed to speak their own minds?
I don't see a lot of realistic thinking here. Indeed, the passenger hasn't broken the law. However, the point of security, like the TSA, is to try their best to prevent crimes from happening in the first place.
If we didn't enforce the law until it was broken, where would we be? Prevention is a large part of maintaining order in a society, and that's exactly what security at an airport is. Waiting until someone "does something illegal" in a situation like that could be catastrophic. In my first example, I have a reason to suspect the person reading that book. If my job is to make the airport and airplane safe for all travelers, I should probably do my part to investigate that guy before letting him through. That's not fascism, it's common sense. If you disagree, then you're still perfectly free to roam the country, just not on a plane. As far as I know, we have no inherent right to air travel.
Your first statement interested me, since you clearly believe that there are limits as to what you can bring through security. You prove there that you inherently believe in the prevention of crimes through the restriction of weaponry, even though a firearm is a perfectly legal item. You're clearly not outraged at that restriction. Can you explain the difference as you see it?
Finally, you need to relax. Personally attacking me isn't helping this debate, especially since I've done nothing to attack you.
So you think the British are in a plausible position to comment on America's freedoms? I think the source of the criticism is laughable. Talk about glass houses...
I never said I was better than anyone, and the point of my response was to point out the inherent hypocrisy in his claim. If you read it again, I'm sure you'll see that.
"Passenger boarded with copy of 'How to Attack American Cities with Hijacked Planes'. Since it's his right to read whatever he wants, I'm not allowed to be suspicious so I didn't question him."
Slashdot Mirror
You live in America, yes? Swearing *is* common convention. Your elitism does not negate reality.
In a way, you've served to highlight one area where Apple shines a bit brighter than most. In any of those problems, Apple has done work to conform to standards where possible. iTunes works with ID3 tags, iPhoto can read at least some EXIF data, etc. What you're proposing is that Apple allow you to export your media to a standard intermediary format that supports all the features that you use in Apple's products.
In short, I think that's unrealistic.
First of all, such a format doesn't exist for a lot of these things. There's metadata in iTunes that just doesn't translate beyond the single file level. If these features are dealbreakers for you, then you're most likely an Apple user and will continue to be one. If not, then simply take your collection with all the metadata you can to another program. As an end user, that's really all you can do.
I guess my point is this. None of us should expect Apple to accommodate our moving off of their platform, and why should they? As consumers, we should understand the lowest common denominator involved with the data we use and be prepared to lose some functionality we like when a company does something screwy that we can't abide. It's not their fault that they want customers. They're under no obligation to do what we tell them, so let's use them while we can and dump them when they disappoint.
Um, okay. Then it's also Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. To be honest though, I don't think he was being referred to as an obstetrician in the context.
Personally, I see validity in suspecting fraud if the election results vary wildly from predictions. It's not proof, but it could be a symptom. Why not take a closer look?
Okay, I'll bite. What's "the drug thing?"
Do nerds also lean toward people campaigning as if it were 1910?
I'm willing to bet that most /.ers are not enamored with Ron Paul.
Correction: January 1, 2008
Because of an editing error, an article in Business Day on Monday about Nintendo's video game consoles misstated the capabilities of one of the devices. A statement about movie-playing should have referred to the PlayStation Portable or PSP, made by Sony, not to the hand-held Nintendo DS. (The DS does not play movies.) The article also misspelled the surname of the president and chief operating officer of Nintendo of America. He is Reggie Fils-Amie, not Fils-Aimee.
Correction: January 3, 2008
An article in Business Day on Monday about Nintendo's video game consoles misspelled the surname of the president and chief operating officer of Nintendo of America, and a correction in this space on Tuesday gave another incorrect spelling. He is Reggie Fils-Aime -- not Fils-Amie or Fils-Aimee.
Maybe this reporter just...sucks?
Amen.
Zoidberg: "I'm going to cut him here! In the gonad!" (points to Fry's head)
Fry: "Nobody correct him!"
By "state-wide" he meant "not state-high."
Fail.
"Stuff that matters."
Hey, if Tim Schaffer's rationale for skipping the opportunity to make a sequel is to make something new and original, I'm totally on board. I have to think getting Day of the Tentacle, Full Throttle and Grim Fandango was better than getting three Tentacle games, but that's just me.
Win.
If you're up for some great reads, just take a look at Siracusa's other reviews. His Tiger review introduced me to some very interesting concepts about filesystem metadata at work in OS X.
He's my first choice for industry-grade, professional review of technology, and he's a perfect example as to why I frequent Ars as much as I do.
It runs everything.
"Remember: Bring Your Daughter To Work Day is the perfect time to get her tested."
I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
You listen in the same room? You've either got a ridiculously loose mortgage agreement or you just like flirting with disaster.
And you're arrogance is proven simply by the fact that you've decided to attack my way of life and my country while conveniently hiding your own nationality.
And sure, you could tell me, then I'd point out flaws in your country, and you'd point out dark parts of our history, but it wouldn't do either of us any good since we'd just be bickering about how the world should be a better place. Fuck that. The world is what we all make of it, and you can't point the finger at one guy (a guy who regularly votes against the fuckwits that start foreign "democracy parties," thank you very much).
Your world view a little murky? Bitching at me isn't gonna make it better. I'm already doing my part in the ways that I can. I ignore the "advice" of foreigners because you honestly have no idea what actually goes on here unless you're here. That's not arrogance, that's a fact.
Time for America to stop lecturing? Please.
Damn, beat me to it.
I wasn't aware that if you live in a country that does some stupid things, you were not allowed to criticize another country that also does stupid things.
;)
Allowed? Most certainly, just don't expect me to pay any heed, given the source. Just like I wouldn't expect a country to listen to us about, say, the benefits of killing their leader and implanting democracy. I wouldn't expect anyone (including Iraq) to come to that show.
I take it Americans are still allowed to speak their own minds?
Well, I'm not typing this from prison
I don't see a lot of realistic thinking here. Indeed, the passenger hasn't broken the law. However, the point of security, like the TSA, is to try their best to prevent crimes from happening in the first place.
If we didn't enforce the law until it was broken, where would we be? Prevention is a large part of maintaining order in a society, and that's exactly what security at an airport is. Waiting until someone "does something illegal" in a situation like that could be catastrophic. In my first example, I have a reason to suspect the person reading that book. If my job is to make the airport and airplane safe for all travelers, I should probably do my part to investigate that guy before letting him through. That's not fascism, it's common sense. If you disagree, then you're still perfectly free to roam the country, just not on a plane. As far as I know, we have no inherent right to air travel.
Your first statement interested me, since you clearly believe that there are limits as to what you can bring through security. You prove there that you inherently believe in the prevention of crimes through the restriction of weaponry, even though a firearm is a perfectly legal item. You're clearly not outraged at that restriction. Can you explain the difference as you see it?
Finally, you need to relax. Personally attacking me isn't helping this debate, especially since I've done nothing to attack you.
So you think the British are in a plausible position to comment on America's freedoms? I think the source of the criticism is laughable. Talk about glass houses...
I never said I was better than anyone, and the point of my response was to point out the inherent hypocrisy in his claim. If you read it again, I'm sure you'll see that.
"Passenger boarded with copy of 'How to Attack American Cities with Hijacked Planes'. Since it's his right to read whatever he wants, I'm not allowed to be suspicious so I didn't question him."
"Cheers."
I take it you're in the U.K.? Smile, you're on camera.