Steve Jobs said they don't include a radio because they want to be careful about what features they add, because they know after that they won't be able to ever remove them.
Personally, I couldn't care less about having a radio. Podcasts only for me. By one of those cheap FM add-ons for the iPod if you must have it.
I get what you're saying, but it's just how I work. But to address your point, Pages' way is to provide simple toolbar buttons that, when clicked on, open floating panels with the moret advanced features. Format some text? Click the button for that. Insert an image? Click that button. In a way, it's like the tabbed menus of Office 12 but a different way of going about the idea (i.e., organizing features into sections...tabs in Office 12, floating panels in Pages).
So instead of using the arrow keys to cycle through selections and watching them change in real-time, I have to sit through my whole document shifting around when I select an item with the mouse? I would rather do it the current way, using the keyboard. When I'm selecting with the mouse, I know what I want.
Standard hardware? Let me know when your PCs using 1982-designed BIOSes can do sleep mode as reliably, all have built-in Firewire, have built-in hard-drive shock detection, power LED meters on the bottom of the battery so you can check it before you turn the laptop on, have the small size and silent operation of a Mac mini, have an entire computer built into the LCD screen sitting on a stand, run what is widely considered the best desktop operating system, and on and on and on...
Only Slashdotters think it's an "underdog" in the audio-playing department, and that's just because of Ogg. In every article, someone mentions Ogg. Ogg is irrelevant to the majority of the public. Nobody cares about Ogg!
A "few select audio formats?" iPods play AU, WAV, AIFF, MP3, M4A, M4P, and Apple Lossless. That's more than enough for the public. Considering the iPod's 80% market share, the public has spoken.
Only people on this website give a damn about Ogg and would actually call the iPod an underdog at playing audio just because it doesn't play this esoteric audio format that few use.
I guess I'm just annoyed that someone always chimes in to mention Ogg and gets modded up for it, and to say something as silly as "the iPod is an underdog at playing audio" when it's the top audio player just shows how out of touch some people can be...get over Ogg!
Apple pioneered the use of overlapping windows, pulldown menus, a "trash," and the overall desktop metaphor itself. Everyone copied the Mac after that.
Revolutionary implies that the Mac UI made everybody change their direction.
Uh, yeah, or do you think it's a coincidence that your Windows and Linux apps all have a "File Edit View Tools Window Help" menubar, your desktop has a trash can of some sort, a control panel of some sort, unified print and save dialogs, cut-and-paste (even the term "cut-and-paste" itself), your windows have a close and maximize button, and on and on and on and on...
Quite true, but this is Slashdot, and whenever something Bad(tm) is posted about OSS, there needs to be a counterbalance posted later to make it Good(tm). Security flaws in Mozilla? Well, uh, they're patched faster! On with the frontpage article to make the Mozilla fans feel better again (and tons of page hits each time!). If there was an anti-Internet Explorer article, it wouldn't have a followup "Robert Scoble Hits Back At Browser Security Claim."
said that I can remember when listening to music was not a crime. We never used to think about whether the concept of criminality applied to listening to music, or playing music, or singing. Today we have to consider whether criminality is a part of these things because the laws have been dramatically extended to encompass this.
That's because when you were listening to music back then, you weren't connecting to vast P2P networks where files could be transmitted to 250,000 people in one night. Again, you ignore this difference between a cassette mix tape passed to a couple of friends and actively distributing a.RAR file across multiple networks to hundreds of thousands of people instantly.
Your argument appears to be, "I didn't have to think about it back then, so that somehow means something now." Still not gonna fly, kid.
What does piracy have to do with listening to music? You said listening to music was a crime. It doesn't matter if you made tape recordings of radio broadcasts way back when. Making a little cassette copy is way, way different from connecting to the millions on the Internet where a single file is instantly distributed to 250,000 people in a matter of hours. But that difference is conveniently ignored by pro-pirate people who just want shit for free without having to pay for it. Freeloaders.
