I suspect the issue isn't perpetual income but is it fair competition? Are the rules that OSS plays by fair to only a minority?
In terms of competition, something is only unfair if you try to stop others from competing with you. Since OSS encourages competition (even going so far as forks, which means you can compete with mostly the same software), you'd have a hard time calling it unfair.
On the other hand, the rules closed source plays by are completely unfair. It depends on the enforcement of an artificial monopoly on making and distributing copies.
We're disencentivizing making robust, easy-to-use software in exchange for one that requires some degree of brokenness to survive.
That's not what service means, although if something is broken, it is part of it. Service for perfectly good software including help in setting it up to serve your individual needs. You call them up and you ask, "how do I get your product X to inter-operate with product Y so that I can perform Z?" and they help you set it up. As you expand what you're doing, you will add complexity, and it's nice to always have someone to call that will help you deal with it.
Yes, you can find that information online and handle everything yourself in a trial-and-error mode, but if you're a company, time is of the essence.
She intended to cause emotional harm. That's no different than my scenario. A random online jerk also intents to cause emotional harm. Every school bully in existence also intends to cause emotional harm.
I've read about what she did. I didn't think any of it is particularly rare, and I expect that stuff like that happens 500 times a day. It's a bit surprising to see someone that old pulling a prank like this, because usually people grow out of that. It means the woman is pathetic, but it doesn't mean she's a murderer or even in any way criminally responsible for the death.
It's not reasonable to assume that bullying is made with the intention of causing someone to commit suicide, because it simply wouldn't work on the vast majority of the population. It would only work on people who are already mentally imbalanced and prone to committing suicide, in which case the underlying cause is the mental imbalance, not the bullying.
So... you're saying she's not responsible for her actions then? What a hypocrite. If you had a clue (which you don't because we've already determined your not that smart) you'd also realize that there's more than just murder as a definition of harm that causes death along with different degrees of murder.
Dude, Trahloc's entire image of himself was based on his assumption that he's a really smart geek. After you shattered his view, he offed himself. You need to take responsibility for your actions and turn yourself in for murder.
P.S. Please don't kill yourself because I made you realize that you were responsible for another person's death. I don't want to go to jail.
No, you can't use the "It was BOUND to happen one way or another" excuse, either; unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence (IE the ability to see into the future) then you can't say for sure that she would have 'offed herself' as you so kindly put it.
No, it's exactly the other way around. You can't blame the bully for the suicide unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence that the person in question would never have committed suicide at any point in the future EVER.
Come on, dude. Offing yourself because an online boyfriend you've never actually met said some hurtful things? That's just darwin in action. If you're not stable enough to take being hurt like this, you're not fit for survival, and you're not gonna pass the flawed genes.
Let me put it in another way. Let's imagine a situation where there was no conspiracy. Let's say an actual boy existed with the myspace page. One day he breaks up with the girl and says that she could "kill herself" because he's a fucking jerk. She goes and kills herself. Is he to blame at all, or was the girl just mentally imbalanced? Come on, I've had people tell me to go kill myself in REAL LIFE. I've gone through the middle school bullying where they really try to break you emotionally. This type of stuff isn't meant to hurt you physically. The bullies are being fucking immature jerks, but being a jerk isn't a crime, nor should it be.
Apple hates DRM because it takes a shitload of time, money, and effort to design and implement, and an even bigger shitload of time, money, and effort to show 'plausible efforts' to keep it working once it's deployed. Anyone who tries to do DRM simply agrees to climb on a treadmill of trying to stay a fractional step ahead of the people who will break the protection.
Then why do they go through all that time, money, and effort to design and implement protections that lock the iPod to the iTunes, and has nothing to do with actual media cartel protection? Why do they have protections that prevent you from loading rockbox? It doesn't play fairplay encrypted songs, so it can't be a media cartel requirement.
Apple hates DRM because DRM is inherently futile. You simply can't build a system that puts both the lock and the key in the hands of the end user, then impose rules on what the user can do with those two pieces.
Yeah, they try to get around that through legal measures. Defend this little move. The article is from today.
Apple hates DRM because the longer DRM is allowed to exist, the longer the content cartel will continue to make this massive, futile investment a requirement for any access to content. Apple especially hates DRM because it puts the content owners in a position where they can say, "I don't have to know how it works, or whether it's even possible. I have the power to say what has to be done, and making it happen is your job."
As long as their competitors also are forced to do it, they have nothing to lose. As long as they are market leaders, they have everything to gain from the lock-in.
"And thanks to the laws that we've bought and the contracts we've written, if you don't manage to do the impossible to our satisfaction, we can sue the shit out of you then nail you on criminal charges."
