Don't know why you think these tools are "absolutely essential" since there are plenty that don't use them. Don't know why you think the price is "low low" either or that the software is "excellent" since it's only just announced. Finally, I can't imagine why you assume that this software is "loss leading". Apple's not giving this away for free. FCP is not inexpensive and Shake is quite pricey.
Premiere for mac was killed, according to Adobe, because the performance of macs sucks and Apple has chosen to compete using FCP. Prior to that, Premiere sucked on the mac no more than on the PC. I happen to like Premiere but recognize that others believe it blows. Adobe still provides AE for mac and PS, too.
Premiere was no more neglected on the mac than on the PC.
The mac also hosted Media 100 and Avid, two very highly regarded packages in their time (not that Avid isn't today). Competitors are abandoning the mac platform because (1) Apple is competing with them and (2) the platform is not performance-competitive (Adobe says this explicitly). The performance claims were pre-G5 but we still don't have a G5 notebook.
At least they want you to think that. In reality, Apple wants vertical markets like content creation. Where's Apple's Photoshop competitor? They don't have one because there isn't one they can buy out and slap their name on.
The only HD DV camcorder is offered by JVC, not Panasonic. The Panasonic product they're referring to is different.
There is no HD DVD standard yet but there will be. The only formats available today are DVHS and WMV. Pros may use HD differently, say going to film for output, but people need to learn how to work with HD in advance of the widespread ability to distribute it. It's not a home format yet.
Except not as stupidly cheap as it would be on a windows box. They make it sound like realtime HD over firewire is some big deal until you realize it's just 19Mbps HDV video, basically the same data rates that you have with DV. No big deal and even notebooks do it easily.
I can see anyone who understands any of this to not be fooled by the hype. I've edited HD video (realtime!) on my PC's using Vegas and Premiere and stored the work on a Samba share running on a Linux box. None is this is even new, much less industry-changing.
Of course, Apple bought Shake, they didn't develop it, just as they bought the company that developed what eventually became FCP.
Windows has had the same HD editing capability that Apple announced for a while now and Motion appears to be an After Effects competitor. Both Premiere and Vegas can edit HD video out of the box (provided you have the right mpeg2 codecs) and Cineform offers plugin packages that enhance the process. Apple's just playing catch-up here while people believe they're innovating.
"it won't hold a candle to the ease of use and quality of service of the iTMS"
Don't see how you can say that. The service doesn't even exist yet.
iTunes for windows is a me-too application that's not better than Media Player. The current iPods are surpassed easily by the Rio Karma. Why would I want to use a music store through an inferior application that only supports and inferior mp3 jukebox? Not that I have any interest in online music stores but there's no way I'm interested in the Apple one. It's pure vendor lockin.
The market is young and there's a lot of the game left to play. People are so ready to conceed victory to Apple on this but history shows that not to be wise.
Re:WASTE is GPL, set in stone.
on
VIA Pulls PadLockSL
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It is likely that the author of the software was the company rather than the individual. We don't know without knowing the details of the employment contract. Externally, it might appear that the programmer was authorized by the company to release under the GPL but we don't know that either.
It's far from open and shut that the release under the GPL was legal and I don't think the courts will have a hard time deciding it without setting dangerous precedent. If an employee steals a product off the manufacturing line and sells it, is the sale legally binding because it was done by an employee? Hardly too late in that case. Just because a programmer writes code as an employee of a company it's not automatically assumed that he can distribute it as he/she wishes. The programer must either be authorized to do so or have language in his contract that permits it.
A company I worked for claimed IP rights on a consortium-led technology of which it was a member. Turns out an employee signed and agreement when he was not authorized and didn't discuss the matter with management. Don't know the legal questions that arose from that, but the company backed off its IP claims. One way or another it was necessary to do that. It's not clear to me that the situation is much different here.
You do not automatically get the right to vote, either. You have to register. Once upon a time voter registration required qualifications. In contrast, getting a driver's license required few and was essentially automatic.
The test of privilege versus right doesn't have to do with passing a test or not. It has to do with whether you are inherently entitled or not. Saying something is a privilege means that someone reserves their right to deny you something based solely on their criteria. In what sense can this apply to driving? Is a country's infrastructure to be used to create a privileged vs. non-privileged society?