Due to your lack of a counterargument, your only resort is to dismiss me as not knowing what I'm talking about, without offering any evidence, proof, or backup. Which means your position is completely lame and weak.
Hey, it's Robert Scoble, the Microsoft blogger. Looks like Slashdot is playing right into Microsoft's blog publicity campaign to repair their image after the damaging BusinessWeek fiasco.:)
Anyone who's been following Mini-MSFT's blog (highly recommended read, especially the comments from anonymous Microsoft employees!) is aware of the dire need for some reorganization in this company and the plague of overmanagement that has taken root since Ballmer took over as CEO. Of course, it remains to be seen if they'll actually make the necessary changes or if this is just more shifting around to put on a show for the shareholders (the stock's been flat since '98). But Vista has been, to put it nicely, a debacle.
God, I said this when Apple first came out with the store. People won't be satisfied with 99 cents, they want it lower. Put it at 75 cents, they won't be satisfied and want it lower. 50 cents, still lower! You'll never be happy because you just don't want to have to pay for anything. Human nature.
Apple offers songs for free, and people would find some way to complain. "The bitrates aren't high enough!"
99 cents is plenty. There are albums on iTunes for $7.99, for crying out loud. As for passing on a CD, you can burn CDs from iTunes, you know.
Who's saying it's a crime to listen to music? How has it become a crime? What mystical era are you referring to that has somehow changed from today with regards to the non-crime of listening to music? What about this article has anything to do with the criminality and non-criminality of listening to music?
Listening to music isn't a crime. Pirating music is, sure, but that's the copyright system, which also protects GPL code. Sorry, but full-on communism/socialism has never worked.
Basically, I'm just confused about what your post is even referring to and why it's "insightful."
Once Apple resolves its issue with the Apple record label, expect to see artists clamoring to sign up. Jobs is already their best friend; he has lunch dates with Yo-Yo Ma, for pete's sake!
1.) First, immediately dismiss the results, just like you did in the last Mozilla security story. Mozilla is flawless.
2.) Randomly reference Open Source, claiming the flaws were easier to find because of it, which has nothing to do with the report in the article and actually sounds like a criticism of Open Source, if anything.
3.) Accuse the study of bias or "shilling." ALWAYS do this when the study goes against your pre-made worldview (in this case, Mozilla being flawless). When the study gives the opposite conclusion, agree with it and praise it, often with related anecdotal stories.
4.) Reference Internet Explorer's age, which has little to do with and doesn't change Mozilla having more flaws than Internet Explorer today.
5.) Ask how quickly the Mozilla vulnerabilities were patched, ignoring that Mozilla has marked vulnerabilities "Confidential" before for them to sit for two years unfixed.
6.) Claim Internet Explorer is integral to the OS, when you argued that Internet Explorer was easily removed from Windows during the anti-trust trial.
7.) Claim matter-of-factly that, for some reason, it "goes without saying" that the study uses some sort of flawed logic, without citing the logic, giving proof, or backing the statements in any way. Simply claim it, knowing everyone will mod you up because they, too, want to believe Mozilla is flawless.
The really, really short version: The Grateful Dead!!! That's all you need to think about!!! The short version: Bands like the Grateful Dead, Phish, The Black Crowes, and many, MANY others are financially successful not only in spite of but especially because of the fact that they allow(ed) copying of their music by their fans. Without it, Metallica would be unknown. That is all the proof you really need right there.
And once again, the point you miss is that THOSE BANDS GAVE THEIR PERMISSION TO DO IT. Get it yet?
I respect your position way, way more than I do the hypocritical arguments put out by others. The reason I respect it is because you're honest about what you do, what piracy is, and the reason for it. That's rare around these parts.
Just be honest, people. You're pirating music because it's enticing to get something for free when you'd normally have to pay for it. The parent post is very obvious and logical and applies to everyone. At least someone who admits, "Yeah, I know that technically I'm breaking the law, and I'm doing it because it's nice to get stuff for free" is someone whose position I can respect--because they're genuine.
