because the iPod doens't make any money for Apple.
Apple makes its money by selling the razor blades, the "content" to put on the iPod.
Er, no, sorry... you've got that backwards.
Apple makes a healthy profit on the iPods: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,119799,0 0.asp They do make some money on the music sold through iTMS, but it's a pittance compared to the percentage they make on the hardware. Steve's basically said that iTMS exists to drive iPod sales.
I think you're joking, but just to be on the safe side (there's got to be at least one A.C> out there who believes this!):
As I understand it, they're fluorescent, not chemoluminescent. In other words, they require an external stimulus (e.g. a UV light) to generate the glowing effect. In a completely dark room, they glow no more than your average, garden-variety pig does.
Yes, it does look at what you've ripped too. Test it yourself: create a smart playlist based on a single artist in your library that you've only ever ripped (not purchased tracks from iTMS). With the mini store turned on, browse that playlist. Hey, what do you know, the mini store is suggesting everything they have from that artist, despite the fact that you've never purchased a single track from that artist via iTMS.
Naturally, this works better with artists that are actually sold through iTMS-- I was silly and tried this with my Beatles playlist first, before the other brain cell I have woke up and reminded me that Apple and Apple Corps don't exactly see eye to eye on the iTMS issue.
As to the implications for me: so what. I don't give a flying fig if Steve Jobs cares about the contents of my music collection. Heck, if I'm going to receive advertising, I'd prefer it be targeted to items that I might actually care about, not the lastest from $pop_star_flavor_of_the_week_artist.
FWIW, I turned the mini store off, not over privacy concerns, but because it was giving me an annoying lag when switching playlists on my creaky old G4 Gigabit Ethernet!
Actually, Firefly was screwed by your second clause as well, since they didn't air the pilot as the first episode. It felt as though I'd picked up a good book, but started reading it at chapter 6 or 7 before cutting back to chapter 1 for the backstory. Silly TV execs.
So, when do we get to stop debating the cause of climate change, and begin debating the steps we can take to stop causing it? It seems to me that an awful lot of time has already been wasted convincing a few people that it's really taking place.
Can't we just accept that there's a problem, and begin fighting like cats and dogs over the solution?
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
--From the GNU FDL
So, Google could not legally prevent access, no could they prevent content from being mirrored. Don't like Google? Then help maintain a wiki mirror elsewhere.
Seems to me Google just wants to co-opt an information resource that has become extremely popular of late. They'd like to be to serve it up as they do now, but with Google ads sprinkeled in the sidebar. Since I currently ignore the Google ads now in their searches and in my Gmail account, this wouldn't be an issue for me personally.
Doesn't everyone's appendages have private methods? Mine are forever getting me into trouble...;)
Seriously, I was trying to see the applications of this study to robot design. Being a coder, I immediately jumped to the control logic, and was just struck by the similarities to OOAD concepts.
Wasn't trying to be funny... However, if I've all I accomplish today is providing comic relief, then it's been a good day!
BTW, I though the "good management" analogy was funnier. Sort of an oxymoron along the same lines as "deliberate mistake", "fuzzy logic", or "government organization".
Earlier research funded by the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research (ONR) suggests that, to keep the arms from constantly tangling themselves up, each arm has an independent peripheral nervous system and neural circuitry (see related-story link below). This allows the brain to essentially give a command--"Arm Four, fetch that tasty crab crawling by"--and have the arm carry out the order without the brain thinking about it again.
Sounds like good management to me. Management (the octopus) assigns a task to one of their reports (arms). Tell them what to do, but don't micromanage the task.
Or, it sounds like encapsulation. Pass just enough information to the Arm object to communicate the task, and allow Arm's private methods handle the detals of how that task is accomplished.
Please. Anyone got this judge's email addy? We could type it in at some nice, Truste-certified websites for him and see if he still feels that this law is too restrictive.
Unfortunately, if the judge's head is shoved as far up the judge's ass as it seems, I doubt the judge has an email account, not to mention the small amount of technical savvy required to manage that account...
Methinks what we need here is a cranial-rectal extraction tool...;^)
Patrick, The Linux landscape has changed remarkably in recent times. We've gone from Linux being a tool soley for that subset of humanity that actually understands what happens "under the hood" of their computers, arriving today at distros that are targeted to the unwashed masses. In my experience Slackware has always focused on the hacker rather than the average Joe/Jane on the street--this is what has set Slackware apart from the rest that are moving toward "ease of use" and propritary package upgrades... Given the increasingly crowded marketplace (and the fact that it's only going to get more crowded) how does Slackware intend to continue to differentiate itself from all the rest? And how will that differentiation lead toward profitability for the comapny and its investors?
I hope to correct the injustice I just inflicted on Mr. Behrendsen with this post-- while moderating I had inadvertently assigned his post a Troll rating(which it obviously doesn't deserve) My sincere and humble apologies... --BrettJB
Slashdot Mirror
Er, no, sorry... you've got that backwards.