Is that an attempt at trolling or what? If Apple could be "nailed on criminal charges" for not having satisfactory DRM it would happen everytime there was a new release of Requiem. You're an idiot. PowerDVD would have been sued when the AnyDVD guys used it to break AACS. No, the content cartel CAN'T do what you suggest.
Apple hates DRM because using DRM simply manufactures enemies with the technical knowledge to rip apart any technical measures Apple tries to build. And while defeating DRM may be a socially acceptable goal, a lot of that knowledge can potentially be reapplied to general malware.
You're a moron. Even if cracking DRM helped with malware development (it doesn't), security through obscurity is bullshit. Going through the security measures with a fine comb can only help making your devices more secure, as holes become known and patched.
DRM breaking is mostly unrelated to malware creation. The relationship that does exist is that cracks are often excellent places to hide trojans in. That applies to any software though.
Apple hates DRM because it sucks for the user. Remember: Apple doesn't make money licensing its OS to a bunch of OEMs who then try to sell a product to consumers, or with massive, umpty-thousand-seat software licensing deals. Consumer dissatisfaction hits Apple in the pocket much harder than it hits Microsoft. On top of that, Apple sells in the premium-priced segment of the market, where people are willing to say, "if I have to put up with something that sucks, I can buy another product for a whole lot less."
It's invisible to the user until they try to switch away from the ipod, or iTunes. Then it's inconvenient as hell, but the users associate the inconvenience with moving away from apple. If they continue using apple products, everything works...in other words, helps with lock-in.
It would take Apple a hell of a lot less effort to make a product
They have to spend resources on implementing it into their software and hardware. Those resources could be spent developing new and innovative features their customers actually want.
No customer wants this crap and it makes Apple computers more difficult to use. Apple wants their computers to be easy to use and filled with things customers want.
They don't want to spend the resources, huh? Which of the media companies do you think forced apple to encrypt the ipod internal database (not the music files, the database) to enforce that you can only sync the ipod with itunes? Which of the media companies do you think had apple encrypt the bootloader so that you can't install rockbox on an ipod that is older than the second generation nano?
It's true that most people don't care, but which of their customers wants that crap? Why are they spending resources on that?
This "Apple likes DRM because it gives them iPod lock-in" story is just ridiculous. People buy iPods because they work well, are nicely integrated with OS X and Windows and online store, and are fashion objects.
Well, lock-in doesn't get you customers, it just helps prevent a loss of the current customers, assuming you're the market leader in the first place.
So the iPods are nice machines and people buy them. They integrate well with the iTunes store and it's convenient for people to buy a lot of music and videos there, so they do that. If somebody else releases the iPod killer, an mp3 player with really good features, you might want to get that instead of the next iPod model right? Damn! All that investment, none of the stuff you paid for will work on this other mp3 player. Better get the new iPod instead.
They even ensure that you have motivation for upgrading, even if you're happy with your old iPod. Eventually your battery is going to degrade and stop charging. It's not a user replaceable part (heh), and sure...Apple will replace it for $100 (heh), but for that price you might consider paying a bit more and getting the new model with all the bells and whistles.
If Apple really had such a hard-on for DRM they wouldn't let their iPods play unprotected mp3 or aac audio files or unprotected mp4 video.
I said that Apple isn't this "defender of the poor customer" company so many people think they are. I never said they were stupid. I don't care how nice the ipod is, I don't care if it cooks you breakfast, nobody would buy it if it didn't play unprotected files. I'm sure they would very much like to block it from playing mp3's altogether, and have it only play fairplay aac and mp4. They just can't get away with something like that.
Maybe they know they will get more money if they could sell files without DRM?
If they were in the business of profiting from those sales, sure. Since they're not, why would they care about selling more?
Apple claims that operate just over the break-even point with the iTunes store. I'm not sure if they're lying about that as well, but it's pretty clear that at the very least, a large amount of the motivation behind the iTunes store is to sell hardware.
The regular people favor convenience over free and DRM-less already. So no loss there.
You do realize that's an argument in my favor, right? You're implying they don't have much to lose by implementing DRM, and I've given you reasons why it benefits them. Thanks?
And they don't need the DRM for "lock in". They already have that as there is nothing as convenient, good looking and easy to use as iPod/iPhone.
