You may want to get your cholesterol checked. Apparently, mozzies are more attracted to people who process cholesterol efficiently and don't have a lot stacked up in their blood.
I don't understand these arguments; they had a choice to either do what the music industry demanded and gain their foothold in the market, leveraging their strength later, or just give up on it and open a laughable shop with no selection.
What do you expect of them? Perfect? Apple's a business, not Jesus.
Doesn't change my statement at all. The two have little or nothing to do with each other.
For all I care, Jobs can void my warranty if I jailbreak my iPhone, but I have it in my grubby little hands; if I want to bust it open and play with it, there's nothing he can do about it.
If Sony sells me a computer that must connect to Sony's servers for some reason or it stops working, you bet I would expect them to keep the servers up in perpetuity. And as soon as the servers went down, I would be hacking the shit out of that hardware. And you know what? No reasonable judge/jury would condemn me for doing it.
This reminds me of the companies that were giving away or selling cheaply PCs that came loaded with adware that you were supposed to allow to run freely on your system in order to maintain "ownership". Basically, the sale was a lease-to-own that was dependent on ongoing ad revenue.
I think most people who bought those machines pretty much immediately wiped the drives and started from scratch right away. Those companies didn't stick around for long. I think eMachines may have even tried to do some sort of subsidized schtick, but that obviously didn't work out.
The funny thing is that I'd be totally fine with not owning the music if the subscription rates were reasonable and in line with my usage. Say, $1/mo for access to the system and then a penny per listen to any on-demand song, free listening for any time that I'm just listening to what they're pushing my direction.
But at $15 or more per month for a lot of these subscription services, after a couple of years, you've racked up some pretty hefty fees to have all that music just disappear.
LOL. Of course, I'm sure you're trying to be funny, but don't forget, they did this because of a lawsuit (and French law), and for the non-French one, they don't control the volume, they allow you to set your own limits. To quote from your linked article:
Apple's worldwide vice-president of marketing for the iPod, Greg Joswiak, indicated that this patch is available for people who want "an easy-to-use option to set their own personal volume limit." It is available for free download.
Well it's a good thing that all my music is in the PlaysForSure format! I'm sure I'll never have a problem with that, after all, Microsoft and Yahoo both support it.
Erm, FWIW, iTunes has almost--if not completely--removed DRM. Additionally, Jobs was very public about not wanting DRM from the start, and it was the record companies that insisted. Jobs wanted to limit DRM to the admonition that came with every new iPod when it first came out, and maybe still does: "Don't steal music."
And if you choose to look under the hood to see why it stopped working, we will sue you. If you remove the MakeItNotWork-O-Meter so that the car runs, we will prosecute. If you publish your findings, we will have you branded a terrorist.
If they REALLY had chutzpah, they'd showcase MacBooks with Windows running either in BootCamp or virtualized. It really wouln't hurt them one bit to sell a few Macs...
Nonetheless, these are not MS's first two retail stores. Of course, for them to acknowledge the Metreon store would be to acknowledge that they've tried and failed, so from a marketing perspective, "first" it is!
I distinctly remember one in downtown SF, in the same mall that has the Sony store and the iMax theater. Just because they tried it and failed and tried it again doesn't mean it's the first ever.
Ah, but you can use Google Voice to do text messaging, and if you configure it right, those messages never go through AT&T's SMS system, so they can't charge you for them.
SMS is gold, especially when they can charge you--what is it?--$10/mo for 500 texts. They don't want to lose that by having your SMS data going over the flat-rate data plan. You know, because SMS data are not bits like the 3G network bits, no way they could ever change that. Except, of course, Google has.
I love all the Apple bashing; I'm sure Apple could care less, but AT&T sees a threat, and for the time being, they're the exclusive provider and they set at least some of the rules.
Just the other day, the CEO of AT&T indicated that he knew which way the wind was blowing, and that he didn't expect the lucrative exclusive deal to last forever; you'd think that they'd try a little harder to make iPhone users *want* to stay with AT&T...
My only problem with it is the presentation. With the default page being some random beautiful image, with links suggesting all sorts of things to explore, it feels like Bing's telling me what I should be looking for. Google's simple, clean interface means that my search isn't at all distracted by what Bing throws in front of me.
It's a subtle difference, but a real one. Of course, they have to differentiate from Google somehow; I just don't like the differentiation.
Personally, I don't think you should be able to copyright object code. The purpose of copyright (in the US at least) is to get works into the public domain. The source code should be available to the public, just as details of a patented machine are. After all, the whole idea is to "promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences", not to line somebody's pockets.
I tend to agree with this, and it leads me to think of the four-minute mile. Once the four-minute mile was accomplished, everyone started doing it, even high-schoolers, where it was once impossible.
So what it seems to be is that software vendors don't want people to see their tricks and learn from them, even if they're not copying the code per se. If I've figured out a clever way of doing something, they are saying, I want to keep that hidden so that there's no way you can accomplish the same thing without re-inventing the wheel.
They are effectively saying that they have accomplished the four-minute mile, but they have done it privately, on a closed course, and you are not allowed to see it happen.
I agree with you that a web-based, free, easy copyright system would be worthwhile and would promote that sort of progress. Even a small fee to cover administration would not be outrageous.
I can't believe this got a +2 Insightful. I hate to quote dictionaries, but "exploit" is not necessarily a bad word and the parent used it absolutely correctly. To wit, from thefreedictionary.com:
Exploit: (1) To employ to the greatest possible advantage.
How does that qualify the parent poster as a GPL nutjob?
Slashdot Mirror
You may want to get your cholesterol checked. Apparently, mozzies are more attracted to people who process cholesterol efficiently and don't have a lot stacked up in their blood.
By that standard, lions and tigers and bears...
