Those markets are virtually nonexistent. No one cares about those things. The very few people who do are the tiny percentage of the market that have MP3 players other than iPods.
The iPod's marketshare is only about 30-40% or so, depending on who's numbers you believe. 60-70% of the market is hardly "virtually nonexistent".
For the masses, paying $600 for a computer without a monitor/keyboard/mouse is somewhat steep. Most people I know opt for a low end system that generally costs $500 or less for the whole computer.
And the chances of these people running computers nearly a decade old going out, buying Vista, and trying to install it is nearly zero. These people will either get Vista on a new computer, or will just keep running their old hardware as long as it still boots up.
C) One of the most common Windows application, MS Office is controlled by Microsoft, so Microsoft can change the Windows API, change Office to work with it, and attempt totally screw over everyone who isn't running Office on Windows. Ditto for things like DirectX.
No one makes an MP3 player comparable to the iPod in the capacity/form factor department. Same goes for the Nano. iPod owns the market because Apple has no real competition.
Apple may not have much competition in the market when it comes to the drive space/size ratio. However, Apple also chooses not to compete in the market of players that have FM tuners, or support alternative formats like WMA or OGG, or have easily replaceable batteries (before you flame me, remember the Nano/Shuffle has their batteries soldered in), or come in colors other than white or black (don't laugh, the MP3 player is as much as a fashion accessory as it is a geek toy nowadays). It all depends on what you want to define as a "market".
The iTunes Store came much later and is a different animal working with the permission of the RIAA. That's the only place you'll find DRM and it's because of the RIAA. Apple won't license FairPlay as a tool for lock-in but they can do that since they own the whole ecosystem.
Which is precisely my point. People try to pretend that Apple is pro-consumer and only reluctantly implemented DRM at the demands of the RIAA. But fact is, Apple uses the Fairplay DRM to suit their needs too.
Well, the media cartels won't sell you the content on those shiny plastic disks and let you view it without the DRM in place. Maybe you're right, and Apple will start some kind of streaming on demand HD quality service. However, I can guarantee that the media cartels will require that the Mac be DRM'd up the wazoo before that is allowed to happen. Either way, we lose.
uhh... actually... I just _did_ rip the 'Cars' movie using Handbrake. Literally it is one click. Works great. No problems. The only discs I have trouble ripping these days are Sony/Columbia DVDs... and usually those are beatable with a tiny bit of either effort or compromise.
Yeah, and I could install DVD Decrypter and Gordian Knot on Windows Vista and do the same thing. Seriously, what's your point?
If it was up to Apple, there wouldn't be any DRM. It's the RIAA who decides whether DRM exists and how loose it gets.
Apple fanboys keep saying this, and I don't understand why. How come I can't load up songs from iTMS on a non-Apple player? How come the iPod doesn't work with most over music stores out there? The answer is DRM, and it doesn't have anything to do with the RIAA. Apple wields DRM as a tool to try to lock people in just like Microsoft does.
If you put a large draw on your your electrical sysytem, the alternator becomes harder to turn, and the engine has to work harder. Have you ever noticed that if you turn on something like the rear window defroster or headlights when idling, the RPMs drop slightly (probably easier to see on a small car than a truck, admittedly). If you want to see this is action, take a good alternator out of a car and try to turn it by hand with nothing connected to it, then try to turn it by hand after you short the terminals. The electrical energy from your alternator is hardly free, though the amount of gasoline needed to run most accessories is negligible compared to the amount consumed by the engine.
If I remember right, they didn't even use the same SUV for the AC and the windows down tests - they used two different SUVs (same model) with different drivers. Differences in the tire pressures of the two trucks could have easily accounted for the difference. Mythbusters proved nothing with that test.
While the hybrids did find a clever way to regain energy that a typical car just throws away, the energy from regenerative braking comes from the motion of the car, which comes from the motors, which ultimately get their energy from the gasoline you put in the tank. Even energy you get from going down a hill isn't free, as you had to spend extra energy to climb up that hill in the first place. You just can't cheat physics.
My father gets 59 MPG regularly in his Prius. How does he do it? He accelerates slowly when the light turns green to lengthen the time before the gas engine kicks in, he doesn't try to do hard acceleration up hills, and when he sees a red light in the distance he rolls to a stop (admittedly sometimes to the dismay of the drivers behind him, but it's a red light; why are they in such a hurry to get there?). People assume that when they hop into a hybrid that somehow some magical juju causes them to get better mileage, like some +20 chalice of efficiency. No. You have to learn how to take advantage of the car.