Let's assume that's true. There's certainly an overall public impression that it is true anyway. So people buy iPods because they're by far the best hardware around. They shop at iTunes because it's convenient to sync with the iPod over it (notice that they try to block you from syncing with any software...going as far as encrypting the internal database in the latest iPod models, which prevents other people from writing software that can sync to it. They also prevent people from installing rockbox on the latest models via encryption, which again, means that you can't sync with any software other than iTunes or switch to a firmware that will let you sync with other software). Now somebody else comes out with the iPod killer. It's a badass mp3 player, it has features you can't imagine living without. Well, you're going to buy one instead of the new ipod model, right?
Shit, that's right. You bought all those songs that only work on the iPod. I guess the new iPod model will have to do. And you WILL have to buy a new model, because your battery will stop charging after a few years and it's not user-replaceable. Sure, you can pay them $100 to replace the battery, but if you add just a little bit more cash, you get a new ipod with the new bells and whistles!
But maybe the DRM will exist even if the media companies didn't force them to implement it. But this is unclear.
Nah, it's pretty clear. Like I said, they've implemented their own version of lock-in features over stuff that has nothing to do with media. Like the iPod itunes database, and the iPod bootloader to prevent you from loading rockbox.
Yet, in order to keep living outside of jail, I keep paying them.
Am I lying about hating taxes? Or am I playing the game that needs to be played?
The difference is that you're describing something that you see as a disadvantage. You dislike paying taxes because you wish you could do something else with your money.
Now describe to me why Apple dislikes DRM. As far as I can see, not only are they playing the so-called "game that needs to be played" but since they're the market leaders in that particular business, it also serves as a lock-in. If you've been buying your tv shows from iTunes for the convenience of buying stuff online, you know you can watch your stuff on the goal with an ipod. Better not buy a zune, your videos won't work there!
Ok, that's going too far. Nobody would buy a zune either way. However, do you want to set up a media center that lets you watch all those videos in your living room? The AppleTV is the choice for you! You sure as hell can't set up a mythtv box. If you buy a windows media center box from dell, that won't play those videos either.
So, I know why you don't like to pay taxes. Tell me again why apple hates drm?
Indeed. I've posted my interpretation of events a year ago, and nobody believed me then. Some claimed I had invented some type of "conspiracy theory" when all I did was describe the effects of competition.
Steve Jobs never hated DRM. When dropping DRM became a good business decision for him, with fairplay lawsuits on the horizon, he added the whole, "we dislike DRM" as a marketing ploy. Why wouldn't he? To actually believe that he wants to sell music and videos that will play on non-apple products is naive at best.
The person who telecommutes would not get paid for that time, why should the person in office?
Because the person who is at the office is getting paid for doing one additional thing that the telecommuter isn't being paid for: being at the office.
If the employer told me to be there at 9am, I don't care if there's work to be done or not. Time isn't free, and I could be doing something else at 9am. I could be sleeping in, I could be doing laundry, I could be playing video games. If part of my job is to be at the office at 9am, then I get paid for being there at 9am, whether or not I'm waiting for my tools to be ready or for them to tell me what to do.
If he tells me to be there at 9 and stay until 5, and doesn't give me any work, should he pay me for that time? How would you justify answering "no" to that?
If my employer *really* wants me to start working as soon as I get in, he can pay someone to go through the office at 8:45am and start turning the computers on before I clock in. Oh, that costs money? He could leave the computers on all night. Oh, that costs electricity? It's all a balance, but it's still part of the cost of operating the business. If I'm expected to turn it on, then it's part of my job's duties, and thus it's obviously something that I need to be paid to do.
I would argue that TNG was pretty weak till several seasons in.
I'm surprised as hell TNG didn't get canceled in its first season, and it certainly didn't meet its potential until season 4 (I guess the end of season 3. Locutus was a reverse jump-the-shark moment. I guess you could say that in TNG, the sharks jump the show). However, season 2 started having its moments of greatness, with episodes like Measure of a Man. If you survived season one, it wasn't THAT weak from then on.
So was DS9 IMO...I remember being bored to tears
DS9 actually DID lose me. I was equally bored and quit watching. A long time after that I had friends who assured me of its later awesomeness, and they let me borrow the DVDs. I think the reason I didn't quit on Enterprise was because I remembered how DS9 turned around, and kept hoping the same would happen. Turns out that it did, but it was too late.
At my graduation...There were no comments at how the nursing group was 97% female.
I heard one. When one of my friends graduated, he noted that there was only ONE male among the entire nursing graduating class. As the person in question walked to get his diploma, my friend tells me he realized that he was "the smartest guy in this school."
Re:Both franchise shared the same fate.
on
New Star Trek Trailer
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If you want good Trek, watch Battlestar Galactica.
Oh, I do:)
What made Trek good in the first place was that it tackled issues of the day in a sci-fi environment.