Even though the right to vote is used as an example, you need to turn 18 in your example. Does this mean that voting is a privilege that requires you to qualify by being old enough (and not a convicted felon)? It turns out voting is also a privilege by your definition.
There is a reasonable expectation that people be able to drive assuming they demonstrate sufficient ability so as not to be a hazard to others. This generally includes being of age but exceptions are made for that. The reason for this is that people are entitled to the means necessary to pursue their daily lives. You have a right to earn a living and that includes getting to and from work. In some places, including where I live, that's impractical without a car and that's why there are hardship and restricted licenses for people with serious driving issues like DWI's.
"Privilege instead of right" is just the language used by socialists to soften up the population. It's popular with those who want laws against others not like them but it's the enemy of freedom-loving people.
I will remind you that the quote is "every young boy is mesmerized by the slow swish of a woman's hips" not "boys (and men) enjoy watching women's hips". Curious that dropped the "every" and "young" and added "men" instead.
I am offended at the grossly incorrect and sexist characterization. To suggest that little boys are mesmorized by the swishing of women's hips is preposterous, much less that every one of them is. Small children's minds don't think that way even if some adult's do. Music is far, far away from a simple extention of a juvenile male sex drive. Perhaps you exited the womb with the immediate desire to stick you penis back in it but I wasn't. I think that rules out "every young boy".
I don't believe I called RMS a kook, either, but the shoe fits. Grow up and find a sig that's not so sexist. It's not clever, either.
So restrictions aren't restrictions if you personally like them. Your definition of my freedom is one that is most compatible with your interests.
If I could truly do anything with the software I wished then I would not be bound to do anything specific with my derivative works. Please explain to me how refusing to make my deriviative work GPL would deprive anyone of "freedom" when the GPL'ed work I based it on is still fully available under the GPL. It may be true that I haven't contributed to the body of GPL code but I have not lessened anyone else's freedom in the process. In order to do that I would have to deprive you of something you previously had.
Actually, I understand it fully. I just happen to agree with the rebuttal.
I completely understand why people who prefer the GPL like the fact that it ties derived works to the GPL. What I don't understand is why people are in denial over it. There is no doubt the GPL does this and that it is an extra burden designed to further RMS's agenda which many seem sympathetic to. The LGPL is certainly not popular with RMS since it different in this respect.
Except many of those are quite intrusive. Why don't you add to your list "set the speed limit to 0"? That would certainly reduce road fatalities and you don't seem to have any regard for thoughput anyway.
You are also wrong about driving being a prililege. Privileges are things granted to you that you don't inherently have while rights are things you inherently have unless they are explicitly taken from you. Driving clearly falls in the latter category since you would not deny anyone that right provided they meet conditions that demonstrate responsibility. You would not deny anyone the right to vote (for it is a right) but that doesn't mean that conditions don't have to be met and convicted felons sacrifice their right to vote. Calling driving a privilege rather than a right is just a brainwashing technique used to make people more agreeable to oppressive traffic laws. Make no mistake, driving is a right.
Voting used to be a privilege afforded only to wealthy white male landowners. Perhaps driving should be that way, too? That's how our legal system works, so who prevents that from being the case in light of points 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8? I think you need to rethink your Big Brother strategy.
I would point out also that point 5 is quite absurd since it deprives the government of a generour revenue stream and would greatly increase the rate of public complaint. The public largely ignores speed limit because they are set low and that works intentionally to the advantage of the government. Drivers get to choose whether or not to play speed limit bingo. If you think it works otherwise you are very naive. Point 5 is a lose-lose for everyone involved except the hardware manufacturers. Once hit with a wrongful death lawsuit for the inability to make it to the hospital on time they won't be interested in playing either.
...and I suspect he would never be able to from your perspective. He certainly "rebutted" Stallman as far as I'm concerned.
Why is it that the grand champion for software freedom supports a license that is considerably less free than other OSS licenses? Because of his agenda, of course.
Curious, then, that users of GPL'ed software do not complete freedom to do with it as they wish. Instead it is burdened with conditions that suite RMS's personal agenda. You may happen to like that agenda but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
He didn't attack RMS and RMS did, in fact, redefine "free". No one in their right mind would suggest that the GPL is unburdened. Gosling's comments were absolutely spot-on. At least he recognizes that Java license is burdened with an agenda and defends it.