Actually, the most genius thing that Toyota did with the Prius was to put that big display on the dash telling you what your mileage is, which in turn makes people drive them differently when they can clearly see what bad habits are costing them. Those things that your Dad does will improve the mileage on any vehicle - getting people to drive the vehicles they have right now differently could save a lot of gasoline (not to mention things like brake pads and tires!).
Could you please explain further? How is my SUV cheaper than it should be? Especially due to "loopholes?"
Back in the 1970's, in order to encourage auto makers to build cars that use less gas, the government introduced the CAFE standards. The CAFE standards basically said that the fleet of vehicles an automaker sells had to meet an average mileage (which was to increase each year until it met 27.5MPG in 1987 IIRC), or the maker had to pay a penalty. However, since this would obviously hurt pick up trucks, vans, and other work vehicles they were exempted from meeting the same restrictions as cars, and were put into their own category of "light trucks". In addition to not having to meet the same fuel economy standards, light trucks were also permitted to emit more polution into the air. As the restrictions got tighter in the 1980's, the auto makers started either started to kill off their less efficient large cars to improve their fleet mileage, or atleast raised the price on those vehicles to offset the penalty they had to pay to sell those vehicles. Then, the auto makers found the loophole - that instead of selling large cars as family vehicles, they could sell "light trucks" as family vehicles. Since these light trucks did not have to meet the same standards as a car (they could pollute more, and less penalities for the extra gas they guzzled) they could sell them for cheaper. Hence, the minivan was born, and the SUV started its transformation from a utilitarian, no frills truck to its current form of a large, inefficient unibody car with extra big tires. And that's basically where we are today. If the light trucks, which are mostly sold as large passenger cars, were held to same standards as passenger cars, we would see some changes.
The whole reason we have SUVs now, and not the large sedans/wagons that died out in the 1980's is that the government's regulations for "light trucks" are less strict than they are for cars. As such, cars and trucks do not compete on a level playing field, with trucks and SUVs being artificially cheaper than they should be. Patch up this loophole, and make the SUV owners pay the full cost for their choice of vehicle, and I'm sure that within a few years you would see a lot less SUVs and trucks on the road.
Who gives a crap about SUV drivers when every product you buy was shipped on a truck?
Hey, atleast semi trucks are more efficient. Most SUVs I see have one person in them, and the rest is empty. A SUV actually being used to haul lots of people, cargo, or a trailer is the exception. An empty semi truck is a lot less common - the shipping companies hate sending empty trucks around. Why? Because they are losing money when they do! Sure, I would like to see a better infrastructure for shipping, but to implement that would be a lot harder than convincing people to get rid of their wasteful SUVs.
I wouldn't worry about the airlines either. If they go bankrupt, the government will sadly bail them out, again.
Well, you might want to test to see if the voltages are correct, though a lot of cheap power supplies are quite a bit off with zero load.
If you really want to nail them, throw in a propriety Dell power supply and see if they catch it (Dell has been known to use power supplies with the same plug as ATX but a totally different pinout = bang!)
It's pretty simple, either Apple will have to provide their own encrypted, DRM'd path just like what Vista has, complete with reduced quality output - or the content providers won't let Macs play their new HD disks (or atleast, they won't be able to play them at full quality). I'm certain that Apple won't want to miss out, so you can expect even more DRM to be sneaked into OSX. Sorry.
If you really want open and free, install Linux (and wait for this next generation DRM to be hacked).
You're only truly being biased if you explicitly mention the party affilation when a bad thing happens on the "other" side, and convienently leave it out when bad things happen on "your" side. Otherwise,
Besides, political affiliations are most certainly relevant to the misconduct. Many people in this country don't vote for a person, they vote for the little D or R after their name. When a member of a political party does something bad, it should reflect badly on their whole political party.
I've run into a few, usually their "proof" revolves around there being no widespread viruses and malware out in the wild for the Mac like there is for Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Those markets are virtually nonexistent. No one cares about those things. The very few people who do are the tiny percentage of the market that have MP3 players other than iPods.
The iPod's marketshare is only about 30-40% or so, depending on who's numbers you believe. 60-70% of the market is hardly "virtually nonexistent".