Agreed. There was a lot of that of TNG and DS9 too. The idea of "curing" homosexuality, the influence of religion in science classes, etc. You mentioned you consider Galactica to be "good trek" and that's no accident considering Ronald D. Moore's involvement.
The third and fourth seasons were both good. Especially the latter part of the third.
I couldn't stand the whole Xindi storyline. Nothing made me happier than to see that arc end. I will admit it was better than the aimless show they had going in the first two seasons, though.
Re:Both franchise shared the same fate.
on
New Star Trek Trailer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No, I mean the way the 4th series ended. Nonsensical, totally unfinished and chopped off at the knees.
Oh, we agree there.
I had really gotten into the 4th series: it had finally found itself and developed into a good story. Compulsory watching in my house. Then someone dragged it out back and shot it through the head because the fans didn't just deserted it, but threw shit pies at it every chance they got
No, that's not quite what happened. Everyone deserted it before it had become good. You can't expect people to watch crap for years while they get their stuff together. By the time they did, few people were watching to realize they had gotten better, and it was just too late to get the ratings up, so it got canceled.
Blame the whole, "let's make trek new and sexy, and very much unlike trek. In fact, let's drop the Star Trek name from the series, and just call it Enterprise, and drop the orchestral theme song...let's make it completely unlike trek!" mentality that was the beginning of Enterprise for the desertion. Like I said, if they had started the series with the type of writing they had in the fourth season, nobody would have complained.
And now here you are getting all judgmental and suggesting the same, based on a 2 min clip of a film not even released yet.
No, I was the one who was looking forward to it, despite all the bad things I kept hearing about it. Did you see the stupid car chase with young Kirk in that trailer? What is the point of that? It's a lame attempt to show what a rebel Kirk was in his childhood. Woohoo!
That type of scene is a sign of lack of story in any movie. They're trying to make a summer action flick to attract the non-trekkies, instead of making a good Star Trek movie. Same problem they had with Enterprise (in the beginning).
Oh, so you must be one of the morons (fans) with a short attention span, and an over inflated sense of your own importance who deserted Star Trek like a herd of petulant lemmings and caused that sickening lobotomy at the end of the Enterprise series.
Actually, I've seen all of Enterprise, even though it was mostly crap. What the HELL do you mean "sickening lobotomy at the end of the Enterprise series." You mean, "sickening lobotomy for the first 3 seasons" right? The fourth season was the only good season of that show.
And yes this is over the top, and no I'm not hiding behind AC, because I've never been so mad about how a series got treated in my whole life.
Well, it sort of helped. They quit making crap and hired good writers with a history of making awesome Star Trek books like Judy & Garfield Reeves-Stevens for the fourth season. Unfortunately it was too late. If they had done that from the beginning, the series would have done well.
Shouldn't Spock already have been his adult self when he joined the Enterprise crew? Don't Vulcans live about twice as long as Humans?
Yes, which is why he was still alive for an episode in TNG, which means he'd have to be pretty young in his TOS days.
Do I know too much about this?
Obviously not:)
Also, I'm guessing there's a reason the top was dropped on the sting ray by the time the kid made it to that deep crevasse (the kind that one always finds in the middle of Iowa cornfields) or was that a continuity error?
I consider that whole scene a continuity error, but I'm guessing the top probably got ripped off the car during the chase.
One thing to be careful about is that there needs to be 2 captains of the Enterprise _before_ Kirk...
They've already said there's no mention of Robert April. I'm actually not very mad about that. April was never cannon (he was introduced in the animated series). A bigger continuity flaw in the trailer is the fact that Kirk can drive a stick. He had serious problems with it in "Patterns of Force."
Then again, continuity flaws are everywhere. I may not like them, but I've learned to live with them. What really pisses me off is the entire stupid scene with kirk driving and destroying a vintage automobile in that trailer just so they can show what rebel of a kid he was is uber-lame. I would be annoyed at that scene if I saw it in any movie, not just Star Trek.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you're allergic to the cake frosting?</naive>
I saw Zack and Miri last week, and as a result it took me a while to realize while you had the naive tag.
"She frosted me like a cake!"
The process of reciprocal agreements is quite fair. Those trying to destroy them are being "unfair".
Those trying to destroy them didn't enter into the agreement. The process of being forced into one is quite unfair.
I suspect the issue isn't perpetual income but is it fair competition? Are the rules that OSS plays by fair to only a minority?
In terms of competition, something is only unfair if you try to stop others from competing with you. Since OSS encourages competition (even going so far as forks, which means you can compete with mostly the same software), you'd have a hard time calling it unfair.