Apple has long advanced the theory that the edges and corners of the screen are easier to move to because you don't have to be precise to get there. It was a cornerstone of their design with the original mac (with a 512 pixel wide B&W screen).
Even if you accept that this "law" is in fact true, those days are long since gone now that we have real screens with real pixel counts. You can't possibly save time and effort by having to sling your mouse pointer such great distances.
The market has proven that you are wrong. You don't change instruction sets because the old ones aren't technically pleasing. Many have tried but none have succeeded in replacing x86 because they just haven't been compelling enough.
Assembly language programming in general is difficult. x86 assembly not particularly more so than others, but instruction sets aren't designed with assembly program ease in mind. Try programming EPIC in assembly or the first generation MIPS.
Why do the static bars always have to take up space on the short dimension of the screen? Wastes more real estate that way. The bar should properly go on the left, not on the top or bottom. This would be different for portrait displays.
Why is everyone so stuck on emulating the godawful OSX dock and displacing the program menus to the top of the screen where they are dreadfully inconvenient? Does no one think for themselves anymore? Moving the menus doesn't save screen space and screens have far too much resolution for edges and corners to matter functionally anymore.
Well, if there is such a thing then that's it. Far too many colors that serve no functional purpose. I don't believe the author of amazing.com is in any position to criticise the aesthetics of others. There is a science to this and it doesn't involve using the most unique, fully saturated colors you can think of.
Nice to see someone gets it. Speed limits are deliberately set low to encourage people to ignore them but not so low as to create public outrage. It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with profit. Fact is that the vast majority of American drivers are regular speeders or so says the US federal government.
I find it interesting that a device would be designed entirely with disregard for its purpose and for the porpose of the roads (to provide safe, expedient transportation). In what was does screwing an individual out of his green cycle contribute either to safety or throughput? It is a completely assinine idea put forth by entirely wrong-minded people.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know why you think these tools are "absolutely essential" since there are plenty that don't use them. Don't know why you think the price is "low low" either or that the software is "excellent" since it's only just announced. Finally, I can't imagine why you assume that this software is "loss leading". Apple's not giving this away for free. FCP is not inexpensive and Shake is quite pricey.
Premiere for mac was killed, according to Adobe, because the performance of macs sucks and Apple has chosen to compete using FCP. Prior to that, Premiere sucked on the mac no more than on the PC. I happen to like Premiere but recognize that others believe it blows. Adobe still provides AE for mac and PS, too.
Premiere was no more neglected on the mac than on the PC.
The mac also hosted Media 100 and Avid, two very highly regarded packages in their time (not that Avid isn't today). Competitors are abandoning the mac platform because (1) Apple is competing with them and (2) the platform is not performance-competitive (Adobe says this explicitly). The performance claims were pre-G5 but we still don't have a G5 notebook.
At least they want you to think that. In reality, Apple wants vertical markets like content creation. Where's Apple's Photoshop competitor? They don't have one because there isn't one they can buy out and slap their name on.
iTunes, there's some premium software.
The only HD DV camcorder is offered by JVC, not Panasonic. The Panasonic product they're referring to is different.
There is no HD DVD standard yet but there will be. The only formats available today are DVHS and WMV. Pros may use HD differently, say going to film for output, but people need to learn how to work with HD in advance of the widespread ability to distribute it. It's not a home format yet.
Except not as stupidly cheap as it would be on a windows box. They make it sound like realtime HD over firewire is some big deal until you realize it's just 19Mbps HDV video, basically the same data rates that you have with DV. No big deal and even notebooks do it easily.
I can see anyone who understands any of this to not be fooled by the hype. I've edited HD video (realtime!) on my PC's using Vegas and Premiere and stored the work on a Samba share running on a Linux box. None is this is even new, much less industry-changing.
You shouldn't comment on what you don't know.
Of course, Apple bought Shake, they didn't develop it, just as they bought the company that developed what eventually became FCP.
Windows has had the same HD editing capability that Apple announced for a while now and Motion appears to be an After Effects competitor. Both Premiere and Vegas can edit HD video out of the box (provided you have the right mpeg2 codecs) and Cineform offers plugin packages that enhance the process. Apple's just playing catch-up here while people believe they're innovating.