For the masses, paying $600 for a computer without a monitor/keyboard/mouse is somewhat steep. Most people I know opt for a low end system that generally costs $500 or less for the whole computer.
And the chances of these people running computers nearly a decade old going out, buying Vista, and trying to install it is nearly zero. These people will either get Vista on a new computer, or will just keep running their old hardware as long as it still boots up.
It's a matter of degrees, really. Apple's DRM is about ten times less restrictive than anyone else's
Where everyone else is.... Microsoft? Apple's DRM is pretty heavy handed compared to Linux and BSD.
And...
C) One of the most common Windows application, MS Office is controlled by Microsoft, so Microsoft can change the Windows API, change Office to work with it, and attempt totally screw over everyone who isn't running Office on Windows. Ditto for things like DirectX.
No one makes an MP3 player comparable to the iPod in the capacity/form factor department. Same goes for the Nano. iPod owns the market because Apple has no real competition.
Apple may not have much competition in the market when it comes to the drive space/size ratio. However, Apple also chooses not to compete in the market of players that have FM tuners, or support alternative formats like WMA or OGG, or have easily replaceable batteries (before you flame me, remember the Nano/Shuffle has their batteries soldered in), or come in colors other than white or black (don't laugh, the MP3 player is as much as a fashion accessory as it is a geek toy nowadays). It all depends on what you want to define as a "market".
The iTunes Store came much later and is a different animal working with the permission of the RIAA. That's the only place you'll find DRM and it's because of the RIAA. Apple won't license FairPlay as a tool for lock-in but they can do that since they own the whole ecosystem.
Which is precisely my point. People try to pretend that Apple is pro-consumer and only reluctantly implemented DRM at the demands of the RIAA. But fact is, Apple uses the Fairplay DRM to suit their needs too.
Well, the media cartels won't sell you the content on those shiny plastic disks and let you view it without the DRM in place. Maybe you're right, and Apple will start some kind of streaming on demand HD quality service. However, I can guarantee that the media cartels will require that the Mac be DRM'd up the wazoo before that is allowed to happen. Either way, we lose.
uhh... actually... I just _did_ rip the 'Cars' movie using Handbrake. Literally it is one click. Works great. No problems. The only discs I have trouble ripping these days are Sony/Columbia DVDs... and usually those are beatable with a tiny bit of either effort or compromise.
Yeah, and I could install DVD Decrypter and Gordian Knot on Windows Vista and do the same thing. Seriously, what's your point?
BZZZZZZZT
If it was up to Apple, there wouldn't be any DRM. It's the RIAA who decides whether DRM exists and how loose it gets.
Apple fanboys keep saying this, and I don't understand why. How come I can't load up songs from iTMS on a non-Apple player? How come the iPod doesn't work with most over music stores out there? The answer is DRM, and it doesn't have anything to do with the RIAA. Apple wields DRM as a tool to try to lock people in just like Microsoft does.
I thought the fool was the guy who actually pays real money for pr0n?
Braking for no reason (BFNR as I like to call it) is highly illegal and likely to get you some jail time.
If that was really the case, there would be a whole lot less cars on the road.
If you put a large draw on your your electrical sysytem, the alternator becomes harder to turn, and the engine has to work harder. Have you ever noticed that if you turn on something like the rear window defroster or headlights when idling, the RPMs drop slightly (probably easier to see on a small car than a truck, admittedly). If you want to see this is action, take a good alternator out of a car and try to turn it by hand with nothing connected to it, then try to turn it by hand after you short the terminals. The electrical energy from your alternator is hardly free, though the amount of gasoline needed to run most accessories is negligible compared to the amount consumed by the engine.
If I remember right, they didn't even use the same SUV for the AC and the windows down tests - they used two different SUVs (same model) with different drivers. Differences in the tire pressures of the two trucks could have easily accounted for the difference. Mythbusters proved nothing with that test.
While the hybrids did find a clever way to regain energy that a typical car just throws away, the energy from regenerative braking comes from the motion of the car, which comes from the motors, which ultimately get their energy from the gasoline you put in the tank. Even energy you get from going down a hill isn't free, as you had to spend extra energy to climb up that hill in the first place. You just can't cheat physics.
My father gets 59 MPG regularly in his Prius. How does he do it? He accelerates slowly when the light turns green to lengthen the time before the gas engine kicks in, he doesn't try to do hard acceleration up hills, and when he sees a red light in the distance he rolls to a stop (admittedly sometimes to the dismay of the drivers behind him, but it's a red light; why are they in such a hurry to get there?). People assume that when they hop into a hybrid that somehow some magical juju causes them to get better mileage, like some +20 chalice of efficiency. No. You have to learn how to take advantage of the car.