On the other hand, the rules closed source plays by are completely unfair. It depends on the enforcement of an artificial monopoly on making and distributing copies.
We're disencentivizing making robust, easy-to-use software in exchange for one that requires some degree of brokenness to survive.
That's not what service means, although if something is broken, it is part of it. Service for perfectly good software including help in setting it up to serve your individual needs. You call them up and you ask, "how do I get your product X to inter-operate with product Y so that I can perform Z?" and they help you set it up. As you expand what you're doing, you will add complexity, and it's nice to always have someone to call that will help you deal with it.
Yes, you can find that information online and handle everything yourself in a trial-and-error mode, but if you're a company, time is of the essence.
I got 31/33. I notice the "monthly average" was 75%, I wonder if it's all from slashdot people taking the test just now :)
Nerds kick ass at taking tests. It would skew the average.
Lori Drew INTENDED to cause harm to megan meier.
She intended to cause emotional harm. That's no different than my scenario. A random online jerk also intents to cause emotional harm. Every school bully in existence also intends to cause emotional harm.
I've read about what she did. I didn't think any of it is particularly rare, and I expect that stuff like that happens 500 times a day. It's a bit surprising to see someone that old pulling a prank like this, because usually people grow out of that. It means the woman is pathetic, but it doesn't mean she's a murderer or even in any way criminally responsible for the death.
It's not reasonable to assume that bullying is made with the intention of causing someone to commit suicide, because it simply wouldn't work on the vast majority of the population. It would only work on people who are already mentally imbalanced and prone to committing suicide, in which case the underlying cause is the mental imbalance, not the bullying.
So... you're saying she's not responsible for her actions then? What a hypocrite. If you had a clue (which you don't because we've already determined your not that smart) you'd also realize that there's more than just murder as a definition of harm that causes death along with different degrees of murder.
Dude, Trahloc's entire image of himself was based on his assumption that he's a really smart geek. After you shattered his view, he offed himself. You need to take responsibility for your actions and turn yourself in for murder.
P.S. Please don't kill yourself because I made you realize that you were responsible for another person's death. I don't want to go to jail.
No, you can't use the "It was BOUND to happen one way or another" excuse, either; unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence (IE the ability to see into the future) then you can't say for sure that she would have 'offed herself' as you so kindly put it.
No, it's exactly the other way around. You can't blame the bully for the suicide unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence that the person in question would never have committed suicide at any point in the future EVER.
Come on, dude. Offing yourself because an online boyfriend you've never actually met said some hurtful things? That's just darwin in action. If you're not stable enough to take being hurt like this, you're not fit for survival, and you're not gonna pass the flawed genes.
Let me put it in another way. Let's imagine a situation where there was no conspiracy. Let's say an actual boy existed with the myspace page. One day he breaks up with the girl and says that she could "kill herself" because he's a fucking jerk. She goes and kills herself. Is he to blame at all, or was the girl just mentally imbalanced? Come on, I've had people tell me to go kill myself in REAL LIFE. I've gone through the middle school bullying where they really try to break you emotionally. This type of stuff isn't meant to hurt you physically. The bullies are being fucking immature jerks, but being a jerk isn't a crime, nor should it be.
very well written and well reasoned. it will surely be ignored. this is why i have to keep reminding myself not to argue with people on the internet.
You can enter into an argument with me any day, friend.
I've replied to the grandparent with my side, and you can read it if you want. If you have anything to add, feel free. I'll answer you too.
Apple hates DRM because it takes a shitload of time, money, and effort to design and implement, and an even bigger shitload of time, money, and effort to show 'plausible efforts' to keep it working once it's deployed. Anyone who tries to do DRM simply agrees to climb on a treadmill of trying to stay a fractional step ahead of the people who will break the protection.
Then why do they go through all that time, money, and effort to design and implement protections that lock the iPod to the iTunes, and has nothing to do with actual media cartel protection? Why do they have protections that prevent you from loading rockbox? It doesn't play fairplay encrypted songs, so it can't be a media cartel requirement.
Apple hates DRM because DRM is inherently futile. You simply can't build a system that puts both the lock and the key in the hands of the end user, then impose rules on what the user can do with those two pieces.
Yeah, they try to get around that through legal measures. Defend this little move. The article is from today.
Apple hates DRM because the longer DRM is allowed to exist, the longer the content cartel will continue to make this massive, futile investment a requirement for any access to content. Apple especially hates DRM because it puts the content owners in a position where they can say, "I don't have to know how it works, or whether it's even possible. I have the power to say what has to be done, and making it happen is your job."