<Dorothy>Oh my!</Dorothy>
True. That's why I don't buy movies from iTunes. I've rented a few, but I can't imagine paying $14.99 to "own" something I can't use on my own terms.
I don't understand these arguments; they had a choice to either do what the music industry demanded and gain their foothold in the market, leveraging their strength later, or just give up on it and open a laughable shop with no selection.
What do you expect of them? Perfect? Apple's a business, not Jesus.
Doesn't change my statement at all. The two have little or nothing to do with each other.
For all I care, Jobs can void my warranty if I jailbreak my iPhone, but I have it in my grubby little hands; if I want to bust it open and play with it, there's nothing he can do about it.
Hell, I'd even accept 25 years. Maybe even a 5-year extension for special circumstances.
If Sony sells me a computer that must connect to Sony's servers for some reason or it stops working, you bet I would expect them to keep the servers up in perpetuity. And as soon as the servers went down, I would be hacking the shit out of that hardware. And you know what? No reasonable judge/jury would condemn me for doing it.
This reminds me of the companies that were giving away or selling cheaply PCs that came loaded with adware that you were supposed to allow to run freely on your system in order to maintain "ownership". Basically, the sale was a lease-to-own that was dependent on ongoing ad revenue.
I think most people who bought those machines pretty much immediately wiped the drives and started from scratch right away. Those companies didn't stick around for long. I think eMachines may have even tried to do some sort of subsidized schtick, but that obviously didn't work out.
The funny thing is that I'd be totally fine with not owning the music if the subscription rates were reasonable and in line with my usage. Say, $1/mo for access to the system and then a penny per listen to any on-demand song, free listening for any time that I'm just listening to what they're pushing my direction.
But at $15 or more per month for a lot of these subscription services, after a couple of years, you've racked up some pretty hefty fees to have all that music just disappear.
Apple's worldwide vice-president of marketing for the iPod, Greg Joswiak, indicated that this patch is available for people who want "an easy-to-use option to set their own personal volume limit." It is available for free download.
What a great quote! Totally hilarious. And especially funny considering that JK Rowling has had at least one of her own IP lawsuits.
Well it's a good thing that all my music is in the PlaysForSure format! I'm sure I'll never have a problem with that, after all, Microsoft and Yahoo both support it.
Wait... what's that you say?
Erm, FWIW, iTunes has almost--if not completely--removed DRM. Additionally, Jobs was very public about not wanting DRM from the start, and it was the record companies that insisted. Jobs wanted to limit DRM to the admonition that came with every new iPod when it first came out, and maybe still does: "Don't steal music."
And if you choose to look under the hood to see why it stopped working, we will sue you. If you remove the MakeItNotWork-O-Meter so that the car runs, we will prosecute. If you publish your findings, we will have you branded a terrorist.
If they REALLY had chutzpah, they'd showcase MacBooks with Windows running either in BootCamp or virtualized. It really wouln't hurt them one bit to sell a few Macs...
Nonetheless, these are not MS's first two retail stores. Of course, for them to acknowledge the Metreon store would be to acknowledge that they've tried and failed, so from a marketing perspective, "first" it is!
I distinctly remember one in downtown SF, in the same mall that has the Sony store and the iMax theater. Just because they tried it and failed and tried it again doesn't mean it's the first ever.
People interested in traffic dynamics should check out this amateur hobbyist's blog at trafficwaves.org
Ah, but you can use Google Voice to do text messaging, and if you configure it right, those messages never go through AT&T's SMS system, so they can't charge you for them.
SMS is gold, especially when they can charge you--what is it?--$10/mo for 500 texts. They don't want to lose that by having your SMS data going over the flat-rate data plan. You know, because SMS data are not bits like the 3G network bits, no way they could ever change that. Except, of course, Google has.
I love all the Apple bashing; I'm sure Apple could care less, but AT&T sees a threat, and for the time being, they're the exclusive provider and they set at least some of the rules.
Just the other day, the CEO of AT&T indicated that he knew which way the wind was blowing, and that he didn't expect the lucrative exclusive deal to last forever; you'd think that they'd try a little harder to make iPhone users *want* to stay with AT&T...
Too confusing. Requires a browser. Won't run on my iPod. Lame.
My neighbor's wireless is great!
Wish I had mod points. While I'm not sure I would put this in the same argumentative words, you make a very, very good point.
My only problem with it is the presentation. With the default page being some random beautiful image, with links suggesting all sorts of things to explore, it feels like Bing's telling me what I should be looking for. Google's simple, clean interface means that my search isn't at all distracted by what Bing throws in front of me.
It's a subtle difference, but a real one. Of course, they have to differentiate from Google somehow; I just don't like the differentiation.
Personally, I don't think you should be able to copyright object code. The purpose of copyright (in the US at least) is to get works into the public domain. The source code should be available to the public, just as details of a patented machine are. After all, the whole idea is to "promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences", not to line somebody's pockets.
I tend to agree with this, and it leads me to think of the four-minute mile. Once the four-minute mile was accomplished, everyone started doing it, even high-schoolers, where it was once impossible.
So what it seems to be is that software vendors don't want people to see their tricks and learn from them, even if they're not copying the code per se. If I've figured out a clever way of doing something, they are saying, I want to keep that hidden so that there's no way you can accomplish the same thing without re-inventing the wheel.
They are effectively saying that they have accomplished the four-minute mile, but they have done it privately, on a closed course, and you are not allowed to see it happen.
I agree with you that a web-based, free, easy copyright system would be worthwhile and would promote that sort of progress. Even a small fee to cover administration would not be outrageous.
Exploit: (1) To employ to the greatest possible advantage.
How does that qualify the parent poster as a GPL nutjob?
Not redundant. Obsolete.