Because radios are cheap, are everywhere, and work. Do you have a WIFI receiver in your car? In your wife's car? In your garage? In your bathroom? An FM transmitter is the simplest solution to the problem of getting music throughout your property.
I thought that was the real geek solution: simple and works.
Sure it's illegal, but you have a better chance getting sued by the RIAA for using P2P than for operating a pirate radio station which covers only one block. Heck, even if the FCC knew about your one block station they wouldn't do anything.
God, did you even bother to read the posting?! It is MORE than a PDA. Does your "$90 Palm" have a 30 gig hard drive? Can you rip DVDs to it and play them while on the subway? Can you store and play several weeks of music on it?
I'm not saying the price is worth it. I certainly won't buy one. But it costs more than your Palm because it does a heck of a lot more.
That's an asinine analogy and you know it. You can buy a CD from any label, major and independant, and it will work with EVERY CD player.
Apple is trying to protect iTunes by keeping iPod owners from buying from other sources. It'd be like if Sony CD players only played CDs released by Sony.
There is a great scene in Galaxy Quest where Tim Allen and Sigourney Weaver have to stop the ship from blowing up. They stop it with plenty of time to spare, but the timer keeps ticking. It ticks all the way down until there is only 1 second left, then it stops all by itself.
That's what veiwers expect. It's simply not exciting to solve a problem with plenty of time to spare.
It's my opinion that the Y2K problem was real, was mostly fixed, but was utterly over-hyped.
You're right. I should have mentioned that. That corporate edition ISO was available before XP Pro was even for sale. And then tweaktown had a work-around to install SP1 about two weeks before that was released. I'm curious as to whether users of that corporate XP Pro ISO can install SP2?
Yeah, and how Apple won't let users put music they bought from Real on their iPod.
Can you imagine if your CD player could only play music from certain record labels?! That'd be absurd, but we're living in that world now, at least temporarily. I'm assuming eventually there will either be one DRM/compression system or they'll be many but they will be compatible with all players.
That's a pretty good idea, but how about this: Instead of letting people "buy" or rent and take movies home, we let them watch movies in large rooms with very large screens. We could also force them to pay ridiculous prices for popcorn and soda to make extra income.
It doesn't stop large scale counterfeiting and it is not intended to do so.
Think about it. Does Microsoft's Product Activation stop real counterfeiting? Nope, Asia is filled with nearly free copies of Windows XP.
Does the music industry's attempts to stop CD ripping stop files from showing up on P2P? Nope. The Velvet Underground's CD had DRM, but it was widely available on all P2P applications weeks before the CD was even released.
Does CSS stop bootleg movies from being sold? Nope, once again, cites are filled with places where you can buy bootleg DVDs.
So, you're probably thinking, what's the point of DRM? I see two possibilities:
The first one is that those in charge of content companies simply do not understand DRM. These corporate suits hold on to the irrational belief that one day a perfect encryption system will be developed which will make all piracy disappear. That's probably what their engineers are telling them, because those engineers want to keep their jobs coming up with new DRM systems every couple years.
The other possibility is that the content industries simply want to stop as much copying as possible. They probably know that pirating will exist no matter what, but for every copy they stop which leads to a sale, they make a little money.
I don't know which one is right, but I do know for a fact that DRM only pisses off those users who actually bothered to pay. Pirates aren't pissed off by it, at best it gives them a challenge and makes it harder to become a pirate. The fewer the pirates, the bigger the pie for each pirate.
I agree. If I had to choose between stealing a pizza or a laptop, I'd steal the pizza. It's worth less than 10 bucks so even if you got caught you'd never actually be charged with a crime. And best of all you'd actually get to eat the pizza.
However, if I had to choose between being anally raped and stealing and eating a Dominos' "pizza", I'd chose the rape.
See, you don't even believe in a priori arguments. You say that users would change my statement that 1+1 could equal anything and make it "more" correct. You cannot even admit that there is only ONE correct answer to 1+1!
I pointed out a fundamental problem with Wikipedia: It makes no sense to publish facts when you believe there is no truth.
I use Open Office at work. Office 2000 on my computer. And my wife uses some version of WordPerfect, I'm guessing from the year 2000. Despite using three different office suites I'm able to work on my documents on all three computers.
I'm not saying there are never incompatibility problems, I'm just wondering whether there are enough incompatibility problems to avoid switching to a better or cheaper suite.