As long as their competitors also are forced to do it, they have nothing to lose. As long as they are market leaders, they have everything to gain from the lock-in.
"And thanks to the laws that we've bought and the contracts we've written, if you don't manage to do the impossible to our satisfaction, we can sue the shit out of you then nail you on criminal charges."
Is that an attempt at trolling or what? If Apple could be "nailed on criminal charges" for not having satisfactory DRM it would happen everytime there was a new release of Requiem. You're an idiot. PowerDVD would have been sued when the AnyDVD guys used it to break AACS. No, the content cartel CAN'T do what you suggest.
Apple hates DRM because using DRM simply manufactures enemies with the technical knowledge to rip apart any technical measures Apple tries to build. And while defeating DRM may be a socially acceptable goal, a lot of that knowledge can potentially be reapplied to general malware.
You're a moron. Even if cracking DRM helped with malware development (it doesn't), security through obscurity is bullshit. Going through the security measures with a fine comb can only help making your devices more secure, as holes become known and patched.
DRM breaking is mostly unrelated to malware creation. The relationship that does exist is that cracks are often excellent places to hide trojans in. That applies to any software though.
Apple hates DRM because it sucks for the user. Remember: Apple doesn't make money licensing its OS to a bunch of OEMs who then try to sell a product to consumers, or with massive, umpty-thousand-seat software licensing deals. Consumer dissatisfaction hits Apple in the pocket much harder than it hits Microsoft. On top of that, Apple sells in the premium-priced segment of the market, where people are willing to say, "if I have to put up with something that sucks, I can buy another product for a whole lot less."
It's invisible to the user until they try to switch away from the ipod, or iTunes. Then it's inconvenient as hell, but the users associate the inconvenience with moving away from apple. If they continue using apple products, everything works...in other words, helps with lock-in.
It would take Apple a hell of a lot less effort to make a product
They have to spend resources on implementing it into their software and hardware. Those resources could be spent developing new and innovative features their customers actually want.
No customer wants this crap and it makes Apple computers more difficult to use. Apple wants their computers to be easy to use and filled with things customers want.
They don't want to spend the resources, huh? Which of the media companies do you think forced apple to encrypt the ipod internal database (not the music files, the database) to enforce that you can only sync the ipod with itunes? Which of the media companies do you think had apple encrypt the bootloader so that you can't install rockbox on an ipod that is older than the second generation nano?
It's true that most people don't care, but which of their customers wants that crap? Why are they spending resources on that?
This "Apple likes DRM because it gives them iPod lock-in" story is just ridiculous. People buy iPods because they work well, are nicely integrated with OS X and Windows and online store, and are fashion objects.
Well, lock-in doesn't get you customers, it just helps prevent a loss of the current customers, assuming you're the market leader in the first place.
So the iPods are nice machines and people buy them. They integrate well with the iTunes store and it's convenient for people to buy a lot of music and videos there, so they do that. If somebody else releases the iPod killer, an mp3 player with really good features, you might want to get that instead of the next iPod model right? Damn! All that investment, none of the stuff you paid for will work on this other mp3 player. Better get the new iPod instead.
They even ensure that you have motivation for upgrading, even if you're happy with your old iPod. Eventually your battery is going to degrade and stop charging. It's not a user replaceable part (heh), and sure...Apple will replace it for $100 (heh), but for that price you might consider paying a bit more and getting the new model with all the bells and whistles.
If Apple really had such a hard-on for DRM they wouldn't let their iPods play unprotected mp3 or aac audio files or unprotected mp4 video.
I said that Apple isn't this "defender of the poor customer" company so many people think they are. I never said they were stupid. I don't care how nice the ipod is, I don't care if it cooks you breakfast, nobody would buy it if it didn't play unprotected files. I'm sure they would very much like to block it from playing mp3's altogether, and have it only play fairplay aac and mp4. They just can't get away with something like that.
Maybe they know they will get more money if they could sell files without DRM?
If they were in the business of profiting from those sales, sure. Since they're not, why would they care about selling more?
Apple claims that operate just over the break-even point with the iTunes store. I'm not sure if they're lying about that as well, but it's pretty clear that at the very least, a large amount of the motivation behind the iTunes store is to sell hardware.
The regular people favor convenience over free and DRM-less already. So no loss there.
You do realize that's an argument in my favor, right? You're implying they don't have much to lose by implementing DRM, and I've given you reasons why it benefits them. Thanks?
And they don't need the DRM for "lock in". They already have that as there is nothing as convenient, good looking and easy to use as iPod/iPhone.
