The point is that you have to remember to compare those devices with the iPod of the same era
I did. It had less storage than the laptop-drive based players, but in return actually fit in your pocket. It had many times the storage of even the most expensive flash-based players. You could transfer music to it in a comparatively short time owing to it's interface (and lack of on-the-fly DRM).
But really, by the time the PC version came out 9 months later, it was still unique on the market. It had a two-year run before even the Gigabeat was announced, and it had the magical ability to run the USB 2.0 at 1.1 speeds - owing to the DRM strategy.
You are correct, though, 3 years later the flash version of it is what really took off. By then there were plenty of iPod-clones on the market.
I don't think I was claiming that it was an obvious game changer, just that it was the first commercially viable product of its kind. If they hadn't developed one, we'd still have had small audio players - they were just the first practical ones for the mass market so they get the gold star.
I don't know why people get upset when you point that out;
I wouldn't quite call my feelings "upset", but I do feel the need to set the record straight.
Prior to the iPod, mp3 players were a niche market in a huge field of portable music players. Maybe it was just luck or logistics, but the combination of small form factor and (at the time) huge capacity at a reasonable price that made the product so appealing to a broader market. There were established players in the market - Sony being the most glaring, but let's not discount Toshiba who actually made the hard drive that made the iPod possible - who should have been in a much better position to market a device like the iPod... but Apple did it, not those guys. Credit where credit is due, that's all.
No, I'm just trying to point out that every human invention in recorded history is a refinement on some previous knowledge. We stand on the shoulders of giants and all that crap. The iPod was the Walkman of the 2000s.
Optometrists are not physicians, so they get a doctorate (specifically a DO). Ophthalmologists are physicians, so they do not (unless they go for their PhD-MD). Opticians just go to technical school, and do not need even a bachelor's degree.
Note this is all in the US - I don't know what country you are in.
It was "totally new" in terms of being the first commercially viable product of its kind. There were flash-based players that held a few songs, laptop-drive based players that held more music but were not pocketable, and even MP3-capable CD players with the same problem. And then there was the issue of connectivity - the iPod used a much faster 1394 connection which made it feasible to sync. Even the similarly-sized Toshiba that came out shortly after the iPod - using the same drive - used a horrid DRM that made the device extremely painful to use. It was not a new idea, but then neither was the first airplane, telephone, or lightbulb.
In the US, optometrists have a doctorate. Ophthalmologists go to medical school. Opticians do neither - usually an associates degree or less is required.
It's not a stupid idea if your need to cut costs exceeds your need to have the absolute best possible plane that technology can provide. Whether that is the case for the US is the point of the whole argument.
Remember, most nations don't have any kind of air force on the sea, much less a stealth jet.
I know oxygen is required, and it is an important system. But as far as a jet program is concerned, it's a fairly minor system. Worst case, they put a traditional system back in the jet and move on. It's hard to sort out the truth from fiction, but if it really turns out to be a valve in a suit, then I'd argue it's not really part of the jet at all.
Most of the problems you describe are with the military bureaucracy, and will affect any weapons system. The F-22 is actually a pretty decent program, even if it wasn't strictly necessary in hindsight.
I agree with you - thus the quotes around "stolen". I hate the terminology, but it's in the vernacular. All I can do is hope some of my sarcasm seeps through.
B-2s can fly in from the continental US. For the F-22, they would need to have flown from bases closer to Afghanistan - which we did not have. The Navy did most of the initial bombing with F-14 Tomcats, which were the only plane with the range to reach into Afghanistan (and they carried a large bomb load). There was never much need for an air superiority fighter over Afghanistan, and the F-22 isn't really meant for ground attack... even the F-16 does that now, so there's no shortage of strike aircraft in the US inventory. No need to fly the unsuited F-22.
His comments on the legalities and philosophies of open source software have provided the software community with the possibility of sharing their works without having them stolen.
Actually, copyright law is what allows people to share code without it being "stolen". Stallman makes fairly novel use of it, but give credit where it is due.
It's kind of sobering to realize that no fighter coverage of something like Afghanistan would be possible with the F-14 now retired. You'd have to rely on the radar-evading capabilities of the B-2, or bases in neighboring countries. They do have the "buddy tanker" capability on the F/A-18, so maybe that mitigates things somewhat.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that you have to remember to compare those devices with the iPod of the same era
I did. It had less storage than the laptop-drive based players, but in return actually fit in your pocket. It had many times the storage of even the most expensive flash-based players. You could transfer music to it in a comparatively short time owing to it's interface (and lack of on-the-fly DRM).
But really, by the time the PC version came out 9 months later, it was still unique on the market. It had a two-year run before even the Gigabeat was announced, and it had the magical ability to run the USB 2.0 at 1.1 speeds - owing to the DRM strategy.