But you didn't answer my question: Why are articles on Wikipedia more valid than gibberish?
You say as a matter of fact that 1+1=2. But on Wikipedia I could write an article how 1+1 can equally anything we want! According to Wikipedia, my opinions are equally as valid as a priori arguments!
You're proving another point I made. If there is no truth, and you seem to believe it, then I'll ask you this: Why not simply publish gibberish? If a janitor's opinion on the cause of cancer is equally valid as a phsyican who spent decades curing cancer... why isn't gibberish equally valid as well?
Sure gibberish doesn't make sense. But I'm sure the physican would say the same thing about the janitor's opinion that cancer is caused by aliens to kill off our population.
And in a world without truth, who is going to decide that my gibbish is NOT the truth?
If I'm to understand the underlying purpose of Wikipedia is that everyone's opinions matter. E.g., a noted physician with decades of experience treating cancer can write an article about cancer and have it replaced by a janitor's view that cancer is caused by aliens attempting to kill off our population.
Now I'll admit that if that happened, someone else will certainly come along and "fix" what the janitor wrote. But under Wikipedia, there is no doubt that the janitor has an equal right to write about cancer as the physician. And the reason that both persons' opinions matter is that neither of them is "right."
I'm just taking it a little further. If a janitor's opinion on cancer is equal to that of a physicians' who treated cancer for decades, then why is my article filled with gibberish any less valid? If someone could answer that for me, I'd really appreciate it.
Wikipedia is based on the premise that there is no real truth, merely opinions. However, what's the point of creating a system of facts when you know they are all untrue?
Why not simply type up and publish a bunch of gibberish? If a person believes there is no real truth, then how could that person ever argue that gibberish is any less valid than the articles?
Maybe I'll join and start writing gibberish. It'll be interesting to see how far I get.
Slashdot Mirror
Because radios are cheap, are everywhere, and work. Do you have a WIFI receiver in your car? In your wife's car? In your garage? In your bathroom? An FM transmitter is the simplest solution to the problem of getting music throughout your property.
I thought that was the real geek solution: simple and works.
Sure it's illegal, but you have a better chance getting sued by the RIAA for using P2P than for operating a pirate radio station which covers only one block. Heck, even if the FCC knew about your one block station they wouldn't do anything.
God, did you even bother to read the posting?! It is MORE than a PDA. Does your "$90 Palm" have a 30 gig hard drive? Can you rip DVDs to it and play them while on the subway? Can you store and play several weeks of music on it?
I'm not saying the price is worth it. I certainly won't buy one. But it costs more than your Palm because it does a heck of a lot more.
That's an asinine analogy and you know it. You can buy a CD from any label, major and independant, and it will work with EVERY CD player.
Apple is trying to protect iTunes by keeping iPod owners from buying from other sources. It'd be like if Sony CD players only played CDs released by Sony.
The main reason most people buy LCDs is because they look cool. I can think of no better example of an "emotional purchase" than that.
... even though it's been slashdotted!
I believe Slashdot's moderation system is fair.
Read the article or the order the judge signed, that's the only remaining issue.
There is a great scene in Galaxy Quest where Tim Allen and Sigourney Weaver have to stop the ship from blowing up. They stop it with plenty of time to spare, but the timer keeps ticking. It ticks all the way down until there is only 1 second left, then it stops all by itself.
That's what veiwers expect. It's simply not exciting to solve a problem with plenty of time to spare.
It's my opinion that the Y2K problem was real, was mostly fixed, but was utterly over-hyped.
Well, that's great. Not that people get software for free. But that it proves my point that DRM never really works.
You're right. I should have mentioned that. That corporate edition ISO was available before XP Pro was even for sale. And then tweaktown had a work-around to install SP1 about two weeks before that was released. I'm curious as to whether users of that corporate XP Pro ISO can install SP2?
Yeah, and how Apple won't let users put music they bought from Real on their iPod.
Can you imagine if your CD player could only play music from certain record labels?! That'd be absurd, but we're living in that world now, at least temporarily. I'm assuming eventually there will either be one DRM/compression system or they'll be many but they will be compatible with all players.
That's a pretty good idea, but how about this: Instead of letting people "buy" or rent and take movies home, we let them watch movies in large rooms with very large screens. We could also force them to pay ridiculous prices for popcorn and soda to make extra income.
It doesn't stop large scale counterfeiting and it is not intended to do so.