Let's assume that's true. There's certainly an overall public impression that it is true anyway. So people buy iPods because they're by far the best hardware around. They shop at iTunes because it's convenient to sync with the iPod over it (notice that they try to block you from syncing with any software...going as far as encrypting the internal database in the latest iPod models, which prevents other people from writing software that can sync to it. They also prevent people from installing rockbox on the latest models via encryption, which again, means that you can't sync with any software other than iTunes or switch to a firmware that will let you sync with other software). Now somebody else comes out with the iPod killer. It's a badass mp3 player, it has features you can't imagine living without. Well, you're going to buy one instead of the new ipod model, right?
Shit, that's right. You bought all those songs that only work on the iPod. I guess the new iPod model will have to do. And you WILL have to buy a new model, because your battery will stop charging after a few years and it's not user-replaceable. Sure, you can pay them $100 to replace the battery, but if you add just a little bit more cash, you get a new ipod with the new bells and whistles!
But maybe the DRM will exist even if the media companies didn't force them to implement it. But this is unclear.
Nah, it's pretty clear. Like I said, they've implemented their own version of lock-in features over stuff that has nothing to do with media. Like the iPod itunes database, and the iPod bootloader to prevent you from loading rockbox.
That was a lie then, and is still a lie.
I hate taxes. I try not to pay them.
Yet, in order to keep living outside of jail, I keep paying them.
Am I lying about hating taxes? Or am I playing the game that needs to be played?
The difference is that you're describing something that you see as a disadvantage. You dislike paying taxes because you wish you could do something else with your money.
Now describe to me why Apple dislikes DRM. As far as I can see, not only are they playing the so-called "game that needs to be played" but since they're the market leaders in that particular business, it also serves as a lock-in. If you've been buying your tv shows from iTunes for the convenience of buying stuff online, you know you can watch your stuff on the goal with an ipod. Better not buy a zune, your videos won't work there!
Ok, that's going too far. Nobody would buy a zune either way. However, do you want to set up a media center that lets you watch all those videos in your living room? The AppleTV is the choice for you! You sure as hell can't set up a mythtv box. If you buy a windows media center box from dell, that won't play those videos either.
So, I know why you don't like to pay taxes. Tell me again why apple hates drm?
And what happened to Jobs not liking DRM?
Nothing. That was a lie then, and is still a lie.
Indeed. I've posted my interpretation of events a year ago, and nobody believed me then. Some claimed I had invented some type of "conspiracy theory" when all I did was describe the effects of competition.
Steve Jobs never hated DRM. When dropping DRM became a good business decision for him, with fairplay lawsuits on the horizon, he added the whole, "we dislike DRM" as a marketing ploy. Why wouldn't he? To actually believe that he wants to sell music and videos that will play on non-apple products is naive at best.
The parallel universes in which the LHC works without failure are already wiped out by the LHC
This is the...unanthropological principle :) ?
Actually, you might be surprised to know there's already a name for that theory: Quantum Suicide
The person who telecommutes would not get paid for that time, why should the person in office?
Because the person who is at the office is getting paid for doing one additional thing that the telecommuter isn't being paid for: being at the office.
If the employer told me to be there at 9am, I don't care if there's work to be done or not. Time isn't free, and I could be doing something else at 9am. I could be sleeping in, I could be doing laundry, I could be playing video games. If part of my job is to be at the office at 9am, then I get paid for being there at 9am, whether or not I'm waiting for my tools to be ready or for them to tell me what to do.
If he tells me to be there at 9 and stay until 5, and doesn't give me any work, should he pay me for that time? How would you justify answering "no" to that?
If my employer *really* wants me to start working as soon as I get in, he can pay someone to go through the office at 8:45am and start turning the computers on before I clock in. Oh, that costs money? He could leave the computers on all night. Oh, that costs electricity? It's all a balance, but it's still part of the cost of operating the business. If I'm expected to turn it on, then it's part of my job's duties, and thus it's obviously something that I need to be paid to do.
I agree with you.
I would argue that TNG was pretty weak till several seasons in.
I'm surprised as hell TNG didn't get canceled in its first season, and it certainly didn't meet its potential until season 4 (I guess the end of season 3. Locutus was a reverse jump-the-shark moment. I guess you could say that in TNG, the sharks jump the show). However, season 2 started having its moments of greatness, with episodes like Measure of a Man. If you survived season one, it wasn't THAT weak from then on.
So was DS9 IMO...I remember being bored to tears
DS9 actually DID lose me. I was equally bored and quit watching. A long time after that I had friends who assured me of its later awesomeness, and they let me borrow the DVDs. I think the reason I didn't quit on Enterprise was because I remembered how DS9 turned around, and kept hoping the same would happen. Turns out that it did, but it was too late.