You are correct, though, 3 years later the flash version of it is what really took off. By then there were plenty of iPod-clones on the market.
I don't think I was claiming that it was an obvious game changer, just that it was the first commercially viable product of its kind. If they hadn't developed one, we'd still have had small audio players - they were just the first practical ones for the mass market so they get the gold star.
I don't know why people get upset when you point that out;
I wouldn't quite call my feelings "upset", but I do feel the need to set the record straight.
Prior to the iPod, mp3 players were a niche market in a huge field of portable music players. Maybe it was just luck or logistics, but the combination of small form factor and (at the time) huge capacity at a reasonable price that made the product so appealing to a broader market. There were established players in the market - Sony being the most glaring, but let's not discount Toshiba who actually made the hard drive that made the iPod possible - who should have been in a much better position to market a device like the iPod... but Apple did it, not those guys. Credit where credit is due, that's all.
I largely agree with the rest of your post :)
No, I'm just trying to point out that every human invention in recorded history is a refinement on some previous knowledge. We stand on the shoulders of giants and all that crap. The iPod was the Walkman of the 2000s.
As was the Wright Flyer.
Optometrists are not physicians, so they get a doctorate (specifically a DO). Ophthalmologists are physicians, so they do not (unless they go for their PhD-MD). Opticians just go to technical school, and do not need even a bachelor's degree.
Note this is all in the US - I don't know what country you are in.
It was "totally new" in terms of being the first commercially viable product of its kind. There were flash-based players that held a few songs, laptop-drive based players that held more music but were not pocketable, and even MP3-capable CD players with the same problem. And then there was the issue of connectivity - the iPod used a much faster 1394 connection which made it feasible to sync. Even the similarly-sized Toshiba that came out shortly after the iPod - using the same drive - used a horrid DRM that made the device extremely painful to use. It was not a new idea, but then neither was the first airplane, telephone, or lightbulb.
Ah, baloney!
Only it catches grammar Nazis. They all fall fore the delicious mistakes.
Wow, with mistakes like that, you'd think I was doing it on porpoise.
I just looked it up again, and I think you are mistaken. In the US, all optometrists must get their Doctor of Optometry (O.D. - Oculus Doctor).
In other countries, the situation is different.
In the US, optometrists have a doctorate. Ophthalmologists go to medical school. Opticians do neither - usually an associates degree or less is required.
This is why I never hide low-rated posts. Can you imagine how it must feel to be the lowest rung on the Slashdot caste system?
This is why I pick up fresh organic carbon each day at the Whole Foods. The idea of using someone else's sloppy seconds carbon is just... nasty.
we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely
As long as it is safely sequestered in my gin and tonics, I'm "cool" with that.
Sorry.
If your going to be a pendant, at least be correct. This is quiet ironic.
It's not a stupid idea if your need to cut costs exceeds your need to have the absolute best possible plane that technology can provide. Whether that is the case for the US is the point of the whole argument.
Remember, most nations don't have any kind of air force on the sea, much less a stealth jet.
Chess? :)
I know oxygen is required, and it is an important system. But as far as a jet program is concerned, it's a fairly minor system. Worst case, they put a traditional system back in the jet and move on. It's hard to sort out the truth from fiction, but if it really turns out to be a valve in a suit, then I'd argue it's not really part of the jet at all.
Most of the problems you describe are with the military bureaucracy, and will affect any weapons system. The F-22 is actually a pretty decent program, even if it wasn't strictly necessary in hindsight.
I agree with you - thus the quotes around "stolen". I hate the terminology, but it's in the vernacular. All I can do is hope some of my sarcasm seeps through.
as long as there was no copyright at all and all systems were open
How in the world would you open systems without copyleft? Fact is you need copyright to get anything like Gnu's version of open software.
B-2s can fly in from the continental US. For the F-22, they would need to have flown from bases closer to Afghanistan - which we did not have. The Navy did most of the initial bombing with F-14 Tomcats, which were the only plane with the range to reach into Afghanistan (and they carried a large bomb load). There was never much need for an air superiority fighter over Afghanistan, and the F-22 isn't really meant for ground attack... even the F-16 does that now, so there's no shortage of strike aircraft in the US inventory. No need to fly the unsuited F-22.
If your main complaint with the jet is that the O2 system needs futzing around with, that's pretty damned good.
His comments on the legalities and philosophies of open source software have provided the software community with the possibility of sharing their works without having them stolen.
Actually, copyright law is what allows people to share code without it being "stolen". Stallman makes fairly novel use of it, but give credit where it is due.
It's kind of sobering to realize that no fighter coverage of something like Afghanistan would be possible with the F-14 now retired. You'd have to rely on the radar-evading capabilities of the B-2, or bases in neighboring countries. They do have the "buddy tanker" capability on the F/A-18, so maybe that mitigates things somewhat.