Actually, the most genius thing that Toyota did with the Prius was to put that big display on the dash telling you what your mileage is, which in turn makes people drive them differently when they can clearly see what bad habits are costing them. Those things that your Dad does will improve the mileage on any vehicle - getting people to drive the vehicles they have right now differently could save a lot of gasoline (not to mention things like brake pads and tires!).
Could you please explain further? How is my SUV cheaper than it should be? Especially due to "loopholes?"
Back in the 1970's, in order to encourage auto makers to build cars that use less gas, the government introduced the CAFE standards. The CAFE standards basically said that the fleet of vehicles an automaker sells had to meet an average mileage (which was to increase each year until it met 27.5MPG in 1987 IIRC), or the maker had to pay a penalty. However, since this would obviously hurt pick up trucks, vans, and other work vehicles they were exempted from meeting the same restrictions as cars, and were put into their own category of "light trucks". In addition to not having to meet the same fuel economy standards, light trucks were also permitted to emit more polution into the air. As the restrictions got tighter in the 1980's, the auto makers started either started to kill off their less efficient large cars to improve their fleet mileage, or atleast raised the price on those vehicles to offset the penalty they had to pay to sell those vehicles. Then, the auto makers found the loophole - that instead of selling large cars as family vehicles, they could sell "light trucks" as family vehicles. Since these light trucks did not have to meet the same standards as a car (they could pollute more, and less penalities for the extra gas they guzzled) they could sell them for cheaper. Hence, the minivan was born, and the SUV started its transformation from a utilitarian, no frills truck to its current form of a large, inefficient unibody car with extra big tires. And that's basically where we are today. If the light trucks, which are mostly sold as large passenger cars, were held to same standards as passenger cars, we would see some changes.
So, what's the speed limit for a bicycle?
Generally, if you are riding on a road, the same speed as it is for motor vehicles. Not sure about bike paths though.
The whole reason we have SUVs now, and not the large sedans/wagons that died out in the 1980's is that the government's regulations for "light trucks" are less strict than they are for cars. As such, cars and trucks do not compete on a level playing field, with trucks and SUVs being artificially cheaper than they should be. Patch up this loophole, and make the SUV owners pay the full cost for their choice of vehicle, and I'm sure that within a few years you would see a lot less SUVs and trucks on the road.
Who gives a crap about SUV drivers when every product you buy was shipped on a truck?
Hey, atleast semi trucks are more efficient. Most SUVs I see have one person in them, and the rest is empty. A SUV actually being used to haul lots of people, cargo, or a trailer is the exception. An empty semi truck is a lot less common - the shipping companies hate sending empty trucks around. Why? Because they are losing money when they do! Sure, I would like to see a better infrastructure for shipping, but to implement that would be a lot harder than convincing people to get rid of their wasteful SUVs.
I wouldn't worry about the airlines either. If they go bankrupt, the government will sadly bail them out, again.
Well, you might want to test to see if the voltages are correct, though a lot of cheap power supplies are quite a bit off with zero load.
If you really want to nail them, throw in a propriety Dell power supply and see if they catch it (Dell has been known to use power supplies with the same plug as ATX but a totally different pinout = bang!)
It's pretty simple, either Apple will have to provide their own encrypted, DRM'd path just like what Vista has, complete with reduced quality output - or the content providers won't let Macs play their new HD disks (or atleast, they won't be able to play them at full quality). I'm certain that Apple won't want to miss out, so you can expect even more DRM to be sneaked into OSX. Sorry.
If you really want open and free, install Linux (and wait for this next generation DRM to be hacked).
You're only truly being biased if you explicitly mention the party affilation when a bad thing happens on the "other" side, and convienently leave it out when bad things happen on "your" side. Otherwise,
Besides, political affiliations are most certainly relevant to the misconduct. Many people in this country don't vote for a person, they vote for the little D or R after their name. When a member of a political party does something bad, it should reflect badly on their whole political party.
I've run into a few, usually their "proof" revolves around there being no widespread viruses and malware out in the wild for the Mac like there is for Windows.
Which does the OLPC people no good, since Safari is a propriety wrapper around KHTML that they don't have access too.