At my graduation...There were no comments at how the nursing group was 97% female.
I heard one. When one of my friends graduated, he noted that there was only ONE male among the entire nursing graduating class. As the person in question walked to get his diploma, my friend tells me he realized that he was "the smartest guy in this school."
If you want good Trek, watch Battlestar Galactica.
Oh, I do :)
What made Trek good in the first place was that it tackled issues of the day in a sci-fi environment.
Agreed. There was a lot of that of TNG and DS9 too. The idea of "curing" homosexuality, the influence of religion in science classes, etc. You mentioned you consider Galactica to be "good trek" and that's no accident considering Ronald D. Moore's involvement.
The third and fourth seasons were both good. Especially the latter part of the third.
I couldn't stand the whole Xindi storyline. Nothing made me happier than to see that arc end. I will admit it was better than the aimless show they had going in the first two seasons, though.
No, I mean the way the 4th series ended. Nonsensical, totally unfinished and chopped off at the knees.
Oh, we agree there.
I had really gotten into the 4th series: it had finally found itself and developed into a good story. Compulsory watching in my house. Then someone dragged it out back and shot it through the head because the fans didn't just deserted it, but threw shit pies at it every chance they got
No, that's not quite what happened. Everyone deserted it before it had become good. You can't expect people to watch crap for years while they get their stuff together. By the time they did, few people were watching to realize they had gotten better, and it was just too late to get the ratings up, so it got canceled.
Blame the whole, "let's make trek new and sexy, and very much unlike trek. In fact, let's drop the Star Trek name from the series, and just call it Enterprise, and drop the orchestral theme song...let's make it completely unlike trek!" mentality that was the beginning of Enterprise for the desertion. Like I said, if they had started the series with the type of writing they had in the fourth season, nobody would have complained.
And now here you are getting all judgmental and suggesting the same, based on a 2 min clip of a film not even released yet.
No, I was the one who was looking forward to it, despite all the bad things I kept hearing about it. Did you see the stupid car chase with young Kirk in that trailer? What is the point of that? It's a lame attempt to show what a rebel Kirk was in his childhood. Woohoo!
That type of scene is a sign of lack of story in any movie. They're trying to make a summer action flick to attract the non-trekkies, instead of making a good Star Trek movie. Same problem they had with Enterprise (in the beginning).
Oh, so you must be one of the morons (fans) with a short attention span, and an over inflated sense of your own importance who deserted Star Trek like a herd of petulant lemmings and caused that sickening lobotomy at the end of the Enterprise series.
Actually, I've seen all of Enterprise, even though it was mostly crap. What the HELL do you mean "sickening lobotomy at the end of the Enterprise series." You mean, "sickening lobotomy for the first 3 seasons" right? The fourth season was the only good season of that show.
And yes this is over the top, and no I'm not hiding behind AC, because I've never been so mad about how a series got treated in my whole life.
Well, it sort of helped. They quit making crap and hired good writers with a history of making awesome Star Trek books like Judy & Garfield Reeves-Stevens for the fourth season. Unfortunately it was too late. If they had done that from the beginning, the series would have done well.
[NERD-ALERT]
You mean "A Piece of the Action"
[/NERD-ALERT]
Ack. You're absolutely correct. I feel ashamed.
Shouldn't Spock already have been his adult self when he joined the Enterprise crew? Don't Vulcans live about twice as long as Humans?
Yes, which is why he was still alive for an episode in TNG, which means he'd have to be pretty young in his TOS days.
Do I know too much about this?
Obviously not :)
Also, I'm guessing there's a reason the top was dropped on the sting ray by the time the kid made it to that deep crevasse (the kind that one always finds in the middle of Iowa cornfields) or was that a continuity error?
I consider that whole scene a continuity error, but I'm guessing the top probably got ripped off the car during the chase.
One thing to be careful about is that there needs to be 2 captains of the Enterprise _before_ Kirk...
They've already said there's no mention of Robert April. I'm actually not very mad about that. April was never cannon (he was introduced in the animated series). A bigger continuity flaw in the trailer is the fact that Kirk can drive a stick. He had serious problems with it in "Patterns of Force."
Then again, continuity flaws are everywhere. I may not like them, but I've learned to live with them. What really pisses me off is the entire stupid scene with kirk driving and destroying a vintage automobile in that trailer just so they can show what rebel of a kid he was is uber-lame. I would be annoyed at that scene if I saw it in any movie, not just Star Trek.