"it won't hold a candle to the ease of use and quality of service of the iTMS"
Don't see how you can say that. The service doesn't even exist yet.
iTunes for windows is a me-too application that's not better than Media Player. The current iPods are surpassed easily by the Rio Karma. Why would I want to use a music store through an inferior application that only supports and inferior mp3 jukebox? Not that I have any interest in online music stores but there's no way I'm interested in the Apple one. It's pure vendor lockin.
The market is young and there's a lot of the game left to play. People are so ready to conceed victory to Apple on this but history shows that not to be wise.
It is likely that the author of the software was the company rather than the individual. We don't know without knowing the details of the employment contract. Externally, it might appear that the programmer was authorized by the company to release under the GPL but we don't know that either.
It's far from open and shut that the release under the GPL was legal and I don't think the courts will have a hard time deciding it without setting dangerous precedent. If an employee steals a product off the manufacturing line and sells it, is the sale legally binding because it was done by an employee? Hardly too late in that case. Just because a programmer writes code as an employee of a company it's not automatically assumed that he can distribute it as he/she wishes. The programer must either be authorized to do so or have language in his contract that permits it.
A company I worked for claimed IP rights on a consortium-led technology of which it was a member. Turns out an employee signed and agreement when he was not authorized and didn't discuss the matter with management. Don't know the legal questions that arose from that, but the company backed off its IP claims. One way or another it was necessary to do that. It's not clear to me that the situation is much different here.
You do not automatically get the right to vote, either. You have to register. Once upon a time voter registration required qualifications. In contrast, getting a driver's license required few and was essentially automatic.
The test of privilege versus right doesn't have to do with passing a test or not. It has to do with whether you are inherently entitled or not. Saying something is a privilege means that someone reserves their right to deny you something based solely on their criteria. In what sense can this apply to driving? Is a country's infrastructure to be used to create a privileged vs. non-privileged society?
Even though the right to vote is used as an example, you need to turn 18 in your example. Does this mean that voting is a privilege that requires you to qualify by being old enough (and not a convicted felon)? It turns out voting is also a privilege by your definition.
There is a reasonable expectation that people be able to drive assuming they demonstrate sufficient ability so as not to be a hazard to others. This generally includes being of age but exceptions are made for that. The reason for this is that people are entitled to the means necessary to pursue their daily lives. You have a right to earn a living and that includes getting to and from work. In some places, including where I live, that's impractical without a car and that's why there are hardship and restricted licenses for people with serious driving issues like DWI's.
"Privilege instead of right" is just the language used by socialists to soften up the population. It's popular with those who want laws against others not like them but it's the enemy of freedom-loving people.
I will remind you that the quote is "every young boy is mesmerized by the slow swish of a woman's hips" not "boys (and men) enjoy watching women's hips". Curious that dropped the "every" and "young" and added "men" instead.
I am offended at the grossly incorrect and sexist characterization. To suggest that little boys are mesmorized by the swishing of women's hips is preposterous, much less that every one of them is. Small children's minds don't think that way even if some adult's do. Music is far, far away from a simple extention of a juvenile male sex drive. Perhaps you exited the womb with the immediate desire to stick you penis back in it but I wasn't. I think that rules out "every young boy".
I don't believe I called RMS a kook, either, but the shoe fits. Grow up and find a sig that's not so sexist. It's not clever, either.
So restrictions aren't restrictions if you personally like them. Your definition of my freedom is one that is most compatible with your interests.
If I could truly do anything with the software I wished then I would not be bound to do anything specific with my derivative works. Please explain to me how refusing to make my deriviative work GPL would deprive anyone of "freedom" when the GPL'ed work I based it on is still fully available under the GPL. It may be true that I haven't contributed to the body of GPL code but I have not lessened anyone else's freedom in the process. In order to do that I would have to deprive you of something you previously had.
Actually, I understand it fully. I just happen to agree with the rebuttal.
I completely understand why people who prefer the GPL like the fact that it ties derived works to the GPL. What I don't understand is why people are in denial over it. There is no doubt the GPL does this and that it is an extra burden designed to further RMS's agenda which many seem sympathetic to. The LGPL is certainly not popular with RMS since it different in this respect.