Nice. Claim I "confuse the facts" without citing anything and responding to it. Not only have I toured professionally, I have managed bands and been on the road dozens of times, and I have a suspicion you haven't done any professional touring at all and just need some sort of retort.
But hey, go on living in your head-in-the-clouds fantasy land where everybody plays nice, artists are just happy to never receive any royalties due to lost sales from piracy, and touring is the magical answer to everything. "Someone else will pay them for it! I can start my download now!"
Piracy is just justified freeloading. Go on scapegoating the evil record companies that bands willingly sign up with. It won't make your position any less silly.
The Beatles, for example, are legends, and their works will continue to generate money well after the generation that first heard them have entirely turned to worm food.
What the hell are you talking about? The generation that listened to the Beatles is still alive today. Ringo and Paul are still alive and putting out music and touring. You're saying that Paul McCartney doesn't deserve to make any money from the music he wrote 40 years ago, so that you can fire up eMule without feeling guilty about it.
Somehow, to me, it dosen't seem unethical to copy music or other materials that have outlived everyone involved in its creation and its original investers, regardless of the legality.
The average human lifespan, in case you've missed the news, is much longer than 40 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs said they don't include a radio because they want to be careful about what features they add, because they know after that they won't be able to ever remove them.
Personally, I couldn't care less about having a radio. Podcasts only for me. By one of those cheap FM add-ons for the iPod if you must have it.
I get what you're saying, but it's just how I work. But to address your point, Pages' way is to provide simple toolbar buttons that, when clicked on, open floating panels with the moret advanced features. Format some text? Click the button for that. Insert an image? Click that button. In a way, it's like the tabbed menus of Office 12 but a different way of going about the idea (i.e., organizing features into sections...tabs in Office 12, floating panels in Pages).
Hey, Nintendo did it "quietly." It's the gaming sites, Slashdot included, making it big news.
I memorize the keyboard shortcuts for my most-used features anyway. If Microsoft's menus are a mess, they should redesign the menus.
Of course, I prefer Pages' way of doing things anyway, still the cleanest interface for a word processor...looking forward to iWork 2.0.
So instead of using the arrow keys to cycle through selections and watching them change in real-time, I have to sit through my whole document shifting around when I select an item with the mouse? I would rather do it the current way, using the keyboard. When I'm selecting with the mouse, I know what I want.
Standard hardware? Let me know when your PCs using 1982-designed BIOSes can do sleep mode as reliably, all have built-in Firewire, have built-in hard-drive shock detection, power LED meters on the bottom of the battery so you can check it before you turn the laptop on, have the small size and silent operation of a Mac mini, have an entire computer built into the LCD screen sitting on a stand, run what is widely considered the best desktop operating system, and on and on and on...
Prove you're right.
I can do this too. All the games you have installed on your computer are crap. Prove me wrong.
Whee...
Only Slashdotters think it's an "underdog" in the audio-playing department, and that's just because of Ogg. In every article, someone mentions Ogg. Ogg is irrelevant to the majority of the public. Nobody cares about Ogg!
A "few select audio formats?" iPods play AU, WAV, AIFF, MP3, M4A, M4P, and Apple Lossless. That's more than enough for the public. Considering the iPod's 80% market share, the public has spoken.
Only people on this website give a damn about Ogg and would actually call the iPod an underdog at playing audio just because it doesn't play this esoteric audio format that few use.
I guess I'm just annoyed that someone always chimes in to mention Ogg and gets modded up for it, and to say something as silly as "the iPod is an underdog at playing audio" when it's the top audio player just shows how out of touch some people can be...get over Ogg!
Bullshit.
Apple pioneered the use of overlapping windows, pulldown menus, a "trash," and the overall desktop metaphor itself. Everyone copied the Mac after that.
Revolutionary implies that the Mac UI made everybody change their direction.