Think about it. Does Microsoft's Product Activation stop real counterfeiting? Nope, Asia is filled with nearly free copies of Windows XP.
Does the music industry's attempts to stop CD ripping stop files from showing up on P2P? Nope. The Velvet Underground's CD had DRM, but it was widely available on all P2P applications weeks before the CD was even released.
Does CSS stop bootleg movies from being sold? Nope, once again, cites are filled with places where you can buy bootleg DVDs.
So, you're probably thinking, what's the point of DRM? I see two possibilities:
The first one is that those in charge of content companies simply do not understand DRM. These corporate suits hold on to the irrational belief that one day a perfect encryption system will be developed which will make all piracy disappear. That's probably what their engineers are telling them, because those engineers want to keep their jobs coming up with new DRM systems every couple years.
The other possibility is that the content industries simply want to stop as much copying as possible. They probably know that pirating will exist no matter what, but for every copy they stop which leads to a sale, they make a little money.
I don't know which one is right, but I do know for a fact that DRM only pisses off those users who actually bothered to pay. Pirates aren't pissed off by it, at best it gives them a challenge and makes it harder to become a pirate. The fewer the pirates, the bigger the pie for each pirate.
I agree. If I had to choose between stealing a pizza or a laptop, I'd steal the pizza. It's worth less than 10 bucks so even if you got caught you'd never actually be charged with a crime. And best of all you'd actually get to eat the pizza.
However, if I had to choose between being anally raped and stealing and eating a Dominos' "pizza", I'd chose the rape.
To get a troll score, what else?!
Please please please answer this one question: Why publish facts when there is no truth?
See, you don't even believe in a priori arguments. You say that users would change my statement that 1+1 could equal anything and make it "more" correct. You cannot even admit that there is only ONE correct answer to 1+1!
I pointed out a fundamental problem with Wikipedia: It makes no sense to publish facts when you believe there is no truth.
Doesn't the fact that you cannot answer my question trouble you even a little bit?
I use Open Office at work. Office 2000 on my computer. And my wife uses some version of WordPerfect, I'm guessing from the year 2000. Despite using three different office suites I'm able to work on my documents on all three computers.
I'm not saying there are never incompatibility problems, I'm just wondering whether there are enough incompatibility problems to avoid switching to a better or cheaper suite.
But you didn't answer my question: Why are articles on Wikipedia more valid than gibberish?
You say as a matter of fact that 1+1=2. But on Wikipedia I could write an article how 1+1 can equally anything we want! According to Wikipedia, my opinions are equally as valid as a priori arguments!
So if you broke both your legs, you'd rather "suck it up" and crawl around rather than actually get them fixed by a doctor?
It's a good thing Lance Armstrong didn't follow your advice. Not only would he have not won all those Tour de France's, he would have died.
Come to think of it, maybe this is a GOOD thing. People like you will die off leaving the world a better place for the rest of us!
You're proving another point I made. If there is no truth, and you seem to believe it, then I'll ask you this: Why not simply publish gibberish? If a janitor's opinion on the cause of cancer is equally valid as a phsyican who spent decades curing cancer... why isn't gibberish equally valid as well?
Sure gibberish doesn't make sense. But I'm sure the physican would say the same thing about the janitor's opinion that cancer is caused by aliens to kill off our population.
And in a world without truth, who is going to decide that my gibbish is NOT the truth?
If I'm to understand the underlying purpose of Wikipedia is that everyone's opinions matter. E.g., a noted physician with decades of experience treating cancer can write an article about cancer and have it replaced by a janitor's view that cancer is caused by aliens attempting to kill off our population.
Now I'll admit that if that happened, someone else will certainly come along and "fix" what the janitor wrote. But under Wikipedia, there is no doubt that the janitor has an equal right to write about cancer as the physician. And the reason that both persons' opinions matter is that neither of them is "right."
I'm just taking it a little further. If a janitor's opinion on cancer is equal to that of a physicians' who treated cancer for decades, then why is my article filled with gibberish any less valid? If someone could answer that for me, I'd really appreciate it.
Wikipedia is based on the premise that there is no real truth, merely opinions. However, what's the point of creating a system of facts when you know they are all untrue?
Why not simply type up and publish a bunch of gibberish? If a person believes there is no real truth, then how could that person ever argue that gibberish is any less valid than the articles?
Maybe I'll join and start writing gibberish. It'll be interesting to see how far I get.