Same way they tax private property. Your taxes are proportional to you taste in landscaping and furniture.
Not that it's fair but there's certainly precedent.
Except many of those are quite intrusive. Why don't you add to your list "set the speed limit to 0"? That would certainly reduce road fatalities and you don't seem to have any regard for thoughput anyway.
You are also wrong about driving being a prililege. Privileges are things granted to you that you don't inherently have while rights are things you inherently have unless they are explicitly taken from you. Driving clearly falls in the latter category since you would not deny anyone that right provided they meet conditions that demonstrate responsibility. You would not deny anyone the right to vote (for it is a right) but that doesn't mean that conditions don't have to be met and convicted felons sacrifice their right to vote. Calling driving a privilege rather than a right is just a brainwashing technique used to make people more agreeable to oppressive traffic laws. Make no mistake, driving is a right.
Voting used to be a privilege afforded only to wealthy white male landowners. Perhaps driving should be that way, too? That's how our legal system works, so who prevents that from being the case in light of points 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8? I think you need to rethink your Big Brother strategy.
I would point out also that point 5 is quite absurd since it deprives the government of a generour revenue stream and would greatly increase the rate of public complaint. The public largely ignores speed limit because they are set low and that works intentionally to the advantage of the government. Drivers get to choose whether or not to play speed limit bingo. If you think it works otherwise you are very naive. Point 5 is a lose-lose for everyone involved except the hardware manufacturers. Once hit with a wrongful death lawsuit for the inability to make it to the hospital on time they won't be interested in playing either.
...and I suspect he would never be able to from your perspective. He certainly "rebutted" Stallman as far as I'm concerned.
Why is it that the grand champion for software freedom supports a license that is considerably less free than other OSS licenses? Because of his agenda, of course.
That appears to be a simple, factual comment unless you can find language in the license that does require you to do that very thing.
Curious, then, that users of GPL'ed software do not complete freedom to do with it as they wish. Instead it is burdened with conditions that suite RMS's personal agenda. You may happen to like that agenda but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I find your sig offensive. Everyone has a heartbeat and everything else is complete bullshit.
Good comments otherwise.
He didn't attack RMS and RMS did, in fact, redefine "free". No one in their right mind would suggest that the GPL is unburdened. Gosling's comments were absolutely spot-on. At least he recognizes that Java license is burdened with an agenda and defends it.
Apple has long advanced the theory that the edges and corners of the screen are easier to move to because you don't have to be precise to get there. It was a cornerstone of their design with the original mac (with a 512 pixel wide B&W screen).
Even if you accept that this "law" is in fact true, those days are long since gone now that we have real screens with real pixel counts. You can't possibly save time and effort by having to sling your mouse pointer such great distances.
The market has proven that you are wrong. You don't change instruction sets because the old ones aren't technically pleasing. Many have tried but none have succeeded in replacing x86 because they just haven't been compelling enough.
Assembly language programming in general is difficult. x86 assembly not particularly more so than others, but instruction sets aren't designed with assembly program ease in mind. Try programming EPIC in assembly or the first generation MIPS.
Why do the static bars always have to take up space on the short dimension of the screen? Wastes more real estate that way. The bar should properly go on the left, not on the top or bottom. This would be different for portrait displays.
Why is everyone so stuck on emulating the godawful OSX dock and displacing the program menus to the top of the screen where they are dreadfully inconvenient? Does no one think for themselves anymore? Moving the menus doesn't save screen space and screens have far too much resolution for edges and corners to matter functionally anymore.
Well, if there is such a thing then that's it. Far too many colors that serve no functional purpose. I don't believe the author of amazing.com is in any position to criticise the aesthetics of others. There is a science to this and it doesn't involve using the most unique, fully saturated colors you can think of.
Nice to see someone gets it. Speed limits are deliberately set low to encourage people to ignore them but not so low as to create public outrage. It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with profit. Fact is that the vast majority of American drivers are regular speeders or so says the US federal government.
I find it interesting that a device would be designed entirely with disregard for its purpose and for the porpose of the roads (to provide safe, expedient transportation). In what was does screwing an individual out of his green cycle contribute either to safety or throughput? It is a completely assinine idea put forth by entirely wrong-minded people.