Uh, yeah, or do you think it's a coincidence that your Windows and Linux apps all have a "File Edit View Tools Window Help" menubar, your desktop has a trash can of some sort, a control panel of some sort, unified print and save dialogs, cut-and-paste (even the term "cut-and-paste" itself), your windows have a close and maximize button, and on and on and on and on...
Quite true, but this is Slashdot, and whenever something Bad(tm) is posted about OSS, there needs to be a counterbalance posted later to make it Good(tm). Security flaws in Mozilla? Well, uh, they're patched faster! On with the frontpage article to make the Mozilla fans feel better again (and tons of page hits each time!). If there was an anti-Internet Explorer article, it wouldn't have a followup "Robert Scoble Hits Back At Browser Security Claim."
/.+
See my recent comment on this--How To Respond To Bad Mozilla Security News On
said that I can remember when listening to music was not a crime. We never used to think about whether the concept of criminality applied to listening to music, or playing music, or singing. Today we have to consider whether criminality is a part of these things because the laws have been dramatically extended to encompass this.
.RAR file across multiple networks to hundreds of thousands of people instantly.
That's because when you were listening to music back then, you weren't connecting to vast P2P networks where files could be transmitted to 250,000 people in one night. Again, you ignore this difference between a cassette mix tape passed to a couple of friends and actively distributing a
Your argument appears to be, "I didn't have to think about it back then, so that somehow means something now." Still not gonna fly, kid.
What does piracy have to do with listening to music? You said listening to music was a crime. It doesn't matter if you made tape recordings of radio broadcasts way back when. Making a little cassette copy is way, way different from connecting to the millions on the Internet where a single file is instantly distributed to 250,000 people in a matter of hours. But that difference is conveniently ignored by pro-pirate people who just want shit for free without having to pay for it. Freeloaders.
Due to your lack of a counterargument, your only resort is to dismiss me as not knowing what I'm talking about, without offering any evidence, proof, or backup. Which means your position is completely lame and weak.
Hey, it's Robert Scoble, the Microsoft blogger. Looks like Slashdot is playing right into Microsoft's blog publicity campaign to repair their image after the damaging BusinessWeek fiasco. :)
Anyone who's been following Mini-MSFT's blog (highly recommended read, especially the comments from anonymous Microsoft employees!) is aware of the dire need for some reorganization in this company and the plague of overmanagement that has taken root since Ballmer took over as CEO. Of course, it remains to be seen if they'll actually make the necessary changes or if this is just more shifting around to put on a show for the shareholders (the stock's been flat since '98). But Vista has been, to put it nicely, a debacle.
God, I said this when Apple first came out with the store. People won't be satisfied with 99 cents, they want it lower. Put it at 75 cents, they won't be satisfied and want it lower. 50 cents, still lower! You'll never be happy because you just don't want to have to pay for anything. Human nature.
Apple offers songs for free, and people would find some way to complain. "The bitrates aren't high enough!"
99 cents is plenty. There are albums on iTunes for $7.99, for crying out loud. As for passing on a CD, you can burn CDs from iTunes, you know.
Uh...
Who's saying it's a crime to listen to music? How has it become a crime? What mystical era are you referring to that has somehow changed from today with regards to the non-crime of listening to music? What about this article has anything to do with the criminality and non-criminality of listening to music?
Listening to music isn't a crime. Pirating music is, sure, but that's the copyright system, which also protects GPL code. Sorry, but full-on communism/socialism has never worked.
Basically, I'm just confused about what your post is even referring to and why it's "insightful."
Once Apple resolves its issue with the Apple record label, expect to see artists clamoring to sign up. Jobs is already their best friend; he has lunch dates with Yo-Yo Ma, for pete's sake!
How to respond to bad Mozilla security news on /.
1.) First, immediately dismiss the results, just like you did in the last Mozilla security story. Mozilla is flawless.
2.) Randomly reference Open Source, claiming the flaws were easier to find because of it, which has nothing to do with the report in the article and actually sounds like a criticism of Open Source, if anything.