Apple makes a healthy profit on the iPods: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,119799,
They do make some money on the music sold through iTMS, but it's a pittance compared to the percentage they make on the hardware. Steve's basically said that iTMS exists to drive iPod sales.
Does that mean there will be a Jack Handy QotD available on google.com/ig then?
I think you're joking, but just to be on the safe side (there's got to be at least one A.C> out there who believes this!):
As I understand it, they're fluorescent, not chemoluminescent. In other words, they require an external stimulus (e.g. a UV light) to generate the glowing effect. In a completely dark room, they glow no more than your average, garden-variety pig does.
Yes, it does look at what you've ripped too. Test it yourself: create a smart playlist based on a single artist in your library that you've only ever ripped (not purchased tracks from iTMS). With the mini store turned on, browse that playlist. Hey, what do you know, the mini store is suggesting everything they have from that artist, despite the fact that you've never purchased a single track from that artist via iTMS.
Naturally, this works better with artists that are actually sold through iTMS-- I was silly and tried this with my Beatles playlist first, before the other brain cell I have woke up and reminded me that Apple and Apple Corps don't exactly see eye to eye on the iTMS issue.
As to the implications for me: so what. I don't give a flying fig if Steve Jobs cares about the contents of my music collection. Heck, if I'm going to receive advertising, I'd prefer it be targeted to items that I might actually care about, not the lastest from $pop_star_flavor_of_the_week_artist.
FWIW, I turned the mini store off, not over privacy concerns, but because it was giving me an annoying lag when switching playlists on my creaky old G4 Gigabit Ethernet!
You can have Mimi... I'm calling Minmei! ;^)
Actually, Firefly was screwed by your second clause as well, since they didn't air the pilot as the first episode. It felt as though I'd picked up a good book, but started reading it at chapter 6 or 7 before cutting back to chapter 1 for the backstory. Silly TV execs.
Ok, so will our counter-autonomous vehicles be called Autobots or Decepticons?
http://www.answers.com/sarcasm&r=67
I don't have anything else, but credits will do fine.
Hmmm hummmmm hm hm hm hmmmmmm hmm hmm....
It's not working. Can I stop now?
So, when do we get to stop debating the cause of climate change, and begin debating the steps we can take to stop causing it? It seems to me that an awful lot of time has already been wasted convincing a few people that it's really taking place.
Can't we just accept that there's a problem, and begin fighting like cats and dogs over the solution?
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
--From the GNU FDL
So, Google could not legally prevent access, no could they prevent content from being mirrored. Don't like Google? Then help maintain a wiki mirror elsewhere.
Seems to me Google just wants to co-opt an information resource that has become extremely popular of late. They'd like to be to serve it up as they do now, but with Google ads sprinkeled in the sidebar. Since I currently ignore the Google ads now in their searches and in my Gmail account, this wouldn't be an issue for me personally.
Doesn't everyone's appendages have private methods? Mine are forever getting me into trouble... ;)
Seriously, I was trying to see the applications of this study to robot design. Being a coder, I immediately jumped to the control logic, and was just struck by the similarities to OOAD concepts.
Wasn't trying to be funny... However, if I've all I accomplish today is providing comic relief, then it's been a good day!
BTW, I though the "good management" analogy was funnier. Sort of an oxymoron along the same lines as "deliberate mistake", "fuzzy logic", or "government organization".
Sounds like good management to me. Management (the octopus) assigns a task to one of their reports (arms). Tell them what to do, but don't micromanage the task.
Or, it sounds like encapsulation. Pass just enough information to the Arm object to communicate the task, and allow Arm's private methods handle the detals of how that task is accomplished.
Well of course! They wouldn't want to offend their octopus readership now, would they?
I suspect there's also a rather large crossover population of squid and jellyfish reading TFA as well...
The dolphins, however, couldn't care less.
When is Strong Bad going to be recognized for the his obvious techno genius?!?!
Methinks what we need here is a cranial-rectal extraction tool...
Patrick, The Linux landscape has changed remarkably in recent times. We've gone from Linux being a tool soley for that subset of humanity that actually understands what happens "under the hood" of their computers, arriving today at distros that are targeted to the unwashed masses. In my experience Slackware has always focused on the hacker rather than the average Joe/Jane on the street--this is what has set Slackware apart from the rest that are moving toward "ease of use" and propritary package upgrades... Given the increasingly crowded marketplace (and the fact that it's only going to get more crowded) how does Slackware intend to continue to differentiate itself from all the rest? And how will that differentiation lead toward profitability for the comapny and its investors?
I hope to correct the injustice I just inflicted on Mr. Behrendsen with this post-- while moderating I had inadvertently assigned his post a Troll rating(which it obviously doesn't deserve) My sincere and humble apologies... --BrettJB