3.) Accuse the study of bias or "shilling." ALWAYS do this when the study goes against your pre-made worldview (in this case, Mozilla being flawless). When the study gives the opposite conclusion, agree with it and praise it, often with related anecdotal stories.
4.) Reference Internet Explorer's age, which has little to do with and doesn't change Mozilla having more flaws than Internet Explorer today.
5.) Ask how quickly the Mozilla vulnerabilities were patched, ignoring that Mozilla has marked vulnerabilities "Confidential" before for them to sit for two years unfixed.
6.) Claim Internet Explorer is integral to the OS, when you argued that Internet Explorer was easily removed from Windows during the anti-trust trial.
7.) Claim matter-of-factly that, for some reason, it "goes without saying" that the study uses some sort of flawed logic, without citing the logic, giving proof, or backing the statements in any way. Simply claim it, knowing everyone will mod you up because they, too, want to believe Mozilla is flawless.
The really, really short version: The Grateful Dead!!! That's all you need to think about!!! The short version: Bands like the Grateful Dead, Phish, The Black Crowes, and many, MANY others are financially successful not only in spite of but especially because of the fact that they allow(ed) copying of their music by their fans. Without it, Metallica would be unknown. That is all the proof you really need right there.
And once again, the point you miss is that THOSE BANDS GAVE THEIR PERMISSION TO DO IT. Get it yet?
FINALLY.
I respect your position way, way more than I do the hypocritical arguments put out by others. The reason I respect it is because you're honest about what you do, what piracy is, and the reason for it. That's rare around these parts.
Just be honest, people. You're pirating music because it's enticing to get something for free when you'd normally have to pay for it. The parent post is very obvious and logical and applies to everyone. At least someone who admits, "Yeah, I know that technically I'm breaking the law, and I'm doing it because it's nice to get stuff for free" is someone whose position I can respect--because they're genuine.
Wait a second -- are you saying that you don't own the right to remember your sensory experiences?
No.
So what you're saying is, even though a person HEARS something, they don't own the right to store that in their memory?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
The simple fact is, if its on the radio, and you hear it, you should be able to store it. If you hear it at a concert, it's in your brain, you OWN IT.
Nobody ever argued you can't own memories in your brain.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO YOUR MEMORIES.
Of course you do.
People don't have the right to charge you 100x for the same goddamn bits.
Yes, they do. Just because you remember something doesn't automatically mean you have the right to its physical copy on CD. How ridiculous.
Nice. Claim I "confuse the facts" without citing anything and responding to it. Not only have I toured professionally, I have managed bands and been on the road dozens of times, and I have a suspicion you haven't done any professional touring at all and just need some sort of retort.
But hey, go on living in your head-in-the-clouds fantasy land where everybody plays nice, artists are just happy to never receive any royalties due to lost sales from piracy, and touring is the magical answer to everything. "Someone else will pay them for it! I can start my download now!"
Piracy is just justified freeloading. Go on scapegoating the evil record companies that bands willingly sign up with. It won't make your position any less silly.
People have such a negative image of communism.
Maybe because...oh, you beat me to it:
I'll be the first to admit that in practice, it fails horribly due to human nature
Communism is more head-in-the-clouds theoretical nonsense that doesn't actually work in the real world.
The Beatles, for example, are legends, and their works will continue to generate money well after the generation that first heard them have entirely turned to worm food.
What the hell are you talking about? The generation that listened to the Beatles is still alive today. Ringo and Paul are still alive and putting out music and touring. You're saying that Paul McCartney doesn't deserve to make any money from the music he wrote 40 years ago, so that you can fire up eMule without feeling guilty about it.
Somehow, to me, it dosen't seem unethical to copy music or other materials that have outlived everyone involved in its creation and its original investers, regardless of the legality.
The average human lifespan, in case you've missed the news, is much longer than 40 years.
What "extortion scheme?" How is someone a "victim" for buying a piece of music in their early youth?
Oh my god, man. Come back to Earth. You are waaay out there.